The Democrats' bosses over at MoveOn.Org -- who bought, paid for, and own the Party -- are not going to be happy with this!!!

AAR

I think this ties in with the newly released information that the President is counseling Democrat presidential candidates on the realities of the war in Iraq, so they can frame their debates and talking points in such a way that they are not put in a bad position later when one of them is elected.

I haven't seen this addressed in the Agenda Media, for the simple reason that it points out exactly what they, and their political allies, do NOT want made public.

Which is, that once a person is aware of the realities of the Middle East, given the classified information the President uses to base his decisions, clued in to the data that we out here in the heartland don't have access to, that person cannot rationally adhere to the radical Liberal line.

It is, that the rabid anti-war drumbeat is driven not by fact but by a sick combination of irrational loathing for Bush, political loathing of conservatives, and willingless to pay high costs, including national security, to commit to it.

At some time, one of these people might be in the posititon in which Bush is today, with the future of the entire country at stake, with thousands if not millions of American lives at stake, with the balance of power worldwide at stake, and s/he can't rely on simple minded party rhetoric to get by. That might work to get elected, but not to lead.

And at some time, all that classified information will be unclassifed, and the American people, and the historians, will have access to the same information that President had at the time. And it will be devastating to that person's 'legacy' to have it come out that momentous decisions were made, not on the basis of security or survival but for party appeasement.

We've been watching the tightrope walking of the Libs with great interest for quite some time now. There was the tap-dancing when Bush had the courage to act on what so many Dems had demanded, and the party had to find a way to condemn Bush for doing what they had been advocating. That was accomplished by some very dexterous sleight-of-hand, the use of a comment out of context, the invention of a "fact" here and a "leak" there, to support the allegation of LIES.

We watched Libs run as conservatives, hardly daring to even MENTION Iraq in their campaigning, knowing that their consitutuents had, for the most part, thought they were voting for the conservative aspect of the Democratic Party, and wondered how long it would take for the tap dancing to begin there, as well. It wasn't long. And suddenly those who campaigned without even mentioning Iraq are claimed to represent a "mandate" to get out of Iraq.

Now we watch as Dems in power, knowing---KNOWING---what is necessary for national security, are between that rock and the hard place of being under the scrutiny of their radical money men. They know, deep in their hearts, that Bush has done nothing wrong, has done what he had to do to protect the country and has, furthermore, done so legally and within the strictures of the Consitution. But they have shoved that knowledge down to the dark place because it interfered with what they WANTED to believe, and what they needed to claim to slime Bush. But now the ball is in their court. They demanded power and control, they fought and lied for it, and we said to them, "be careful what you wish for..." knowing that these decisions would come harder to those who had publicly postured in opposition to them, and who would have to pay a higher price for making them.

So now we watch again, as the Dems try to finesse this. They have to do what they have to do, if only to keep their names from used in the same way Quisling's is used today, as much as it hurts. I'm sure that the spin will be that, well, it was illegal when Bush did it, but the Dems are doing it a little differently, and that will make all the difference.

"we live in a post-9/11 world the media (and the Democratic party) doesn't see warrantless wiretapping of terrorists as "spying on Americans."

are you afwaayed of the big bad terrorist hiding under your bed? boo!

Hey Rubles, why don't you ask Theo Van Gogh or Daniel Pearl the same question?

jackass...

Or Rami Ayyad for that matter...

Daniel Pearl was in a warzone.

I'm not living my life in fear of the "Islamo-fascist." I haven't seen one muslim that tried to convert me, kill more, or oppress me. the only people killing and oppressing are Blackwater and Bush Co. There isn't a single Muslim country capable of defeating any Western powers, and one more 9/11 attack will not end the United States. you engage in fear and propaganda to futher imperialist expansion in the middle east to control resources.

I'm not living my life in fear of the "Islamo-fascist." I haven't seen one muslim that tried to convert me, kill more, or oppress me.

