What dumbfounds me the most is the Bush supporters still think Bush doesn't lie. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented.
Debra_Law wrote:Beware of Bush's accusations against IRAN. We can't believe a single word that tumbles out of the prevaricator's mouth.
How soon will it be before he sends our troops into Iran? First Afghanistan . . . then Iraq . . . and soon Iran. You know Bush has an itchy trigger finger . . . and Halliburton wants to control Iranian oil fields and acquire billions more in lucrative war contracts before Bush's presidential term ends.
Whatever is good for the filthy rich republicans and Haliburton is good for the Country. Send your sons to die for Halliburton . . . I mean, for the United States. God Bless America.
Quote:Halliburton Energy Services NYSE: HAL is a multinational corporation based in Houston, Texas. With revenues exceeding $20.46 billion (U.S. FY 2004). . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
Debra,
Exactly how does Halliburton control ANY oilfields?
You seem to think they are,so how?
Do they control who gets the oil?
Do they control how much is pumped,or where its piped to?
Do they run the tank farms and the tanker trucks?
Exactly how do they control them?
As for how much Halliburton makes,worldwide...you do realize that there are many US based companies that make more yearly revenue then them,dont you?
Are you saying that high revenue means evil company?
Cycloptichorn wrote:I'm not sure Iran deserves to be added to that list (actually I'm pretty sure they shouldn't), but at the same time, there is an element of hypocrisy in telling a free and sovreign people that they are not allowed to do certain forms of scientific research or weapons production. So I don't believe there is an easy answer.
The answer is easy for me. Let me phrase the question a different way, and maybe it will be easier for you to think of the matter in these terms:
Which is more important to you:
(A) Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, or
(B) not offending your sense of the hypocrisy involved?
Quote:If it is neccessary to go to war to prevent Iran from aqcuiring Nukes, are we going to make a habit of going to war with every other country in the world who wishes to do so - or just those that disagree with our politics?
I think we need to decide just how important it is that nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of terrorists. If it isn't that important, then we shouldn't care. We should allow the UN and the IAEA to issue hollow threats that nobody will take seriously, and just allow anyone to acquire these weapons.
If it is important (and I think it is), we should make it clear we will not tolerate them acquiring these weapons, and if in the face of those warnings they persist in their efforts to acquire them, we take the necessary action to prevent them from doing so, including military force.
Quote:Diplomacy is usually the answer in situations without easy answers. Is this going to work with Iran? It depends on how much we are willing to give up, diplomatically, in order to keep war from happening. The saddest part of the whole thing is that even if/when diplomacy breaks down, our actions in Iraq have pretty much removed the possibility of the US putting together any sort of coalition to combat the problem; other countries, and their populaces, remember far too well the lies of the last war to fall for them again.
Yes, it would be nice if diplomacy and cooperation, or even economic sanctions would suffice, but that doesn't seem to be a language spoken by all countries of the world.
Quote:Personally, I am far more concerned with the unrestrained Ex-Russian nukes floating around. We have done almost nothing to take control of that particular situation, and it represents a far graver threat to us than Iran ever dreamed of.
I am concerned about that as well, but not to the point where I believe we should be paralyzed from proactively addressing the situation occurring in Iran, and taking steps to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
Debra_Law wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Beware of Bush's accusations against IRAN. We can't believe a single word that tumbles out of the prevaricator's mouth.
How soon will it be before he sends our troops into Iran? First Afghanistan . . . then Iraq . . . and soon Iran. You know Bush has an itchy trigger finger . . . and Halliburton wants to control Iranian oil fields and acquire billions more in lucrative war contracts before Bush's presidential term ends.
Whatever is good for the filthy rich republicans and Haliburton is good for the Country. Send your sons to die for Halliburton . . . I mean, for the United States. God Bless America.
A better idea is to let Iran get nuclear weapons, then hope they don't give them away to terrorists?
Good plan, Debra. You are the voice of reason.
I see that you're making the same argument for war against IRAN that the president made for going to war against Iraq. Perhaps Saddam sent his
illusory weapons of mass destruction to IRAN. Something to ponder. All REASONABLE people should jump on your bandwagon and beg the president to launch us into another preemptive war of aggression. Let's not stop with IRAN . . . how about North Korea too! What other nations should we place on our war list?
How reasonable is that?
It's a hell of a lot more reasonable than your plan of just allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, then hope he won't use them or allow them to be used by his terrorist friends. After all, they are a reasonable country ... right?
cicerone imposter wrote:What dumbfounds me the most is the Bush supporters still think Bush doesn't lie. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented.
