Ticomaya wrote:dyslexia wrote:Looks like it's time for another nap Tico.
You're becoming more troll-like every day. Or maybe I'm just noticing it ...
The funny thing Tico and it is funny is a sick sorta way, that you know exactly what this "nap" business is all about but can't quite seem to get a grip around it. Try using a mirror.
Ticomaya wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
This is not a "private thread" any more than the original was. And how many times do we have to have this damn discussion?
As many times as it takes for people to figure out that spamming a thread is not the same thing as persistently posting challenges and uncomfortable accusations. Every time blatham or someone else pushes someone too far from their comfort zone there is a massive outcry about how this is a thread for Bush supporters and everyone else should just stay out.
Bull$hit, FD. We're not talking about leftists who come to this thread and post "challenges." We're talking about the specific posts of blatham, et al., the sole purpose of which is to harrass and annoy Bush supporters.
Which would be totally unlike, say, you or McG or Finn or Gunga or LoneStar.
Now, it has been noted that the targets of blatham's remarks are insulted. Stinging as his comments may be, it seems to me that he has a point. Although it would not be fair to assume that someone's expressions on a public message board constitute a full and complete image of their personal values, the appearance of tacit support for the kinds of things that Coulter espouses can lead others to think a poster lacks a certain moral fiber.
To Freeduck who wrote
Quote:Now, it has been noted that the targets of blatham's remarks are insulted. Stinging as his comments may be, it seems to me that he has a point. Although it would not be fair to assume that someone's expressions on a public message board constitute a full and complete image of their personal values, the appearance of tacit support for the kinds of things that Coulter espouses can lead others to think a poster lacks a certain moral fiber.
You don't think this is judgmental--from you?
Are you willing to have your moral fiber judged by whatever you find funny, entertaining, or accurate? If you laughed at that off color joke shall we assume you approve of ALL off color jokes and are therefore a crude, uneducated, vulgar person?
Are are you going to deny that you think this by virtue that you said 'others' instead of you? But using your own analogy, by virtue of your statement that you think the point is valid, aren't you saying that you approve of somebody being judgmentally sanctimonious, snotty, and mean? Does that make you judgmental, sanctimonious, snotty, and mean?
Or is it possible you aren't seeing this for exactly what it is which is snotty, self righteous, hypocritical meanness? (And that doesn't even touch on the blatant dishonesty that Tico and I et al 'approve torture' and other disingenuous and hateful comments that we could have commented on.)
Your loyalty is very much misplaced on this one.
Your loyalty is very much misplaced on this one.
Your assumption that I have any loyalty (at least to anyone on this board or any political ideology) is flawed to the point of absurdity.
No. I said he had a point, and it looks like that point got lost under all of the insult and injury. That's not the same as defending blatham, which he can do for himself. I don't think I've been unfair to anyone and won't apologize for anything I've said. I choose my words carefully for just that reason.
October 05, 2006
The Definition of Political Opportunism
By Ann Coulter
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office SIX more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democrat Speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scout masters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
Boy Scouts -- As gay as you want to be.
Priests -- No gays!
Democrat politicians -Proud gay Americans.
Republican politicians - Presumed guilty.
White House Press Corps - No gays, unless they hate Bush.
Active Duty U.S. Military - As gay as possible.
Men Who Date Liza Minelli - Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
Quote:Surrender by any other name...
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
How did we go from winning the war in Iraq to losing overnight? Was this decided by the same committee that changed "Peking" to "Beijing"?
These word changes are a fortiori evidence that liberals are part of a conspiracy. On what date did "horrible" and "actress" vanish from the English language to be replaced with "horrific" and "actor"? Who decided that? (Meanwhile, I'm still writing "Puff Daddy" in my nightly dream journal when everybody else has started calling him "Diddy.")
When did "B.C." (before Christ) and "A.D." (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord") get replaced with "BCE" (before the common era) and "CE" (common era)? "Withdrawal" is "redeployment," "liberal" is "progressive," and "traitorous" is "patriotic."
These new linguistic conventions -- like going from "winning" to "losing" in Iraq -- simply spread like an invisible bacterial invasion.
To be sure, last month the Democrats did win a narrow majority in Congress for the first time in more than a decade. And it cannot be denied that for the past 50 years, Democrats have orchestrated humiliating foreign policy defeats for America. So it is understandable that some might interpret their midterm gains as a mandate for another humiliating defeat.