Now I would like everyone on this blog to realize that these are the words of someone who currently believes that Americas international image is tarnished. Yet, these words are also completely void of any empathy or sympathy to the hundreds of thousands of people from Africa to Indonesia to the Middle East, who live in daily fear of that very threat.

So apparently the foreign policy approach of someone who would utter such non sense is that "unless it affects me personally, I don't give a damn about it."

That's a hell of way to build allies. Well Done.

...and one more 9/11 attack will not end the United States. - buyrubles

Yet it would result in thousands of more innocent lives being lost. But again, liberals DO NOT CARE ABOUT INNOCENT LIFE. PERIOD.

Daniel Pearl was in a warzone.

So is everyone in Iraq. So I am curious buyrubles, mack55, or whoever you want to be today, why do you condone the beheading of innocent people in war zones?

buyrubles,

I wasn't aware that Islamabad, Pakistan, where Daniel Pearl lost his life, was a war zone. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this matter.

buyrubles sounds like a cliche of a 50's communist. Atleast the new recruits think they are really just agin Bush and not for a communist regime, but this guy sounds like a truly committed fellow traveller.

Like this pap: "..the only people killing and oppressing are Blackwater and Bush Co..."

Now, how can any sane person make such a bizarre comment? First is the transparent ploy of trying to lump Bush in with Blackwater. And OPRESSING???

DEpressing, maybe---depressing all those who yearned to have a true commie sympathizer in the White House, a man who had paid his dues and gotten his creds by going to North Viet Nam and conspiring with them to "bring out troops home" which meant tucking their tails between their legs and abandoning their allies to mass slaughter. Sound famailiar?
And this gem, this brilliant example of what passes for intellecutal discourse from the rabid far far loony left: "...one more 9/11 attack will not end the United States."

Of course, no one said it would. It would also not end anything else---except the lives of those killed in that attack. Evidently this is a meaningless concept to one so pathologically self-centered. As long as HE isn't bothered by killer Muslims, who cares?????

Hey, neocon--BuyRubbers was one of the two who were spewing "God Bless Iran" not too long ago. Remember we were trying to remember those two jerks? BuyRubbers is one of them. Pay no attention to her, whoever she is. She'll slip up and get banned eventually...

Well, I guess this takes one of the articles of impeachment off the table. It would appear that Henry Waxman has bigger fish to fry, like Rush, Shawn and Mark (Levin). Can't have private citizens exercising that right of free speech. The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

I think this ties in with the newly released information that the President is counseling Democrat presidential candidates on the realities of the war in Iraq, so they can frame their debates and talking points in such a way that they are not put in a bad position later when one of them is elected.

Posted by: Almiranta at October 9, 2007 02:11 PM

Yes, Almiranta, Bush won't be around to see the calamity he created sorted out; so now he's counseling the Democrats, who will be saddled with his mess, on how to clean it up. Typical Bush behavior; a repetition of what he has done all his life. Loser!!

Yet it would result in thousands of more innocent lives being lost. But again, liberals DO NOT CARE ABOUT INNOCENT LIFE. PERIOD

Actually, if you cared about innocent life you wouldn't condone illegally attacking Iraq and Iran. hypocrite. There are millions of people in Africa that could benefit from foreign aid, yet we show how much we care by giving 1/3 of our foreign budget to Zionists whom don't even need it, considering they have a per capita GDP of 25,000.

Hey, neocon--BuyRubbers was one of the two who were spewing "God Bless Iran" not too long ago.

Bingo! Thanks Ih8LIBS.

Hey, neocon--BuyRubbers was one of the two who were spewing "God Bless Iran" not too long ago

God is not on your side. I merely want the Iranian people to be safe from Western aggression.

Actually, if you cared about innocent life you wouldn't condone illegally attacking Iraq and Iran. hypocrite.

My concern for life was not questioned, yours was. And by your response, or lack of defense I should say, I know now that you have zero regard for innocent life. Thank you for the confirmation. BTW, I have never condoned illegal attacks. The Iraq attack was legal and as of today, we have not attacked Iran. (hey where's your God Bless Iran screed?)