The purported lies, as reported, are more a result of political spin, than lies. Probably the most politically spun "lie" would be the one about WMD in Iraq. People do have a memory of this, and no amount of spin is going to cause every single citizen to swallow the now entrenched in stone claim by the Democrats that this was a "lie." Disagreements, difference of judgement, and differing interpretations of the facts and evidence are just that, and no amount of spin can turn them into lies.
The list of other lies, whatever they are, pretty much fit the same mold.
Tico, Just how are you to know whether Russia, China, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the US will not allow some allies now that turns enemy later to acquire nukes? Do you have some crystal ball? Do you know how many of the US's enemies turned into allies in the last 100 years, and visa-versa?
Are we losing the war for our Constitutionally protected rights to privacy?
March 14, 2006
Judge Plans to Order Google to Turn Over Data to U.S.
By KATIE HAFNER
SAN JOSE, Calif., March 14 ?- After the Justice Department sharply cut back its request for search-engine data from Google, a federal judge indicated today that he would instruct the company to comply with a government subpoena in the department's defense of an online pornography law.
At a hearing in Federal District Court here, Judge James Ware said, "It is my intent to grant some relief to the government, given the narrowing that has taken place with the request and its willingness to compensate Google for whatever burden that imposes."
The government is now requesting a sample of 50,000 Web site addresses returned in Google searches, instead of what could have amounted to billions of Web addresses when the subpoena was first issued last August. And the government is now asking for just 5,000 search queries. Of those, a lawyer for the government said in today's hearing, the government would use just 10,000 Web sites and 1,000 search queries.
Although this means that Google is likely to be required to turn over the information, the amount of data is far less than previously demanded. The judge also indicated that he would apply greater scrutiny to the request for search queries than to the Web site addresses because of privacy concerns.
The newly reduced request appears in a declaration written by Philip B. Stark, a statistician who was hired by the Justice Department to study search engine data. The study is part of a lawsuit in which the government is defending the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law that would impose tough criminal penalties on individuals whose Web sites carried material deemed harmful to minors.
The government has argued that it needs the information from Google in order to create its study, which is intended to measure the effectiveness of software that filters out pornographic Web sites.
Three Google competitors in Internet search technology ?- America Online, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online service ?- have complied with subpoenas in the case.
Albert Gidari, a lawyer representing Google at the hearing, said in an interview afterward that he had been surprised by the large reduction in the number of Web site addresses, or U.R.L.'s, and search queries that the government was requesting. The revised request appeared in a footnote to a declaration filed to the court on Feb. 24, and had not come up in direct discussions between Google and the Justice Department.
"The new request substantially mitigates Google's trade concerns," Mr. Gidari said, adding that "99.9 percent of Google is unexposed, and this teeny sliver will tell them nothing."
"This would have been a very different case if the government walked in the door and said, 'We need 50,000 U.R.L.'s and a thousand searches,' " he said. "It's doubtful we would have been in court. We got to where we wanted."
The Child Online Protection Act has faced repeated legal challenges. Opponents of the law contend that filtering software could protect minors effectively enough to make the law unnecessary.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction blocking the law's enforcement and returned the case to a district court for further examination of Internet-filtering technology that might be an alternative in achieving the law's aims. At a trial scheduled to begin in October, the government will try to prove that filters are ineffective.
"Given the slight amount of information now sought by the government, Google's burden arguments seem less persuasive than they might be," said Susan P. Crawford, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York.
At one point in the hearing, Judge Ware asked Joel McElvain, a lawyer for the government, whether the government would pay Google for the effort it takes to put the information together.
"Yes," Mr. McElvain replied.
Although the judge said he planned to grant some relief to the government in its request, he added that in making his decision he would pay particular attention to the database of individual search terms the government was asking for. That issue has raised privacy concerns.
The judge said he would issue a full decision shortly.
The judge said he was "particularly concerned" about "perceptions by the public that somehow this is subject to government scrutiny, so I'll pay particular attention to that part of it."
The judge also appeared to sympathize with Google's concern that it could become entangled in the underlying lawsuit over the Child Online Protection Act, although it is not a party to the suit.
"We're very encouraged," said Nicole Wong, associate general counsel at Google. "At a minimum we have come a long way from the government's initial subpoena. If it had started this way, it would have been a very different discussion."
mysteryman wrote:Debra_Law wrote:Beware of Bush's accusations against IRAN. We can't believe a single word that tumbles out of the prevaricator's mouth.
