Mar 13 2008

Why Do Dems Continue To Leave NSA-FISA Blind To Building Threats To America?

Published by at 10:28 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA,Iraq

I stated before (one example out of many here) the risk the Dems were playing with American lives by not re-authorizing the rules and procedures this country has lived with since 9-11 – which have worked with great success in stopping attacks as we all know since we have not been hit since 9-11 – was the blinders Congress let slip over the eyes of our security forces could open us up to attack at a time when al-Qaeda wants desperately to hit us and influence our elections (note this post where an AQ commander admits as much). Before I mentioned risks overseas, but today there is report of Iraqi security forces in America now trying to help stop attacks here in our homeland:

here have been friends of mine who have tried to inform the American people about things in Iraq before 2003 and after the Americans came to Iraq, but for some reasons the information has not been widely publicized. I will tell the American people that a person who is like a brother to me has risked his life to tell people about many important issues in Iraq. I met Special Agent Dave Gaubatz in 2003 (Nasiriyah). Dave and I started working together to obtain intelligence about threats against the U.S. forces. We traveled in Nasiriyah and other cities. We protected one another and today in 2008 we are still working together. I can’t explain everything right now for security reasons, but we are traveling through America and trying to identify terrorists and their supporters who want to attack America like in 2001. We are trying to help law enforcement so they can protect America.

Both of us have families and we do not want the children in America, Iraq, or any country to suffer from terrorism.

I am not surprised about this disclosure of threats. Democrats have been wisely avoiding a showdown over FISA-NSA because Bush holds all the cards – he sees the threat information as do many in Congress. And it is this threat information that has led Democrats to keep supporting the changes even in the face of growing outrage from their paranoid, liberal base.

I am sure the release of this information was blessed. And I am sure this is a way for America to get a glimpse into what we face and why the paranoia of the left over unsubstantiated civil rights concerns should not have a priority over the reality we are a prime target for al-Qaeda and their ilk.

Update: It is not coincidental that Bush is warning congress again today to get to putting FISA-NSA’s working relationship back in place ASAP.

14 responses so far

14 Responses to “Why Do Dems Continue To Leave NSA-FISA Blind To Building Threats To America?”

  1. 75 says:

    AJ, as they’ve repeatedly proven, the only American lives the Dems care for are live ones they can pander to for votes or dead ones they can help create and then blame on republicans. They are a disgrace to humanity let alone America.

  2. Soothsayer says:

    Bush is playing the fear card, continually and relentlessly, because the cowards on the Right are so scared of the Bogey Man they are prefectly willing to give up their consitutitonal rights if only Daddy Bush will protect them. Yellowbellies.

    Why Bush is playing the card is more complicated however. He knows full well he violated Title 50 USC Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, §. 1800 et seq., when he ordered warrantless wiretaps, and he knows his ability to control the Justice Department will cease on January 21, 2009, well within the statute of limitations for prosecution for the multitudinous felonies he committed; felonies for which the punishment is up to 5 years in prison and $10,000.00 fine FOR EACH WIRETAP.

    1,000 wiretaps = 5,000 years in prison and a $10,000,000.00 fine.

  3. Terrye says:

    Fear card? What a laugh soothie. The Democrats are telling Americans that they need to fear their government, their country, their next door neighbor if he happens to be a Republican. Fear is what the Democrats live on. Fear and demagoguery.

    Time and again I have listened to lefties bitch and moan and whine about how wrong the intel was before 9/11 and the war and all that. And yet they do not do anything to make it better. In fact they seem to want to go back in time 9/10/2001 and keep doing everything the way we were doing it back then.

  4. Terrye says:

    As for the crap about prosecution soothie you do not know what you are talking about. Besides, if Bush is such a criminal and all that, what makes you think he will just step down? Surely there will be a coup and death camps and all that.

    And it does not matter who is running the Justice Department, if there was actually anything criminal going on here the Congress would never have been willing to go along with any of this in the first place you idiot.

    You are so full of it.

  5. Terrye says:

    In fact the reason the lefties are trying to drive up everyone’s phone bills by going after the telecom people to suck up to their trial lawyer friends is that there is no crime, so they have to go into a civil court and even then a bipartisan majority in the Senate did not go along with it.

    The trouble with people like Soothie is that they are so consumed with their partisan hatred and mindless paranoia that they just make crap up in the hopes that they convince other people to be just as crazy as they are.

    If Bush had a D behind his name, none of this would even be an issue for these morons.

  6. Soothsayer says:

    Yeah – you heard me – the FEAR card. You could swing a cat in the Bush Oval Office and not hit anyone who wasn’t a drft dodger. And Bush does have a D behind his name: Dumb & Dumber.

