Come on Mark.

To start with, as has been stated over and over, the concern with the NSA program is its extral-legal nature. Like it or not, FISA forbids what the president is doing. No one is saying don't listen to terrorists, they're saying don't listen to anyone without following the law. FISA is not hard to comply with, nor would compliance impede our intelligence gathering.

Second, Kelo was quite possibly the only true bipartisan issue of the last 6 years. No one liked it; everyone thought it was a terrible decision regardless of their politics.

With Bush's decision today, and it's one of the few I think he's gotten right, he's using his executive authority in the proper manner. If he'd just do that when it comes to wiretapping, everyone would be happy.

When I heard about this, I was very pleased. Bravo, President Bush!!

I know this is O.T. but drudgereport is reporting Saddam believes the US will make him President again to get us out of the Iraq "mess". He must be listening to the left's talking points (we're going to lose, we need to get out, blah, blah, blah) and thinks he actually has a chance. LOL.

Hey Kimberly,

I know you can't listen real good or understand letters put together to form sentences, but the left has merely responded to Bush's claim of "Everything is great" with, "Actually people are dying every day". Now to you that obviously translates to "Screw the U.S.!!! War is Bad! Lets go have sex in public!", but what it actually means is that "People dying is bad. We need to do something about all the people dying.
Now because my position is, people dying is bad, and there are lots of people dying because of our actions, If i were you, I would say, what do you think people dying is good? You want more people to die?? Look at that, the right likes to kill people, and their goal is to kill as many as they can. What horrible people they are, running around, advocating killing and then saying that they haven't killed enough yet, that they need more dead.

I don't understand why you play the game you do, it isn't helpful at all and just incorrectly demonizes those that have a different position from you. We aren't your enemy, we are your brothers and sisters in arms. We are all on the damned yankees.

FISA DOES NOT prohibit what the president is doing per one of the drafters of the 1982 FISA Act...Victoria Toensing.

According to Jamie Gorlick the president is not violating the FISA Act either.

Activist jurists you say. Hmmm last time I looked, the Supreme Court was dominated and lead by a person of pretty far right leanings who replaced another right winger.

Seems to me like this is what special interests paid for and now that it affects you, oh my the sky is falling.

Of course, let us use the tried and true republican way of fixing things. Constitutional Admendment.

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. You suck up to these special interest people, kiss 'em on their butt and when you get what you give you squeal like stuck pig.

Next you'll find out Grover and Ralph were not really on your side either.

-Joe

Jon, FISA was never designed or intended to be the only mechanism for surveillance. Technology alone has made FISA a very limted mechanism. Quite simply, acquiring permission to listen in on any telephone number is going to be of very limited value.

When lawbreakers can buy Trac Phones by the dozen and use each one only one or two times, with no way to know who bought which phone or when or how it will be used, the mechanism of applying to a FISA court for authorization to continue listening to any one of those phones after we have been alerted to its existence is a waste of time. It is a simple matter to use phone calls which appear to be innocent and which originate here to send information about when to call, and which number to call. It is not till the call is made from an identified number abroad that there is any way to know a contact will be made. And then, if the phone is used only once or twice and then discarded, a warrant to continue surveilling it is useless.

Thanks to the dilgence of the U.S. media in alerting terrorists to our surveillance efforts, even the most small-time and underfunded terrorist can easily acquire the means to avoid any surveillance based on FISA---especially with the blueprint for doing so, so thoughtfully provided by the press.

If you can come up with a mechanism for acquiring advance approval for surveillance of telephone numbers which have not yet been assigned, please inform the government. Or us---we're obviously easy to reach.

Until then, the best we can do is to listen when we think we should listen, and to then run what we hear through regularly held oversight courts to determine how that information can legally be used. Which is exactly what we are doing.

You are aware, aren't you, that the term "wiretapping" is very erroneous and misleading? You are aware, aren't you, that to install a wiretap on a phone line, an agency must still go through a court, whether FISA or a local court? You are aware, aren't you, that the NSA intercept program is only for calls originating in foreign countries, from known terrorists, to people all over the world, some of whom happen to be physically present in the United State?