How soon will it be before he sends our troops into Iran? First Afghanistan . . . then Iraq . . . and soon Iran. You know Bush has an itchy trigger finger . . . and Halliburton wants to control Iranian oil fields and acquire billions more in lucrative war contracts before Bush's presidential term ends.
Whatever is good for the filthy rich republicans and Haliburton is good for the Country. Send your sons to die for Halliburton . . . I mean, for the United States. God Bless America.
Quote:Halliburton Energy Services NYSE: HAL is a multinational corporation based in Houston, Texas. With revenues exceeding $20.46 billion (U.S. FY 2004). . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
Debra,
Exactly how does Halliburton control ANY oilfields?
You seem to think they are,so how?
Do they control who gets the oil?
Do they control how much is pumped,or where its piped to?
Do they run the tank farms and the tanker trucks?
Exactly how do they control them?
As for how much Halliburton makes,worldwide...you do realize that there are many US based companies that make more yearly revenue then them,dont you?
Are you saying that high revenue means evil company?
Where have you been? You didn't know that Halliburton's lucrative war contracts have given Halliburton operating control over Iraqi oil fields? Perhaps you could do a little research on the matter. And while you're at it, you might want to check out the vice-president's financial ties to Halliburton.
Halliburton paid Cheney over $20 million dollars when he left the company after only five years of employment to become the vice president. Halliburton continues to pay Cheney big sums of money every year. Cheney holds stock options for hundreds of thousands of shares. And the executive branch has awarded extremely profitable "no bid" contracts to Halliburton.
I didn't say rich corporations are evil. If you think its moral/ethical for our children to die in wars that benefit no one other than the war profiteers, then by all means--send your sons to the front lines.
A lie disguising itself as "spin" is like the wolf in "Little Red Riding Hood" disguising itself as a Tasmanian Devil.
Spinning something as a lie when it was not a lie, actually is the lie. So in the case of WMD, if Bush did not lie, and it was a rather a difference of opinion and judgement based on the information available at the time, then the assertion that Bush lied is actually the principle lie in this affair.
The fact is, the jury is still out. We do not know with great certainty if WMD did in fact exist shortly before the war began in Iraq. There is some evidence that they were moved from Iraq. To assert that we now know beyond a reasonable doubt that there never was any WMD, and that Bush knew this for sure, and that he knowingly lied about it, is patently false and a lie in and of itself. A significant percentage of the American people have figured this out, and no amount of spin is going to deceive them, all because that is the Democratic Party's program of political spin.
okie, You obviously missed Debra's post Censuring the President which included the following statement:
Serious questions remain about certain provisions in the Patriot Act that threaten the privacy of innocent Americans, and about the basis for the claims the administration made in leading us into the Iraq war. In both of those instances, Congress gave its approval to the President's actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap terrorists -- of course we should, and we can under current law. But the President is refusing to follow that law, which includes safeguards to protect innocent Americans, and instead he's making up his own law. It's time that he is held accountable for breaking the law.
Congress may consider a range of other actions, including investigations, an independent counsel, or even impeachment. But at a minimum, and as a first step, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Bush lied, because of what he said in his speech in 2004:
Before the program was revealed, he also misled Congress and the Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order."American people about the wiretapping that was being done. For example, at a 2004 speech in Buffalo, he said, " And at a 2004 speech in my home state of Wisconsin, he said that "the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."
If you think this is "spin," you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, I'd usually go with "mislead", but in the case of the wiretaps it seems to be an outright lie.
cicerone imposter wrote:Tico, Just how are you to know whether Russia, China, North Korea, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the US will not allow some allies now that turns enemy later to acquire nukes? Do you have some crystal ball? Do you know how many of the US's enemies turned into allies in the last 100 years, and visa-versa?
What's your point, c.i.? I have no idea whether any of those countries will give nukes to enemies of the US ... but -- as ought to be completely obvious -- that's not the point. The point is Iran should not be permitted to become a nuclear power (just as N. Korea should not have been).
Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?
Maybe all our worries are for naught. Many Iranians do not agree with their governments actions to continue their nuclear program.
March 15, 2006
Powerful Voices Within Tehran Criticize Iran's Nuclear Policy By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
TEHRAN, March 14 ?- Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. Now, while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.
Some people in powerful positions have begun to insist that the confrontational tactics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been backfiring, making it harder instead of easier for Iran to develop a nuclear program.
This week, the United Nations Security Council is meeting to take up the Iranian nuclear program. That referral and, perhaps more important, Iran's inability so far to win Russia's unequivocal support for its plans have empowered critics of Mr. Ahmadinejad, according to political analysts with close ties to the government.
