Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Hmmm. Foxfyre (who was paraphrasing the exchange between McClellan and Ms. AirheadReporter) got the quote wrong by one word...using "victim" instead of "man", and because someone is clueless about using a search engine, she's practically called a liar.

Hmmm. An apology from Mr. Clueless would be so simple. And adult.

There is nothing to apologize for. I did not think nor insinuate that she had lied.

bill wrote

Quote:

I would normally agree that breaches to constitutional rights are paramount, but recognize the need for exceptions to rules on occasion. I don't believe sacrificing a valuable tool against terrorism was justified at this time. Moreover, if constitutional protection was really the motive, I believe it could have been addressed as secretly as the program itself. It certainly didn't have to become the foremost politically motivated talking point for Democrats, either… and I think they'll be punished rather than rewarded in public perception.

Add to what cyclo has just pointed out that "sacrificing" ain't the word you want to use, if anything like accuracy or truthfulness is at issue.

Regardless of what the administration claims, there is simply no reasonable grounds to imagine that what has been said about the program will have any consequence regarding how al qaeda will go about its daily business. If over the last three plus years they've managed to avoid detection by the various electronic surveillance techniques that seems pretty clearly because they are avoiding the communication means targetted. Not a leap of genius needed to avoid cel phones etc.

But it serves precisely the PR goals and political strategies (Repubs as strong on defence, dems as weak on defence...see Karl's speech last week) to suggest that programs were damaged. Of course, it also achieves the goal of invalidating any press or whistleblower who speak out. All very predictable stuff.

The fact of this matter is that dems or the press or responsible government employees HAVE TO speak out where the administration acts illegally or unethically or in ways that threaten constitutional governance. To not do so is to betray the values of America's traditions.

And when the next large terrorist attack occurs in your town, blatham, every American will be pondering what the government didn't do to protect the country.

The major questions everyone was asking after 9/11 were: "Why didn't we know it was coming?" "How did our intelligence fail?"

It's all well and good for you and Cyclops to argue right now that this program is unnecessary and ineffective, but you know as well as I do (if you will take off your partisan blinders) that the government will be criticized if it didn't do this program -- or everything it could possibly do to gather enough intelligence to prevent the attack.

It also seems rather naive for you to hold the belief that you know everything the NSA has learned about al Qaeda through this program. I know you rely on your NYT to leak all the classified information that's fit to print, but I gotta believe there's stuff going on they're not privvy to. I suspect there have been inroads made, nuggets gleaned, and tips collected, that have not been commented upon during the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour. This on top of the attack(s) we know (courtesy of the NYT) have been prevented because of this program you complain about.

So you go right ahead demanding the Administration be hamstrung in its efforts to combat the terrorists that are actively planning on attacking this country.

Hold your head high, firm in the belief that you and you alone are fighting to protect American values and traditions by curtailing the Administration's intelligence gathering methods. You only show yourself weak on defense, and that won't bode well for you folks at the polls.

If the most liberal and tolerant states in Europe such as Holland and Denmark have the most problems with Islamic radicals, then what does that say about the continent as a whole?

Why were not the calculating jihadists singling out a more unapologetic Catholic Poland that has larger contingents in Iraq and is far prouder of its Christian roots?

Don't look, however, for any overt expression of alarm. It is too much to ask of the European Union for now to go on the record supporting the right of Danish free expression

Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of Islam's Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

In point of fact, Europe has no real defenses against a 9/11-like attack. They know it. So do the terrorists.

Crash an airliner into the dome of St. Peter's or knock down the Eiffel Tower tomorrow: Europe has no mechanism to hunt down the perpetrators in the Hindu Kush, the Bekka Valley, or the wilds of Iran

Being tough on immigration makes them non-liberal? Huh. I guess all those others liberal freedoms they have mean nothing.