  7. WWS says:

    Funny how the only big politician to go down for corruption is DEMOCRAT ELLIOT SPITZER!

    no wonder you’re whining!

    And if you had read the portion of Title 50 that you love to throw around, you would know that it gives the US Attorney General blanket authority to approve warrantless wiretaps on his signature, which is what was done, which means there is and can be no violation of the code.

    WHICH is why you, as usual, are full of crap. Quit trying to pretend you know something about the law – it’s annoying to those of us who actually do.

  8. conman says:

    Bush, and Bush alone, is the one who decided to let the FISA legislation expire. Democrats in the House offered (practically begged because they were so concerned about the potential political ramifications) to extend it temporarily while they attempted to negotiate with the Senate to reconcile the House-Senate bills. Bush refused and said he would veto it. So explain to me how you can justify Bush’s refusal to extend it if the expiration puts our country in such jeopardy? Doesn’t Bush’s refusal to extend the FISA legislation make you at least question whether the threat is as great as they claim? I pose this question time and time again and none of you answer it.

    WWS, what is the basis for your statement that the Attorney General provided the telecomm companies with the certified letter required by the FISA legislation? Not even the White House makes that claim. If the AG did provide them with the required letter, why would we need retroactive immunity? Like you said, the AG’s letter provides blanket immunity and the case would be cut and dry – automatic dismissal. If it were true, how could Qwest possibly refuse to cooperate – Title 50 legally COMPELS the telecomm companies to cooperate with the government? Why not support the House’s recent compromise – allow the telecomm companies to produce the basis for their agreement to provide this information to the government under seal? Then they could simply provide the letters and all the lawsuits get dismissed.

    It would be very easy to resolve all of these issue if Bush had in fact complied with FISA. The fact that Bush is willing to jeopardize our natioanl security for the sole purposes of providing retroactive immunity to companies that purportedly don’t need it and could easily prove it by producing the AG’s letter doesn’t add up to me. Unlike you folks, the more than 70% of this country that doesn’t approve of Bush won’t ignore logic and accept everything he says at face value.

  9. Whippet1 says:

    Don’t you just love how the lefties love to call Bush dumb? Of course if he was dumb he couldn’t have possibly done all of the things they have accused him of doing, but then the intellectuals (sarcasm) on the left don’t think of those minor details.

    What pisses off all of the liberals is that he’s smart enough to have beaten them every time. So now who’s the dummie?

  10. WWS says:

    Retroactive immunity is for the telecomm companies regarding civil lawsuits, you dolt. It has nothing to do with any hypothetical criminal prosecutions.

    If you would go and read the section you are quoting (it’s available online, as all US Code is) you would see that it is a very badly written piece of law full of contradictions and loopholes. That’s why there has never in history been a criminal prosecution based on Title 50 and there never will be. Not surprisingly, much of the federal code has this problem, which is what lawyers get paid to point out and why so many prosecutions fall apart.

    Bluntly put, Congress does a very bad job in writing laws most of the time and section 50 is a prime example. The ambiguiuties inherent in that piece of code are what allow people to claim that it has been violated – ironically, they are also what bar any potential criminal charges under the code.

    Btw, there has never been any need to actually produce the AG’s letter because no case has ever been filed. Someone a little more credible than internet whacko’s has got to ask for it.

    The House is meeting in closed session tomorrow – if, as expected, they finally clarify this code with the language of the Senate bill, this issue will be closed forever.

  11. conman says:


    The ignorance in your response is astounding. I know that the retroactive immunity pertains to the civil suits. The immunity provision is not limited to criminal prosectution – it covers both criminal and civil actions. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that is the case with virtually EVERY immunity provision in a statute that provides both criminal and civil remedies for violations. FISA provides both criminal and civil remedies – which you obviously don’t seem to realize. It would be meaningless to provide immunity for one and not the other. The only reason you think that the legislation is confusing is that you don’t know what you are talking about and obviously have no legal background.

  12. 75 says:

    For everyone: Why do you suppose the Dems are so afraid of our terror surveillance networks? I mean, we all understand Jamie Gorelick’s contribution to 9/11 but that sort of intel intrusion was simply to coverup a criminal Clinton administration and was directed inwardly. What could they possible be afraid of now?

  13. BarbaraS says:

    They are afraid their phone calls to Syria, Iran, Chavez, FARC and Cuba will be monitored.

  14. 75 says:

    Exactly, Barbara!

    But just you watch and see that if they gain the white house they’ll immediately demand the same surveillance so they can return to monitoring republicans domestically rather than terrorists globally.