This topic cannot be discussed intelligently when false premises are used as the basis of arguments.

Having said that, I agree that the proclamation by the President is courageous and timely and very important.

It has to make you laugh every time some left wing fanatic claims the NSA wiretapping was illegal. Every single FISA judge is on record saying what the President did was perfectly legal. Where do these moonbats get their information?

Hey Steve: Eh, what did you say, sonny? Just kidding. My hearing is fine, thank you very much. :-)

I also believe people dying is a terrible thing. That is one of the many reasons why I am glad Saddam is not in power. He murdered thousands of people. He put live people down a woodchipper and said the lucky ones were those who went head first. He cut out tongues of those who disagreed with them. Entire families were tortured and then murdered by Saddam and his henchmen.

BTW, many civilians died in all of the previous wars - we just didn't have the Internet and cable news to broadcast it 24 hours a day. Yes, it is extremely sad, but unavoidable. If you asked someone from Japan or Germany where they'd rather be, 99.9% would say they are happy where they are today.

Peace darlin.

Steve, Kimberly is one of the most concise, articulate, and well-researched posters on this site. OK, maybe THE most, etc etc...

You actually proved this by having to invent things she never said, and then pointing out that they are ridiculous. Let ME point out that YOU are the one who said them. And let me further point out that the "points" you thought you made were, simply, stupid.

No one is denying that people are dying in Iraq. But the Left is denying that for the first time people in Iraq are dying for a purpose. Instead of being snatched from their homes in the middle of the night to provide entertainment for Sadaam and Usay and Qusay in the torture chambers and rape rooms before being butchered, they are dying in a fight for freedom, to create a country in which their children can live free. It is quite silly to claim that ANYONE has said that "dying is good". Don't be so ridiculous.

Look at what you said:
"Look at that, the right likes to kill people, and their goal is to kill as many as they can. What horrible people they are, running around, advocating killing and then saying that they haven't killed enough yet, that they need more dead."

This is truly, deeply, disturbed......blather. I certainly can't call it "thinking".

Now, maybe you thought you were using sarcasm to make a point. If so, you failed. You made no point other than that you are a semi-literate mean-spirited bigot who enters a battle of wits unarmed.

But I think you exposed the slimy underbelly of what passes, in the neorad world, as intellectual discourse. You showed us, yet again, that the Left has a vile, twisted, and wholly unfounded view of conservatives, which in fact is really just a projection of their own view of the world. So we thank you for doing your part to undermine the Left's efforts to downplay their radical hatred-based lunacy, and for doing so much in so little space.

Almiranta

I enjoy reading your posts but I could sum it all up this way.

Steve, a bit of projection there eh?

Insert hypocritical , ironic comment below:

".....But I think you exposed the slimy underbelly of what passes, in the neorad world, as intellectual discourse. You showed us, yet again, that the Left has a vile, twisted, and wholly unfounded view of conservatives, which in fact is really just a projection of their own view of the world. So we thank you for doing your part to undermine the Left's efforts to downplay their radical hatred-based lunacy, and for doing so much in so little space.

Posted by: Almiranta at June 24, 2006 05:09 PM"

Thank you.

-Joe appears to be trying to say something here:
"Seems to me like this is what special interests paid for and now that it affects you, oh my the sky is falling."

So who, exactly, did the "special interests" pay off for the Kelo ruling? It certainly was not the Republicans, who have objected to this ruling since it came down. Remember, -Joe, this was a court before Roberts and Alito, and the ruling was a 5-4 vote. If you were going to be consistent, which of course you can't be because you are a Liberal, you would have to admit that the ruling was out of Left field, and it has taken a conservative president to inject some sanity into the mess that court created. That is to say, to remind us of that pesky old Constitution that the former court just dismissed in favor of----higher taxes.

A Lefty has missed the point again.

Ho hum. Nothing new there....

TRY to keep up, Leftorium. And DO try to learn the meaning of "ironic". Yes, you ARE 'hypocritical' but 'ironic'? ... no.