There are millions of people in Africa that could benefit from foreign aid, yet we show how much we care by giving 1/3 of our foreign budget to Zionists whom don't even need it, considering they have a per capita GDP of 25,000.

Read the following. How much more would you like to send to Africa and their mostly corrupt governments wherein very little of this money goes where it is intended?

The OECD statistics indicate that under the Bush administration, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa has increased from $1.4 billion annually in 2001 to $4 billion annually.

God is not on your side. I merely want the Iranian people to be safe from Western aggression. - buyrubles

Whose side is God on?

You want the Iranian people safe from Western aggression???? I have to say, with no respect whatsoever, that you embarrass yourself here with every post and yet come back time and time with more inane drivel for more punishment.

I have completely called you out on the fact that:

- you don't care about life
- you condone beheadings in war zones
- you have no idea how much aid is given to Africa
- that unless terrorism affects you personally, you don't care about it.
- you don't care if the US is hit again and how many people may perish

But you want to make sure Iran is safe, right?

The OECD statistics indicate that under the Bush administration, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa has increased from $1.4 billion annually in 2001 to $4 billion annually.

The US is the leader in corruption, so that shouldn't prevent us from giving aid to Africa.

Can you count? Israel, population of 5.6 million gets $7 billion a year from the US.

Africa, a continent of 900 million, gets $4 billion. By the way, my native country Kenya, is a democracy, has a lively press, is capitalist, and has an economy that is growing at 5.6 percent a year, yet the authoritarian Egyptians and the rich Israelis are receiving most of US funds. Why? We've dealt with terrorism yet the U.S. won't deign to give us enough funds for security.

Don't worry, we don't need you - China has done wonders for the Kenya economy and soon oil will be discovered off the coast of Mombasa. I guarantee the US won't see a dime of that oil. It's your loss.

Can you count? Israel, population of 5.6 million gets $7 billion a year from the US.

So really, you're anti-semite, a bigot. Because it doesn't matter what we send to Israel, when speaking of African foreign aid. I will also remind you that Bush increased the amount dramatically from what the previous Democrat President was sending.

By the way, my native country Kenya, is a democracy, has a lively press, is capitalist, and has an economy that is growing at 5.6 percent a year, yet the authoritarian Egyptians and the rich Israelis are receiving most of US funds. Why? We've dealt with terrorism yet the U.S. won't deign to give us enough funds for security.

Why would Kenya need our help if they're doing so well?

And that Kenyan education now partially explains your postings.

China has done wonders for the Kenya economy and soon oil will be discovered off the coast of Mombasa. I guarantee the US won't see a dime of that oil. It's your loss.

So you condone China manipulating Kenya for their possible oil reserves? Interesting.

Buyrubles,

Here's some interesting reading:

This year, the U.S. Congress approved $2.76 billion in its annual aid package for Israel. The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century.

Hey, BuyRubbers, is Kenya surrounded by hostile enemies? Do madmen strap bombs on their backs and blow up pizza parlors in Nairobi?

"Kenya" answer those simple questions, BuyRubbers? Well, Kenya?

Oops, nothing like some facts getting in the way. You know, facts and leftists = oil and water.

I'll ask again, do you think Theo Van Gogh would agree (if he hadn't been murdered by an Islamic Fascist) with your statement of not being worried about a terrorist attack?

Finally, isn't this so typical of leftists? The whole I don't give a shit about anything unless it affects me directly is so hypocritical it's pathetic.

Buyrubbers, get thee to a nunnery... oh and on your way, see if you can scrounge up a soul and some conscience cuz you are one hateful, heartless pr1ck.

Buyrubles,

Big super intelligent rubles afraid of Bush listening in on his phone calls.
Do you look under your bed for Bush after your
mommy tucks you in moron.
You are not afraid of terrorist that kill tens of
thousands of people every year for power and religion and are not worried about another 9/11.

But Bush scares you to death.

When you get your head out of Rosie's A@#,
maybe you will see that your bumper stickers and
Cut and paste rhetoric haven't freed one person
from tyranny.
Bush and the American Soldier have.
Canadian,

Libya gives up their nuclear/Wmd program.

