WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-12-21 13:31:55 +0000

Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 13:52:22 +0000

The only thing greater than partisan Bush-Hatred? Partisan Clinton-Hatred.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-21 14:19:59 +0000

From a non Drudge source: I listened to a story on NPR this am about Congressional member from MI, Pete Hoekstra, who stresses that he and other member of Congress have been kept in the loop on these surveillance issues. To be fair, there was a refuting senator from FL Bob Graham on this story as well.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-12-21 14:25:21 +0000

House of Reps == ginormous spin machine.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-21 14:36:09 +0000

yep. theyre pretty much all liars.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2005-12-21 14:40:49 +0000

Spinning is not the same as lying. I just take most of what goes on in the House with a grain of salt.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 14:48:24 +0000

I heard that story as well. I was yelling at the interviewer, those damn liberals on the radio can't interview properly. Hoekstra never said what his "tools" for correcting the situation would have been other than talking with the President. Then what, the President says "no" and you go home? Thanks for the oversight, Hoekstra. Sounded like Pete was being extra-vigilant too. Something to the effect of if he was concerned, he would have done something about it. What kind of information was he giving that he was able to be not concerned? It doesn't sound like the quality of those meetings would allow someone to reasonably conclude that the wiretaps were being conducted properly. Does being in the loop mean reviewing each of the circumstances underwhich the wiretaps were used? That's oversight, not being told in a meeting every six months that we're wiretapping suspected terrorists. Again, it's not that we shouldn't be using wiretaps on suspects (foreign or domestic) it's that there is already a sufficient system in place for conducting them (17,000 in roughly 30 years under FISA is 1.5 a day) and the adminstration does not have the authority to just up and decide it's not going to comply with the law. For that matter, when Bush conducts his review every 45 days, he couldn't possibly review every circumstance. What's to stop the administration from listening in on my discussion with a relative in France about our family's lapin recipe? My trust in Bush's good judgement? Please. Two words: Harriet Miers.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-21 15:02:38 +0000

Interestingly, G.F. Will is pretty much on yr side on this, TGL: Charles de Gaulle, a profound conservative, said of another such, Otto von Bismarck — de Gaulle was thinking of Bismarck not pressing his advantage in 1870 in the Franco-Prussian War — that genius sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, Presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This President might look for occasions to stop pressing. However, he brings up a good point when he mentions 09/14/2001: After all, on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress had unanimously declared that "the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism," and had authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against those involved in 9/11 or threatening future attacks. It's hard for me to know where I ultimately stand on these issues. I do actually beleieve Bush's end intentions are good to make the US more secure. Is he going about it the right way? Im not sure... I guess I tend to think some leeway is in order after I see motherfuckers fly planres into NYC buildings. Just my .02

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-21 15:06:05 +0000

Question for Null P: So if you are willing to suspend the Constitution, how long does it go for?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-21 15:08:21 +0000

Even Drudge can't spin this for Bush! And if my favorite homosexual libertarian can't, who can? Delay?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-21 15:26:06 +0000

a little further than normal when we're under a state of attack. question 1 for you dawn: which of yr liberties are now suspended? what cant you do In America today that you were happily able to do on September 10th 2001? question 2: Is it now more easier for people to come from outside the US to conduct or to plan terrorist plans, or more difficult? If terrorists are going to be terrorists anyway, and they have a half rational pro/con analysis, they might come to the conclusion that the US would be too difficult to mess with and not woth their time. How, are you DB affected directly by this? I know Michael Moore happened to show a cookie and lemonade loving book club discussion member who was unrightly investigated by the government. Aside from that report, I havent heard other specific reports of regular Americans being unable to do what they did before Sept. 11th. I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not in government, and Im glad Im not. I wouldnt want to make any of these decisions. I dont know what the best solution would be. We've been presented with one course of action - do you have an alternative course of action that would do a comprable or better job of US security?

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 15:54:37 +0000

I'll answer for myself since I feel like I'm on a roll the past couple days. Q1: I do not have the right to confront my accusers in a civilian court if the President deems me an "enemy combatant". I don't even have the right to challenge that designation, or to even see the evidence upon which that designation is based. All my communications are subjected to eavesdropping. I cannot request certain books from the library without being placed on a watch list. Q2: The terrorists responsible for the the heinous violence of 2001 Sept. 11 entered this country legally, with valid passports and visas. I seriously doubt that an organization that has the will to send 19 people on suicide missions that audaciously rammed buildings with jetliners would be detered by the threat of wiretaps. Don't forget that the NSA was wiretapping this organization before that fateful day. Q3 (RE: How am I directly affected): I may never be a target of any investigations by the government. However, as history has shown, if we don't stick up for the rights of others, there will be no one around to stick up for us when it's our turn. Could you describe a "regular American" for me? Q4 (RE: Doing a better job): Implement the recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. ---- Americans like to live in a state of fear and war. Unfortunately for us, the Soviet Union crapped out and we had to find a new enemy to justify our constant need for blood.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 16:24:16 +0000

Of course I agree with G.F. Will. I tend to agree with conservatives over Republicans.

Posted by tgl on 2005-12-21 17:33:27 +0000

Now I remember why I'm not a fervent DLC supporter. Whittman is wrong on this one.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2005-12-21 20:41:04 +0000

"A little further than normal when we're under a state of attack." I often have no idea when you are being sarcastic or not. This is sarcasm, correct (I found it funny). I think tgl makes some great points, and our true conservative comes out. I am against the government taking away my rights, but I understand when they do, like yelling "fire", when the isn't one, in a crowded theater. But taking away my right to privacy is indeed past the point. "Do you have an alternative course of action that would do a comprable or better job of US security?" Yes, wire tap legally: Say we need a wire tap this second. Call the NSA, and tap the line. Then use the FISA with the "after the fact" provision in effect since 1978. Then you can use the tap in a court to put the suspect in jail if they indeed committed a crime. What many Bush supporters do not seem to grasp, is that Bush's actions make the country much less safe. Bush's actions are illegal, and the wire tap would not be admissable in any court, thus the suspect would be released. Sad.