But that's not what the Democrats told Americans when they were running for office. To the contrary, they claimed to be gun-totin' hawks. A shockingly high number of Democratic candidates this year actually fought in wars. And not just the war on poverty, either -- real wars, against men with guns.
It was a specific plan of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel to fake out the voters by recruiting anti-war veterans to run against Republicans. (And when did "chairman" become "chair"?)
To the credit of the voters -- especially the American Legion and VFW -- the Democrats didn't fool enough Americans to even match the average midterm gains for the party out of power.
But the point is: You can't run as a phony patriot and then claim your victory is a mandate for surrender. That would be like awarding yourself undeserved Purple Hearts and then pretending to throw them over the White House wall in protest. No, that's not fair -- nothing could be as contemptible as throwing someone else's medals on the ground in protest.
Is it the report of the "Iraq Surrender Group" that suddenly caused everyone to say we're losing?
The ISG report was about what you'd expect if the ladies from "The View" were asked to come up with a victory plan for Iraq. We need to ask Syria to tell Hamas to stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Duh! "Dear Hamas, Do you like killing Jews, or do you LIKE killing Jews? Check yes or no."
Most of the esteemed members of the ISG were last seen on the "Dead or Alive?" Web site. Vernon Jordan's most recent claim to fame was getting Monica Lewinsky a job at Revlon when she was threatening Bill Clinton with the truth. He's going to figure out an honorable way to get out of Iraq?
We're still trying to figure out a six-part test from some decision Sandra Day O'Connor wrote back in 1984, but now she's going to tell us what to do in Iraq.
Have things changed on the ground in Iraq? Are our troops being routed? Hardly. The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year. If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years.
Admittedly, it would be a little easier to track our progress in Iraq if the Pentagon would tell us how many of them we're killing, but apparently our Pentagon is too spooked by the insurgents posing as civilians to mention the deaths of our enemies.
Moreover, it might seem churlish to mention the number of Islamic lunatics we've killed during the holy month of Ramadan. Half the time we do anything to them, it's "the holy month of Ramadan." It's always Ramadan. When on Earth is Ramadan over?
It's true that no one anticipated that al-Qaida sympathizers would stream into Iraq to fight the Great Satan after Saddam fled to a spider hole, but that's because everyone expected al-Qaida to be fighting us here.
Like "Peking," that's something else we can't say anymore: the amazing absence of another 9/11-style terrorist attack in the past five years. The heart of the insurgency in Iraq is, by definition, composed of Islamic terrorists who hate the Great Satan, own an overnight bag and are willing to travel to kill Americans. But don't worry: The Iraq Surrender Group feels sure they won't come here if we pull out of Iraq.
If absolutely nothing changed in Iraq over the next few years -- if it didn't continue to get better and if the savages never lost heart (I'm assuming they subscribe to "TimesSelect") -- by 2010, 6,000 brave American troops will have died to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on American soil for a decade.
If that's a war Americans think we're "losing," Osama bin Laden was right: We are a paper tiger.
[color=#FF0000][b][u][size=18]Ann Coulter Warning[/size][/u]: [size=13]If you are a leftist who thinks Ann Coulter is "soul less," you think the only purpose in posting her articles -- no matter how germane to the topic at issue -- is to inflame leftists, or you cannot resist the urge to throw things at your monitor when you see words that she has penned, please immediately avert your eyes from your monitor and refrain from reading the remainder of this post. Please resist the natural urge you have to call the poster of this article a "jerk" or any other creative words you might find [i]apropos[/i]. Please exercise your option of scrolling right on by. You have been warned.[/size] [/b] [/color]
Quote:Clinton's new glow job
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them -- although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals. The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security.
Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea.
At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies.
Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea -- keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994.
In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter -- probably collect -- who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later."
Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished.
Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes -- more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years.
Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years.
The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea -- actual allies, unlike France and Germany -- were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies.
If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph."
At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making."
And then on Oct. 17, 2002 -- under a new administration, you'll note -- The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years."
So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?"
But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann, not someone who might know people who read newspapers.
Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect."
Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did.
As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration."
To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV.
When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" -- i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years."
Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages.
Speaking of conservative comediennes, heeeeeerrrrrrreeee's Ann .....
CAUTION: The following article was written by Ann Coulter .....
Quote:Big Foot, Scoop Jackson Democrats and other myths
By Ann Coulter
Thursday, August 10, 2006
I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.
On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!
As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."
That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.
In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.
Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.
The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.
Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."
Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.
Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy -- Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")
To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.
Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.
By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.
Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.
So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!
The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.
Quote:Top-secret interview exposed!
Posted: July 5, 2006
5:55 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 Ann Coulter
It was nice to see the New York Times commemorating Independence Day this week with a tribute to its favorite Revolutionary War hero, Benedict Arnold. Times editor Bill Keller spent the day attending Revolutionary War battle re-enactments, where he passed the Continental Army's secret battle plans to the British.
This week, I plan to reveal my own top-secret information: an interview I did with the New York Post the week my current No. 1 best seller, "Godless," was released. On account of an important breaking story on Angelina Jolie's new tattoo, the Post never found room to run the long interview. I wasted my time answering questions for the Post's Larry Getlen.
Once considered a legitimate daily, the Post has been reduced to tabloid status best known for Page Six's breathless accounts of Paris Hilton's latest ruttings and headlines like "Vampire Teen - H.S. Girl Is Out for Blood." How crappy a newspaper is the Post? Let me put it this way: It's New York's second-crappiest paper.
Maybe the Post's constant harassment of me is an attempt to shake me down for protection money like they did with billionaire businessman Ron Burkle. I have sold a LOT of books - more books, come to think of it, than any writers at the New York Post.
Here's Part 1:
NY POST: Vitriol aside for a moment, how would you define a liberal, politically speaking?
A: Naive, misinformed fanatical Mother Earth-worshipers and fervent America-haters - and those are their good traits.
NY POST: In "Godless," you lump many views you disagree with under the banner of a liberal religion. But many Democrats (as with Republicans) disagree amongst themselves on many of these issues. Do you consider all Americans who vote Democrat to be liberals?
A: Or fools.
NY POST: How many liberals do you think there actually are in this country?
A: Way too many, but that's just a rough estimate. You know, somewhere in the ballpark of "way too many."
NY POST: Your books, like Bill O'Reilly's, generally go to No. 1. But so do Michael Moore's and Al Franken's. What do you think this says about the real nature of what Americans believe, politically and ideologically?
A: Judging by your list, that half of them are patriotic.
NY POST: In the last two presidential elections combined, the number of people who voted for the Democrat and the number who voted for the Republican were pretty close to even. Isn't it safe to say that the country rests somewhere in the middle of conservatism and liberalism?
A: Yes, I think the results of the last "American Idol" vote pretty much proved that.
NY POST: Your characterization of liberals paints them as extremists. But with people like Pat Robertson telling us how God keeps telling him who He's angry at, isn't it fair to say that there are extremists on both sides?
A: Pat Robertson opposes capital punishment, opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton and supports trade with China, just for starters. Seems like a pretty mixed bag to me. So what makes you call him extreme? That he believes he has dialogue with the Lord? Do liberals now call anyone who thinks this an "extremist"?
NY POST: Do you believe there is a political middle? If so, how would you define it?
A: There is no more a "political middle" than there is a family in America with 2.3 children. People with opinions take sides. Contrary to what you've heard, it's actually more important to stand for something than it is for everybody to "just get along."
NY POST: You speak in the book of "Muslims' predilection for violence," accepting it as a given. But many would argue that many Muslims, in this country and others, lead average, everyday lives, and denounce violence. How is painting all Muslims as violent any different than looking at the Crusades, or at any of the Christian extremist groups around today, and saying, "All Christians are murderers"?
A: Quite obviously, referring to "Muslims' predilection for violence" is not the same as saying, "All Christians are murderers." It would be the same if I had said, "All Muslims are murderers." You didn't do too well on the analogies section of the SATs, did you?
NY POST: You say that "without a fundamental understanding of man's place in the world" (by which you mean God), we risk being lured into, among other things, slavery. But weren't the American slaveholders devout Christians?
A: They may have been devout Christians, but they weren't being good Christians by holding slaves. That's the point: Any Christian slaveholder had to violate Christianity to own slaves.
Thus - and obviously - the abolitionist movement was fueled by Christians, much as the anti-abortion movement is today.
I'm sure in the year 2106 some future Ann Coulter will be asked to explain why some Christians had abortions 100 years earlier. Christians sometimes lapse into the church of liberalism by doing bad things, just as liberals sometimes lapse into our church by doing good things.
(To be continued later this summer ...)
I don't understand why some of you can't find her amusing ...
Quote:Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security
By Ann Coulter
Jan 4, 2006
It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.
That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.