25 million people freed in Afghanistan from the
Taliban/Al-Qaeda regime.Have voted and are in the
beginning stages of forming a free government,and providing a free lifestyle for the first time in
their history.

25 million people freed in Iraq from one of
histories most brutal dictators.Responsible for
between 600,000 and 1.2 million deaths of his own
people through rape,torture,and wiping out whole
villages with WMD's.Invaded countries killing and raping tens of thousands of people in
Iran and Kuwait.
They also have voted,written a constitution,and are in the early stages of forming a free government that can be represented
by the people.

Both these regimes were overthrown by the USA with the consent of Democrats and Republicans that
voted for this and the continuation of providing security until the Iraqi and Afghan people can take care of it themselves.

N.Korea has agreed to dismantle their Nuclear weapons program under the watch of the UN and the
US.
Not on a wink and a promise like your super intelligent liberal hero Clinton.

We have taken on the lions share of the war on
terror and still maintain one of the strongest economies in the world,with recored un-employment and job growth never before seen in our history.

Yea,President Bush is a real failure.

Maybe he should have done things the liberal way,
you know the global test,UN,EU,let's talk about it.
Worked real good in Rwanda,what,600,000 killed
and the UN/Clinton showed up after everything was
over.Good work Canadian.

How have those Tibet bumper stickers been working out.Maybe you and your coffee shop generals could get together and have a candle light vigil.
That and another Richard Gere speech will free
them all.

Your UN/Eu global test is working real well in
Dafur too.Your liberal leader Carter says there is
no genocide at all there.problem solved right Canadian.
Maybe some more bumper stickers,another speech
by your foreign policy advisor Clooney at the
UN will stop the bloodshed.
Nope,the radical muslims are killing as much as
they want when they want and the UN will show up
with their force of 20,000 when the killing is
done.
Yea,Canadian,you are so credible with your
liberal foreign policy.

Now Iran is on the brink of Nuclear arms and your
UN/Eu global test has been yet another disastrous
failure.
So bad that even the French are talking about
taking action.
You liberals talk about how much President Bush
and the US is hated but:
Canada elects Pro US/Bush leader
France elects Pro Us/Bush leader
Germany elects Pro US/Bush leader
Brown replaces Blair, Pro US/Bush leader
Australia re-elects pro Us/Bush leader

Canadian,Buyrubles
typical liberals spouting off cut and paste propaganda about the US and President Bush that
can't be backed up by fact and has no basis in reality.

How is that Impeachment going morons.

Based on "her" disregard for human life and "her" ani-Semitic and "Zionist" comments, I see that "axis/bovary" has been reincarnated as "Buyrubles".

Rubles,

RE: "...and one more 9/11 attack will not end the United States."

Yes, what's another 9/11 attack on the United States. No big deal, the United States is big enough to take another hit or two, so why be concerned, right? Typical anti-American Liberal nonsense!

RE: "There are millions of people in Africa that could benefit from foreign aid..."

There are millions of people in Africa who could produce products which Americans would willing purchase, sending them hundreds of billions of dollars in "self produced aid" -- just as we do with China, India, and countries around the world.

Produce the products... and Americans will come!

If you want nothing but welfare and hand-outs, with no effort or expectations in return -- as all Liberals advocate -- give the UN a call. Surely they are good for something! Where are all of those Liberals in Europe and Canada spending their money? And do you think China is providing "aid" with no expectation of a return on their investment... and that's what it is -- an investment!

RE:

"...so that shouldn't prevent us from giving aid to Africa."

"...we show how much we care by giving 1/3 of our foreign budget to Zionists..."

"...We've dealt with terrorism yet the U.S. won't deign to give us enough funds for security. ...Don't worry, we don't need you - China has done wonders for the Kenya economy and soon oil will be discovered off the coast of Mombasa. I guarantee the US won't see a dime of that oil. It's your loss."