One senior Iranian official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the delicate nature of the issue, said: "I tell you, if what they were doing was working, we would say, 'Good.' " But, he added: "For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."
One month ago, the same official had said with a laugh that those who thought the hard-line approach was a bad choice were staying silent because it appeared to be succeeding.
As usual in Iran, there are mixed signals, and the government does not always speak with the same voice.
On Tuesday, both Mr. Ahmadinejad and the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted in public speeches that their country would never back down. At the same time, Iranian negotiators arrived in Moscow to resume talks ?- at Iran's request ?- just days after Iran had rejected a Russian proposal to resolve the standoff.
Average Iranians do not seem uniformly confident at the prospect of being hit with United Nations sanctions.
From the streets of Tehran to the ski slopes outside the city, some people have begun to joke about the catch phrase of the government ?- flippantly saying, "Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."
Reformers, whose political clout as a movement vanished after the last election, have also begun to speak out. And people with close ties to the government said high-ranking clerics had begun to give criticism of Iran's position to Ayatollah Khamenei, which the political elite sees as a seismic jolt.
"There has been no sign that they will back down," said Ahmad Zeidabady, a political analyst and journalist. "At least Mr. Khamenei has said nothing that we can interpret that there will be change in the policies."
But, he said, "There is more criticism as it is becoming more clear that this policy is not working, especially by those who were in the previous negotiating team."
There are also signs that negotiators are starting to back away, however slightly, from a bare-knuckle strategy and that those who had initially opposed the president's style ?- but remained silent ?- are beginning to feel vindicated and are starting to speak up.
A former president, Mohammad Khatami, recently publicly criticized the aggressive approach and called a return to his government's strategy of confidence-building with the west.
"The previous team now feels they were vindicated," said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who is close to many members of the government. "The new team feels they have to justify their actions."
Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say, issued a strong defense of Iran's position on Tuesday.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said.
"Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."
In a speech in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.
"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
When Mr. Ahmadinejad took office, he embraced a decision already made by the top leadership to move toward confrontation with the West about the nuclear program. From the sidelines, Mr. Ahmadinejad's opponents remained largely silent as his political capital grew.
Iran's ability to begin uranium enrichment, and to remove the seals in January at least three nuclear facilities without any immediate consequences, was initially seen as a validation of the get-tough approach.
But one political scientist who speaks regularly with members of the Foreign Ministry said that Iran had hinged much of its strategy on winning Russia's support. The political scientist asked not to be identified so as not to compromise his relationship with people in the government.
The political scientist said some negotiators believed that by being hostile to the West they would be able to entice Moscow into making Tehran its stronghold in the Middle East. "They thought the turn east was the way forward," the person said. "That was a belief and a vision."
The person added, "They thought, 99 percent, Russia would seize the opportunity and back the Iranian leaders."
The route forward remains unclear as Iran tries to regain a sense of momentum.
There is a consensus here that Iran has many cards to play ?- from its influence with the Shiites in Iraq to its closer ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the prospect of using oil as a weapon. But the uncertainty of appearing before the Security Council, and the prospect of sanctions, has led some here to begin to rethink the wisdom of fighting the West head-on, analysts said.
Professor Hadian said he believed that for Iran to fundamentally change course the situation for Iran would have to first grow much worse.
"There are concerns to keep the situation calm," said Mr. Zeidabady, the journalist. "We have received orders not even to have headlines saying the case has been sent to the Security Council. Although the situation is very critical, they want to pretend that everything is normal. They do not want to show the country is coming under pressure and lose their supporters."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.
cicerone imposter wrote:Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?
Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?
Tico
Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?
Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?
What do you suppost would cause Middle East countries, including Iran, to want to develope nuclear weapons? Could it possible be fear following the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Fear of invasion usually will produce defense efforts.
BBB
Re: Tico
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Why are you so sure Iran will? Will you destroy over a million Iranian lives on your guess?
Are you seriously suggesting allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is something we should allow to occur?
What do you suppost would cause Middle East countries, including Iran, to want to develope nuclear weapons? Could it possible be fear following the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Fear of invasion usually will produce defense efforts.
BBB
I don't know, BBB, but understanding their rationale is not high on my list of concerns. I'm sure you see this as much a character flaw of mine as I see it one of yours. Regardless of their reasons for wanting them, understanding those reasons cannot possibly overcome the danger of allowing them to acquire nukes. Don't you agree? You didn't answer the question I posed in the post you responded to:
Do you think a nuclear Iran is acceptable?