Thank you, Almiranta ... you're too kind. (I'm sure we'll get the usual childish response to yours and my complimenting each other, but who cares!)

I have to admit I missed the last piece of Steve's "blather" because I skimmed it. If I had read the entire thing, I might not have been so ... pleasant. ;-)

Hey, I for one would like to see the Pay-Per-View match between Kimberly and that louse Steve. After she wipes up the floor with that slimy lib for condemning non-existant name calling, while he does it himself....I expect Kimberly to post the video on a site we can all watch and cheer. But its ok poor Steve...we honor your service and, of course, support the troops right? I can't wait...when the war is over and some other messes cleaned up...America will turn inward and destroy the seditious bastards.

Bravo, President Bush!

What exactly in there would have offended you Kim? Was it the putting words in your mouth? Or was it the way I played out your thoughts into a reaction? I don't like to be misrepresented either, like people saying I'm in league WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN. Yea, that's really nice, polite, concise, and well researched. There isn't any kind of slippery slope logic there. I mean heck, since you have 49% of the voting populace in league with Al Qaeda, I guess we should just impliment military control of the country, I mean we have to keep it safe from those damned Democrats. Imagine if they could infiltrate the capitol! All hell would break loose!!

Yes, dickdee, I will post it on my site ... itsallaboutmeandnooneelse.com. LOL!!

Stevo: I wasn't offended in the least and I apologize for getting your white flag in a ruffle! I know you are not on Saddam's side, silly. If you re-read my post, I NEVER said you were. I made my assumption based on the fact that AQ and other terrorists often mimick the lefts' talking points in their videos. Perhaps Saddam's lawyers are filling his sick little mind with the lefts' comments ... we're not going to win this war ... it's a quagmire ... we need to withdraw ... etc.

Kimberly,

Actually, the closest I've seen to someone wanting Saddam back in power is from that great conservative mind, Bill O'reilly. He noted that Saddam managed to keep control of his country, and advocated that we adopt some of his tactics to maintain control. So much for hearts and minds, huh?

I'm curious, though, could you provide me with your evidence that liberals want Saddam back in power. I didn't think so.

Exactly, Kimberly....the terrorists are using the American Left's words to support what they do, and to try to undermine our administration. If they did not find a common ground with our home-grown loonies, they would not rally to their cause.

So, Stevie, if you object to having common ground with Al-Queda, the only thing for you to do is to examine YOUR position. It is not enough to whine that you are not agreeing with
THEM----the fact that they are agreeing with YOU is proof enough that you are fellow travelers, with many of the same goals.

So if Al-Queda wants to bring down this Administration because they know a Democratic administration will make their job easier, and you want to bring it down just because you are consumed by an irrational hatred of Bush and all conservatives, the goal of undermining Bush is still the same---and your accomplishment of your goal will aid in their accomplishment of their end goal, which is the destruction of the United States. You just aren't looking ahead to the consequences of your efforts, should they succeed.

So who cares if your end goal is just to get rid of Bush and get the country in the hands of the Left? If that is the next goal of Al-Queda, in pursuit of a more long-term goal for them, the end result is the same.

If that bothers you, you might want to start thinking more about what will provide this country with the greatest safety, the greatest stability, and the greatest chance of prevailing over mindless hate-based destructionism, rather than wallowing in your own (admittedly slightly more limited) form of mindless hate-based destructionism.

And don't try to claim that you are just "playing out someone's thoughts..." You can't do that. The dependence of the Loony Left on their crystal balls, to see into the hearts and minds of others, to discern secret hidden motives and desires, to "play out their thoughts" has led to nearly every wild-eyed attack you have all so gleefully mounted. If you could just stick to the facts, you would be very much limited in your scope, but at least you would be responding to things that actually happen and are actually said.

Almiranta ... excellent post. I wonder how, and if, the neorads will respond to it.

Different Steve: Are you sure you're a different Steve? You, like the original Steve, misinterpreted my original post. I never said the neorads wanted Saddam back in power ...