Which "we" and "your" is it? Or, is it another country entirely? To whom or what do you owe your allegiance, or don't you know? You've been rambling so much, perhaps you've lost track!

It seems you are for everyone -- EXCEPT America and Americans!

AAR

A-10

I think you may be right!

AAR

Back to the topic... the primary difference between the proposed revised FISA law and what Bush has been doing for the last several years is that the former provides a measure of independent oversight whereas what Bush was doing provided none. I find it rather ironic that he appears to be about to receive essentially everything he wanted despite the fact that he waited until congress was supposedly full of screaming moonbats to get it. Maybe, just maybe, he was too paranoid and maybe, just maybe, when moonbats are required to be responsible they don't scream so much. I suspect both are true. Either way, this issue should have come up a long time ago -- like, when it became apparent that the existing FISA law was not adequate. Not doing so provided more fodder for the conspiracy mill.

AAR: And do you think China is providing "aid" with no expectation of a return on their investment... and that's what it is -- an investment!

And you think China differs in that respect from the US (or any other country) how?

"Car bombs in vehicles adjacent to the embassies were detonated almost simultaneously before 10:45 am local time August 7, 1998. In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.

Although the attacks may have been intended to kill employees of the United States government, most of the victims were African civilians: about 200 Kenyans were killed at the embassy in Nairobi, and 11 Tanzanians were killed in Dar es Salaam."

When this happened were you cheering for the terrorists who killed your country men, buyrubles??

I'll bet you were jumping for joy over the following:

"On November 28, 2002, three suicide bombers crashed an SUV through a guard gate and onto the lobby steps of the Paradise Hotel, a seaside resort in Mombasa, Kenya. The detonation of the vehicle killed 13 and injured 80. The dead were three Israeli tourists, two of them children, and ten Kenyan dancers who were performing to welcome 140 guests arriving from Israel by state-chartered jet."

Crawl back under the rock from whence you came .

Hey, BuyRubbers, is Kenya surrounded by hostile enemies? Do madmen strap bombs on their backs and blow up pizza parlors in Nairobi?

Actually, they blow up US embassies. And yes we are surrounded by hostile enemies, but you are such an idiot and can't name one country that surrounds Kenya. Typical uneducated American - flip hamburgers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

To whom or what do you owe your allegiance, or don't you know?

I'm definitely not loyal to the current fascist administration. I'm moving to Europe next year, for good, and leaving this land that is full of lemmings and dolts. My allegiance is to myself first and family second - country dead last.

Produce the products... and Americans will come!

What a lie. The US shuts out African agricultural goods and light manufactured goods to protect your white supremacist farmers in the South and US. Americans only come to usurp, ravage, and pillage, never with good intentions.

I'll bet you were jumping for joy over the following

Until the world stands up to American imperialism everyone will suffer. I don't support the attacks, but I understand the terrorists' motives. Now that China actually shows a legitimate interest in Africa, it's time to kick the U.S. imperialists to the curb.

My allegiance is to myself first and family second - country dead last. - ByRube

I am sure Europe will be proud to have you.

...to protect your white supremacist farmers in the South and US. Americans only come to usurp, ravage, and pillage, never with good intentions. - ByRube

Classic liberal rage, dripping with racism and fueled by hatred. Well done byrube!

Ricorun,

Only pointing out that Rubles' apparent affection for China and hatred of the United States may be somewhat misguided -- the hatred for the United States confirmed by Rubles' subsequent comments!

AAR

Now that China actually shows a legitimate interest in Africa, it's time to kick the U.S. imperialists to the curb. - ByRube

Good luck on that. Better tyrants than you have been trying for decades, but they just can't seem to beat them southern rednecks. Yeehaw!

Ricorun,

I know you've been told this before, but I'll say it again, in case you forgot.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program (which is authorized under the Constitution and FISA) is reviewed every three months by the Justice Department before being reauthorized. (Executive Branch oversight)

Members of Congress have been briefed at least 12 times on the program (Legislative oversight).

