Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. Don't look for this to be widely reported in the main stream media either. It doesn't fit into the "Bush lied and people died" liberal mentality! :w00t: Anything that is revealed linking Saddam and Iraq to terrorism will surely be explained away by the left because it just couldn't be true and it doesn't fit into their anti-Bush, "we shouldn't have attacked Iraq" play book! :whistle:
  2. From what I saw during the playoffs, I believe Celina would have won state in either division in Class AAA this past season. AAA seemed to be down overall in 2005 from the past few years. Not meaning to bash Tatum, but I don't think they were anywhere close to where Gilmer or Atlanta was the past two seasons when they won AAA championships. :whistle:
  3. I regularly watch MSNBC and haven't heard a word about it. FOXNews and MSNBC are my two primary sources of TV news coverage. I also searched the MSNBC wesite and came up with nothing. I think you are either hallucinating or it was such a minor story it wasn't worth much airtime . . . which is exactly the point! :whistle:
  4. More evidence the NY Times is nothing more than a politically motivated and liberally biased source of garbage - KF :whistle: The American Thinker January 12th, 2006 The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990’s. At that time, the Times called the surveillance “a necessity.” “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.” (Steve Kroft, CBS’ 60 Minutes) Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft, “is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.” Echelon was, or is (its existence has been under-reported in the American media), an electronic eavesdropping program conducted by the United States and a few select allies such as the United Kingdom. Tellingly, the existence of the program was confirmed not by the New York Times or the Washington Post or by any other American media outlet – these were the Clinton years, after all, and the American media generally treats Democrat administrations far more gently than Republican administrations – but by an Australian government official in a statement made to an Australian television news show. The Times actually defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following the Australians’ revelations. “Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists….” And the Times article quoted an N.S.A. official in assuring readers “...that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.” Of course, that was on May 27, 1999 and Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was president. Even so, the article did admit that “...many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.” Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize those concerns, one of the sources used in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannock Burn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already concluded in a study cited by the Times story that the program had been abused in both ways. “ECHELON is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission. The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all… What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world,” Poole concluded. The Times article also referenced a European Union report on Echelon. The report was conducted after E.U. members became concerned that their citizens’ rights may have been violated. One of the revelations of that study was that the N.S.A. used partner countries’ intelligence agencies to routinely circumvent legal restrictions against domestic spying. “For example, [author Nicky] Hager has described how New Zealand officials were instructed to remove the names of identifiable UKUSA citizens or companies from their reports, inserting instead words such as ‘a Canadian citizen’ or ‘a US company’. British Comint [Communications intelligence] staff have described following similar procedures in respect of US citizens following the introduction of legislation to limit NSA’s domestic intelligence activities in 1978.” Further, the E.U. report concluded that intelligence agencies did not feel particularly constrained by legal restrictions requiring search warrants. “Comint agencies conduct broad international communications ‘trawling’ activities, and operate under general warrants. Such operations do not require or even suppose that the parties they intercept are criminals.” The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 people in the U.S. suspected of conducting international communications with terrorists. Under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone. “The US National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename ECHELON, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, email and telex message sent anywhere in the world,” Poole summarized in his study on the program. According to an April, 2000 article in PC World magazine, experts who studied Echelon concluded that “Project Echelon’s equipment can process 1 million message inputs every 30 minutes.” In the February, 2000 60 Minutes story, former spy Mike Frost made clear that Echelon monitored practically every conversation – no matter how seemingly innocent – during the Clinton years. “A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a-a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w-was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.” “This is not urban legend you’re talking about. This actually happened?” Kroft asked. “Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.” Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that electronic surveillance had previously been misused by the Clinton Administration for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis-use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation. “The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles that the operation was compromised by politicians—includingmid- and senior-level White House aides—either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.” So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that: -an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen; -intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions; -and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations. These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere. The Times has historically been referred to as “the Grey Lady.” That grey is beginning to look just plain grimy, and many of us can no longer consider her a lady. William Tate is a writer and researcher and former broadcast journalist. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
  5. If this were thugs working on behalf of the George Bush election campaign . . . it would have been front page news on the NY Times and all over the evening news. More evidence of the liberal media bias! :whistle:
  6. Careful there Colmes . . . you're becoming part of the problem! :w00t:
  7. Did you even read MY reply to YOUR posts? My point is you are an "under the table" liberal who ONLY seem to be bothered by conservatives making posts calling out liberal extreamists . . . by calling US the problem for making the posts! :whistle::w00t::whistle: People like YOU are part of the problem because you evidently only want to hear from the other side. To further prove my point, I challenge you to show me you have had the same concern when posts from lefties are made! :w00t:
  8. No . . . "under the table" lefties like you who are afraid to call a spade a spade are the real problem. :w00t: Why is having a different point of view and bring it to everybody's attention a problem? You only seem to care when liberals are being exposed! I have never once seen you have the same concern when the shoe is on the other foot! :whistle: Strange . . . :w00t:
  9. The media is STILL reporting this as if it's a Republican problem! LOL!!!
  10. I didn't realize Thon played for the Rangers. I remember him as an Astro. Richard William "Dickie" Thon (born June 20, 1958 in South Bend, Indiana) is a former shortstop in Major League Baseball. During his 15-year career, Thon spent two seasons with the California Angels (1979-1980), seven seasons with the Houston Astros (1981-1987), one season with the San Diego Padres (1988), three seasons with the Philadelphia Phillies (1989-1991), one season with the Texas Rangers (1992), and finished his career with the Milwaukee Brewers (1993).
