Friday, May 12, 2006
Wiretap Schmiretap: Part 2
Did you read the New York Sun Editorial today? A colleague told me he heard Rush Limbaugh quoting from it. HERE is a link to it.
Here are some excerpts:
- ...no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.
Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."
MrsSatan: "Deeply, deeply, 'Poseidon Adventure'-depths, disturbed."
Ah, BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE:
Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE:
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.
The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.
You want it both ways, don't you Liberals? Well, we're not going to let you have it both ways.
This is yet another fine example by President Bush and his Rope A Dope strategy. He gives you just enough rope, allowing you to make complete idiots of yourselves, and then historical information shows up that you supported the SAME THING when BubbaCheese was in the White House and that the Left overwhelmingly approved the same blueprint, the same plan, the same methodology!
Oh, wait, there is a difference, a huge one. The LEFT isn't a majority anymore, are they? "Oh, Dat's So Sad."
To quote Otter from "Animal House": "We're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!"
Guess what Libs, I'm guessing come November there will be even fewer of you in Congress. And that's a good ---- no wait, that's a GREAT THING!!
donnab, you are Hillary, posting under an alias, aren't you? I bet you voted for Gore and Kerry, didn't you?
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.