There have been at least five federal court cases regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program, including one by the FISA court. In every case, the courts have found that the program is legal and Constitutional. (Judicial Oversight)

Although there are warrantless intercepts when the circumstances require them, there have been over 7,000 warrants issued by the FISA courts in the past five years. If you do the math, that is about four per day, 365 days a year.

Exactly what level of oversight are you proposing?

BuyRubles,

Your hate filled lies and ravings say and tell it all.

I'm sure the Liberals (Democrats) are proud to have you as one of their spokespersons to so eloquently express their views and beliefs.

Those European Liberals are anxiously awaiting your arrival. Europe is nice in the Fall, and that would be a good time to move. Why wait until next year? Is that because you are here "using" the United States to provide you with an education? If so, ask for the money back, because the attempt was a failure!

If I were you, I'd be especially careful who you call -- what with the Democrats about to extend that warrantless surveillance program!

AAR

AAR: Only pointing out that Rubles' apparent affection for China and hatred of the United States may be somewhat misguided -- the hatred for the United States confirmed by Rubles' subsequent comments!

Be that as it may, I suggest that you try to avoid any one person's advocacy to legitimize your position (and/or denigrate theirs) and stick to the merits of the issues. B4B isn't exactly the NSC, ya know? Said in a more accessible way, aren't you a little concerned that China's offer to help Kenya holds more weight than ours -- regardless of what buyrubles says about it? That, to me, is the bottom line. And it is emblematic of THE thing that needs to be addressed with regard to our foreign policy in the way forward.

Ricorun,

I'm practicing what I've learned from Liberals; although, I admit I'm still a novice at using the techniques they have perfected to a science and use so effectively!

I think Rubles is an excellent and eloquent spokesperson for Liberals (Democrats)! Don't you agree?

As for China, I think it's time we get very serious about their threat. We may need to raise taxes... for military development and modernization!

Did you hear about the latest plans by Huntsville, AL (Al Qaeda related)?

September 27, 2007...

Huntsville, AL (AHN) - City officials in Huntsville, Alabama are planning to open old-fashioned bomb shelters and explained their program to members of Congress. City officials say that although the plan wouldn't help if the city suffered a direct hit, the shelters would protect residents from the radioactive fallout from a nuclear strike elsewhere in the United States.

Huntsville will outfit an abandoned mine capable of holding 20,000 people. Other residents will be housed in college dorms, churches, libraries and research halls. City planners hope they can develop enough shelter space to house 300,000 people; enough space to provide every person in Huntsville and the surrounding county a safe refuge.

AAR

A-10: I know you've been told this before, but I'll say it again, in case you forgot. The Terrorist Surveillance Program (which is authorized under the Constitution and FISA) is reviewed every three months by the Justice Department before being reauthorized. (Executive Branch oversight)... and so on and so forth concluding with this... Exactly what level of oversight are you proposing?

First of all, let me ask you: what do you surmise is included in "The Terrorist Surveillance Program"? Further, are you sure that whatever you think is involved actually represents an inclusive representation of "warrantless surveillance"? I'm not talking wiretaps per se, I'm talking about all forms of eavesdropping. Whether you do or not is incidental. The fact is, "you" can generate a whole lot of information about patterns of transmission without knowing anything about specific nodes or individuals involved. Further, given how truly worldwide the communications networks are, and given how insensitive said network is to what constitutes a domestic as opposed to an international transmission, and given the very different laws that apply to domestic and foreign communications, it gets kind of tough to distinguish between "foreign" and "domestic".

But that only scratches the surface. You can believe me or not on this point, but the real problem is that the government is collecting huge volumes of information on you, me, and everyone. Everytime you dial a phone number you can be tracked. Everytime you log into your computer you can be tracked. Everytime you buy something on loan, or swipe your credit card or debit card you can be tracked. Everytime you fly you're tracked. Everytime you use your library card you're tracked. And so on and so forth. There is a huge amount of information available. The real question is, for what purpose? And THAT requires independent oversight.

You yourself mentioned that "there have been over 7,000 warrants issued by the FISA courts in the past five years." I don't doubt that's true. But of those, how many of them have resulted in arrests? Precious few.