While it's theoretically possible Iran could be seeking nuclear weapons purely for defensive purposes, fearing an attack by the US, it's unlikely. Iran is a leading sponsor of international terrorism, and the fact that the leader of that country has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map should give you pause. If Iran were to acquire nukes, that would incent other countries in the region to acquire them, and we might see a regional arms race with Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Re: Tico
[quote="Ticomaya, I don't know, BBB, but understanding their rationale is not high on my list of concerns. I'm sure you see this as much a character flaw of mine as I see it one of yours. Regardless of their reasons for wanting them, understanding those reasons cannot possibly overcome the danger of allowing them to acquire nukes. Don't you agree? You didn't answer the question I posed in the post you responded to: Do you think a nuclear Iran is acceptable?
While it's theoretically possible Iran could be seeking nuclear weapons purely for defensive purposes, fearing an attack by the US, it's unlikely. Iran is a leading sponsor of international terrorism, and the fact that the leader of that country has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map should give you pause. If Iran were to acquire nukes, that would incent other countries in the region to acquire them, and we might see a regional arms race with Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.[/quote]
Bush's invasion of Iraq will destabilize the Middle Eastern countries. It's already started and will get worse. Remember the domino theory re Vietnam? The Middle East dominos are trembling.
BBB
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, You obviously missed Debra's post Censuring the President which included the following statement:
Serious questions remain about certain provisions in the Patriot Act that threaten the privacy of innocent Americans, and about the basis for the claims the administration made in leading us into the Iraq war. In both of those instances, Congress gave its approval to the President's actions, however mistaken that approval may have been.
That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded. No one questions whether the government should wiretap terrorists -- of course we should, and we can under current law. But the President is refusing to follow that law, which includes safeguards to protect innocent Americans, and instead he's making up his own law. It's time that he is held accountable for breaking the law.
Congress may consider a range of other actions, including investigations, an independent counsel, or even impeachment. But at a minimum, and as a first step, Congress should censure a president who has so plainly broken the law.
Bush lied, because of what he said in his speech in 2004:
Before the program was revealed, he also misled Congress and the Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order."American people about the wiretapping that was being done. For example, at a 2004 speech in Buffalo, he said, " And at a 2004 speech in my home state of Wisconsin, he said that "the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."
If you think this is "spin," you have no idea what you are talking about.
I did not miss Debra's post. In regard to the wiretaps, yes, it appears his statement is not exactly and entirely correct. However, I would point out that a few members of Congress were informed of the program, were they not? So as far as misling Congress, your statement is a "lie." Just kidding, lighten up here. Lets take your statement that nobody questions the need to wiretap terrorists. You could have fooled me.
Before and at the outset of this program, officials were saying that FISA was not adequate to cover the necessary means to do what needed to be done now. In other words, technology was advancing faster than the law. The idea of changing FISA or devising a new law was considered, but there was the opinion that this may not be possible given the adversarial state of affairs in Congress, and even if possible, it would be a long drawn out partisan affair and would signal the terrorists exactly as to what we were doing. Therefore the advice and opinion held that the president had inherent powers under the Constitution to do what was necessary to protect the country in time of war. Obviously, not everyone agrees with this, and this will need to be determined now that the program has been revealed.
In regard to Bush's statement, keep in mind here that the program was regarded as secret, so that terrorists would not be privy to what we were doing. If a spy is in the Iran government, and the president is asked if there is, do you expect him to tell everything, yes, lie? I am not justifying it. I am explaining the reason for it. It was not for personal gain.
I do not see the Democrats looking at this situation with any historical context or in a balanced way. It becomes obvious by their words and actions that to "get Bush" is a higher priority here than doing the proper thing to stay ahead of the technology and monitor terrrorists efficiently, and if the law is outmoded, then why aren't they working on updating it in a non-partisan manner? They care more about their own political power than us, the citizens, or the country. If Bush had not instituted this program and something had happened, guess what some would be calling for now? Probably impeachment for not doing enough. A significant portion of the American people have figured all of this out.
The other mistake being made here is that Bush, and Bush alone, came up with some selfish idea to exercise his power over the American people, to sit around and monitor conversations of his political enemies or some such nonsense. Such an image portrayed is utter nonsense, and that is why this issue being used as a political scandal by the Democrats will not gain much traction with the American people.
If the politicians want to do something positive, quit the grousing and infighting, and if FISA is outmoded or inadequate, which looks obvious that it must be, get busy on fixing it pronto with revisions or a new law. Children, quit fighting over the toy and whose toy it is, and fix the toy.
