Picking apart the Democrats...
By Todd Anthony
http://rightisright.squarespace.com
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Bush administration tried in VAIN to operate an effective terrorist surveillance program with approval by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. This program was known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
With the Democrats and the Left STILL crying foul over the perceived illegality surrounding the NSA wiretapping program, I thought it would be wise to reference this particular WSJ article, just to dispel the myths that seem to somehow live on in the Leftist world.
Let’s break down the details in a fashion that even the Left, presumably, can understand.
In one of the most shockingly seditious acts in American history, the New York Times in 2005 published a report “describing the TSP. Although it was clear from the beginning that the program targeted al Qaeda--a particular communication was intercepted based on the presence of a suspected al Qaeda operative on at least one end--and not directed at ordinary Americans going about their daily routines, the administration's critics quickly wove the TSP into their favorite overarching anti-Bush narrative.”
Rather than allow the American government to wage a successful war on Islamic terrorism, the NYT exposed this top-secret program, effectively striking a blow the safety of American citizens, while simultaneously securing an important win for Islamic terror.
“Administration officials, including Attorney General Gonzales, repeatedly explained the TSP to Congress and the public, presumably to an extent consistent with continuing national security imperatives. In particular, they said that only communications where at least one party to the conversation was outside of the U.S. were intercepted; purely domestic calls were not in play.”
There’s the ultimate detail that the Left conveniently glosses over: that one party must be outside the United States. Instead, the Left committed a quasi-traitorous act and exposed this vital program, even though top Democrats were aware and, at least tacitly, approved of its existence and viability.
“The administration's most immediate concern since 9/11 has understandably been whether al Qaeda sleeper agents, already inside the U.S., would carry out additional catastrophic strikes. To counter this real and continuing threat, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept a full range of al Qaeda communications, presumably on a global basis.”
Predictable Democrat ideology prohibits the Left from even admitting that 1.) a war against Islamic terror exists; 2.) if applying that twisted logic, it wouldn’t be necessary to even ponder the existence of al Qaeda sleeper cells here in our country.
“Rather than utilizing FISA's cumbersome and restrictive procedures, the administration relied on the president's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime, as presidents have done since Lincoln's day.”
Here’s where the crying from the Democrats gets fetid. Evidently, Congress believes that because it has power to declare, that it is they who truly command the troops. Furthermore, based on ineffectual leadership, as well as calls to retreat, are there any lingering doubts that this sham of an institution does not possess the wherewithal to protect American citizens?
“In addition, the administration correctly relied on Congress's Sept. 18, 2001, authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute authorized the president to employ all the ‘fundamental incident\[s\] of waging war.’ This, by any reasonable standard, would include secretly listening in on the enemy's phone calls, and reading their faxes, emails and text messages.”
Rather than allow the President to use any tool to necessary to protect American lives and strike a blow to al Qaeda, the Democrats, and the entire Left institutional universe, hedged their bets and chose a different horse: Islamic terror. Due to twisted and perverse logic, they opted to placate radical Islam with such face-saving gestures as the New York Times shamefully attempting to expose the NSA wiretapping program in 2005, the incessant senatorial and congressional calls for surrender and retreat, as well as terror-apologist John Edwards triumphantly declaring that the war on terror was nothing more than a “bumper sticker slogan.”
Congressional officials, notably Democrats, deserved a well-placed rebuke. Rather than securing this country, they chose to take the ostrich route by sticking their hands in the sand.
In their estimation, we are not at war with militant Islam, but rather, George Bush.
Misguided? Yes…
Dangerous? Undoubtedly…
Socialize this! 
Personalize this! 
Radicalize this!
http://rightisright.squarespace.com
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Bush administration tried in VAIN to operate an effective terrorist surveillance program with approval by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. This program was known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
With the Democrats and the Left STILL crying foul over the perceived illegality surrounding the NSA wiretapping program, I thought it would be wise to reference this particular WSJ article, just to dispel the myths that seem to somehow live on in the Leftist world.
Let’s break down the details in a fashion that even the Left, presumably, can understand.
In one of the most shockingly seditious acts in American history, the New York Times in 2005 published a report “describing the TSP. Although it was clear from the beginning that the program targeted al Qaeda--a particular communication was intercepted based on the presence of a suspected al Qaeda operative on at least one end--and not directed at ordinary Americans going about their daily routines, the administration's critics quickly wove the TSP into their favorite overarching anti-Bush narrative.”
Rather than allow the American government to wage a successful war on Islamic terrorism, the NYT exposed this top-secret program, effectively striking a blow the safety of American citizens, while simultaneously securing an important win for Islamic terror.
“Administration officials, including Attorney General Gonzales, repeatedly explained the TSP to Congress and the public, presumably to an extent consistent with continuing national security imperatives. In particular, they said that only communications where at least one party to the conversation was outside of the U.S. were intercepted; purely domestic calls were not in play.”
There’s the ultimate detail that the Left conveniently glosses over: that one party must be outside the United States. Instead, the Left committed a quasi-traitorous act and exposed this vital program, even though top Democrats were aware and, at least tacitly, approved of its existence and viability.
“The administration's most immediate concern since 9/11 has understandably been whether al Qaeda sleeper agents, already inside the U.S., would carry out additional catastrophic strikes. To counter this real and continuing threat, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept a full range of al Qaeda communications, presumably on a global basis.”
Predictable Democrat ideology prohibits the Left from even admitting that 1.) a war against Islamic terror exists; 2.) if applying that twisted logic, it wouldn’t be necessary to even ponder the existence of al Qaeda sleeper cells here in our country.
“Rather than utilizing FISA's cumbersome and restrictive procedures, the administration relied on the president's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime, as presidents have done since Lincoln's day.”
Here’s where the crying from the Democrats gets fetid. Evidently, Congress believes that because it has power to declare, that it is they who truly command the troops. Furthermore, based on ineffectual leadership, as well as calls to retreat, are there any lingering doubts that this sham of an institution does not possess the wherewithal to protect American citizens?
“In addition, the administration correctly relied on Congress's Sept. 18, 2001, authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute authorized the president to employ all the ‘fundamental incident\[s\] of waging war.’ This, by any reasonable standard, would include secretly listening in on the enemy's phone calls, and reading their faxes, emails and text messages.”
Rather than allow the President to use any tool to necessary to protect American lives and strike a blow to al Qaeda, the Democrats, and the entire Left institutional universe, hedged their bets and chose a different horse: Islamic terror. Due to twisted and perverse logic, they opted to placate radical Islam with such face-saving gestures as the New York Times shamefully attempting to expose the NSA wiretapping program in 2005, the incessant senatorial and congressional calls for surrender and retreat, as well as terror-apologist John Edwards triumphantly declaring that the war on terror was nothing more than a “bumper sticker slogan.”
Congressional officials, notably Democrats, deserved a well-placed rebuke. Rather than securing this country, they chose to take the ostrich route by sticking their hands in the sand.
In their estimation, we are not at war with militant Islam, but rather, George Bush.
Misguided? Yes…
Dangerous? Undoubtedly…
Socialize this! Personalize this!
Radicalize this!