In signal detection theory there is a trade-off between identifying what is really a signal and what isn't. In that process two types of mistakes can be made: (1) false positives, i.e., things you think are signal but are actually noise, and (2) false negatives, i.e., things you think are noise but are actually signal. The two are mutually exclusive. But one's ability to distinguish between the two are dependent upon the efficiency of the algorithm one uses. That, hopefully, is being improved as we speak. However, the fact that the ratio between warrants issued versus terrorist apprehended is somewhere on the order of 100:1 suggests that the detection algorithm is heavily weighted to detect false positives in order to hold false negatives at a minimum.

I guess you could say it's Cheney's "1% doctrine" at work in a totally different context -- or at least in a context that it only tangentially related to the original (and presumably intended) context.

Speaking of context, everything I said above is to provide context to the essential quesion at hand: if you're a black and white thinker, where do you draw the line between personal freedoms and national security? Likewise, if you're able to consider a question in more nuance, what mechanisms can you propose that would guarantee the question doesn't become black and white? I would argue that the legislative branch should come to terms with the executive branch to allow the judicial branch to be a major player.

AAR: I think Rubles is an excellent and eloquent spokesperson for Liberals (Democrats)! Don't you agree?

No. I'd say Rubles is a not so eloquent spokesperson for Rubles. Nothing more. But your thought belies your proclivity to fold one spokesman into something more than that spokesman is. How would you like it if I portrayed myself as a spokesman for B4B? Or conservatism in general? Perhaps it makes sense in certain respects (especially considering who is getting hoisted up the flagpole as presidential candidates), but in other respects, certainly not. I also suspect the same could be said for you -- although for very different reasons.

The point is... to appreciate the whole you have to make an attempt to think outside yourself.

BuyRubles - The reason that Egypt (actually the largest recipient) and Israel get the largest amount of aid is that Jimmy Carter promised them this aid if they would sign a peace treaty. The peace between them is bought and paid for.

By the way Rubles - are you for real? I mean your posts are so stupid they could actually be taken for very clever satire. Really, come-on now admit it. You just a fake right? You really aren't as ignore as you seem to be. Are you?

And Rico - well I think I got your last post. But, well its a little incoherent isn't it? I mean really - read it again yourself and tell me if it isn't difficult to read.

Kahn: And Rico - well I think I got your last post. But, well its a little incoherent isn't it? I mean really - read it again yourself and tell me if it isn't difficult to read.

I presume you mean my October 10, 2007 12:11 AM post, is that right? If so, what do you want to know? What did you find incoherent?

Rico, I'm just saying it was structured poorly - nothing against the subject. I guess.

It was just a little hard to understand. It's not that normal of a post for you.

Rico,

A couple of final comments then we can put this to bed.

If you are a law abiding American citizen, you have nothing to fear from the Terrorist Surveillance Program or the Patriot Act. They are both focussed at detecting and stopping terrorist acts. The threat is real enough (remember 9/11?), and the scope of intelligence to gather is so broad, that the intelligence agencies do not the time or the assets to worry about whether you have been calling Aunt Millie to get her Pineapple Upside-Down Cake recipe.

Yes, they are tracking telephone call patterns, they are tracking emails, they are tracking other forms of electronic communications. BETWEEN TERRORIST SUSPECTS. Not average, law-abiding citizens. They are taking great precautions to ensure that the intercepts they conduct are only on known terrorists or terrorist suspects.

Please give the professionals in the NSA and the other intelligence agencies some credit. The ones who are actually conducting the surveillance and intercepts are patriotic Americans, sworn to support and defend the Constitution.

I know there are rogue members of our intelligence community, just as there are rogue members of Congress, who would sacrifice our security for political gain. But they do not represent those actually conducting the surveillance.

As a law-abiding citizen, I am comfortable with the level of oversight being provided, considering the stated scope of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Besides, I asked you for your proposed level of oversight, and you failed to answer the question.

Finally, and probably the most important consideration, the existing laws provide the parameters of surveillance authorized to detect both terrorist and other criminal behavior. One of the typical arguments from the left is "Do you want President Hillary Clinton to have these powers?". Yes, if she is using them to detect and stop terrorists activities.

A scenario where a President Hillary Clinton wanted to conduct surveillance outside the law, which would be illegal, is mute. It wouldn't matter if there was a FISA law, a Patriot Act, or the Constitution to stop her. The fact that there are laws prohibiting spying on Americans (which her husband did) would not matter if she was intent on breaking the law.

We already know that the Clintons did spy on Americans without a warrant (Ames). We already know that they illegally obtained the FBI files on hundreds of political foes. We already know that they hired private investigators to dig into the backgrounds of anyone who dared expose Bill Clinton's sexual harassments. We can assume that under a Hillary Clinton Administration, they would resume these practices.

My question to the liberals is this: If you are so afraid of the Bush Administration trampling the Constitution, spying on Americans, and violating civil rights, how can you support a candidate which has been involved in these activities in the past? If you are a patriotic American, you would be joining our fight to prevent Hillary Clinton from ever becoming elected President. She is a threat to the America envisioned by Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln, and others. She must be stopped.

”You yourself mentioned that "there have been over 7,000 warrants issued by the FISA courts in the past five years." I don't doubt that's true. But of those, how many of them have resulted in arrests? Precious few. “ Rico
Rico,

I thought A-10, Mark and others had mentioned that one of the primary purposes of the surveillance wasn’t for criminal prosecution as much as to find and destroy any foreign elements that would do the US harm. Why would you be hung up on arrest?

Ok, let me see if I can clear this up. What I tried to explain was that the NSA (and perhaps others) are sifting through a lot of information, most of it done automatically. Their threshold for detecting a possible "hit" (a true positive) is obviously very low, and that is as it should be. But in so doing they necessarily generate a large number of false hits which need to be analyzed further. If no rules and no independent oversight is in place the potential for abuse in that process is enormous. That's not to say it has or will happen. It's also not to say that even with oversight abuses will never occur. It is to say that abuses are much less likely to happen if an independent agency is required to review the information in a meaningful and substantive way. Under those conditions abuse is easier to detect and deal with. What the exact definition of "meaningful and substantive" is, I don't know. I don't even want to know. What I do want to know is whether the FISA officials are comfortable with whatever definitions are used. That's my point. That's always been my point.

The perception early on by the Bush administration was that the previous FISA bill was not adequate for dealing with the advances in technology nor the nature of the new threat. I certainly don't fault them for that. You need to do what you need to do when you need to do it. What I do question is why they decided not to formally address the problem when the problem became apparent. They should have gone to congress to get things fixed. But they didn't. Not for years. That, to me, was an abuse of power in and of itself. And apparently quite a number of individuals within the DOJ and elsewhere (e.g., Comey, Goldsmith, Mueller) had similar sentiments. I hope, and I even presume, that no other abuses took place. But the potential was there.

Anyway, it appears that the revised law, which I guess they're calling the RESTORE Act, does indeed restore independent oversight to a reasonable degree, and sets some objective criteria.

"Now that China actually shows a legitimate interest in Africa, it's time to kick the U.S. imperialists to the curb. - ByRube"

Yes especially since China is such an altruistic bastion of freedom of speech and democracy but is more than willing to work with those who aren't concerned with pesky details such as "human rights", like their new trading partner below:

"Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has signed a deal with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao in Beijing. The details have not been made public but China was expected to seek mineral and other trade concessions in exchange for economic help."

I'm sure this trade deal is out of shear altruism to help the oppressed people of Zimbawe.

And while China helps the Sudanese government develop their oil reserves the government supports the genocide in the Southern part of their country. You have nothing to say about this do you? Your condemneation is only reserved for the US. Long live Chairman Mao!! (oh that's right...)

BTW: Why are you going to Europe..why not back to your homeland to help it grow in to a workers paradise with the help of China. You hypocrite.

BuyRubles? Still there? Did the asylum catch you on the computer?