  11. Bush critics seek war-powers loopholes to benefit terrorists. Saturday, January 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST Wall Street Journel OpEd WSJ.com The Bush Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps in the war on terrorism continues to generate controversy, and Congress is planning hearings. Some of the loopier elements of the Democratic Party have even suggested the wiretaps are grounds for impeachment. But the more we learn about the practice, the clearer it is that the White House has been right to employ and defend it. The issue is not about circumventing normal civilian Constitutional protections, after all. The debate concerns surveillance for military purposes during wartime. No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love. To the extent the President's critics are motivated by anything other than partisanship, their confusion seems to involve a 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA provides a mechanism by which the executive can conduct warrant-approved surveillance under certain circumstances. But FISA covers only a limited number of intelligence-gathering scenarios. And no Administration--Democrat or Republican--has recognized FISA as a binding limit on executive power. Jimmy Carter's Attorney General, Griffin Bell, emphasized when FISA passed that the law "does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution." And in the 1980 case of United States v. Truong, the Carter Administration successfully argued its authority to have conducted entirely domestic, warrantless wiretaps of a U.S. citizen and a Vietnamese citizen who had been passing intelligence to the North Vietnamese during the 1970s Paris peace talks. In 1994, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick also asserted an "inherent authority" not just to warrantless electronic surveillance but to "warrantless physical searches," too. The close associate of Hillary Rodham Clinton told Congress that much intelligence gathering couldn't be conducted within the limits placed on normal criminal investigations--even if you wanted to for the sake of appearances. For example, she added, "it is usually impossible to describe the object of the search in advance with sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of the criminal law." Some critics have argued that the surveillance now at issue could have been conducted within the confines of FISA. But that doesn't appear to be true. FISA warrants are similar to criminal warrants in that they require a showing of "probable cause"--cause, that is, to believe the subject is an "agent of a foreign power." But if the desired object of surveillance is a phone number found on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's computer, you may not even know the identity of its owner and you can't show probable cause. Nor does the actual track record of FISA argue for the sacredness of judicial oversight of intelligence gathering. In the 1990s, FISA judges nitpicked warrant requests to the extent that Ms. Gorelick and others believed FISA required a complete "wall" of separation between foreign intelligence gathering and U.S. criminal investigators. One consequence was the FBI's failure to request a warrant to search alleged "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui's computer. Only after 9/11 did FISA's appeals panel rule that such a wall had never been necessary, and did the Patriot Act destroy it once and for all. Other critics accept the President's inherent power but say he still should have asked Congress to approve the wiretaps. But some in Congress were informed of the wiretaps and did nothing to stop them. Instead, the ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, wrote a private letter to Vice President Dick Cheney expressing his "lingering concerns" and saying he'd keep it on file for posterity--or more precisely, for posterior-covering. The Senator then released the letter after the story became public as a way to play "gotcha." If Mr. Rockefeller had been serious about his objections in 2003, he should have told Mr. Cheney to cease and desist or that he'd try to pass legislation to stop it. After reading Mr. Rockefeller's letter of self-absolution, we can understand if Mr. Cheney concluded that the wiretapping was too important to the war on terror to risk seeking an explicit legislative endorsement from so feckless a Congress. The way the Members have played politics with the Patriot Act is another reason not to give Congress a chance to micromanage war-fighting decisions. As for the judiciary, one question that Congressional hearings should explore is whether FISA itself is unconstitutional. That is, whether it already grants the courts too much power over the executive branch's conduct of foreign policy by illegitimately imposing the "probable cause" standard. Laurence Silberman, a former deputy attorney general, testified on this point while Congress was debating FISA. He also pointed out that while fear of exposure is a strong disincentive to executive abuse of surveillance power, "since judges are not politically responsible, there is no self-correcting mechanism to remedy their abuses of power" in such matters. In other words, FISA grants the judiciary a policy supremacy that the Constitution doesn't. The upside of the coming Congressional hearings, we guess, is that Americans will get a lesson in the Constitution's separation of powers. We're confident they'll come away believing the Founders were right to the give the President broad war-fighting--including surveillance--powers.
  12. Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office for his laundry list of foreign policyintelligence failures . . . from selling top secret missle technology to the Chinese, to the Los Alamos debacle, to refusing to take Bin Laden when he had the chance . . . the list goes on and on and on. Now we find out about Clinton's hairbrained idea to give Iran bogus nuclear bomb technology that evidently backfired! Clinton has got to be the biggest foreign policy failure as a president of all time! - KF YahooNews Wed Jan 4, 4:26 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, may have handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book which has ruffled the US national security establishment. ADVERTISEMENT "State of War" by James Risen, the New York Times reporter who exposed the Bush administration's controversial domestic spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive. But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said. The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code-named Operation Merlin and "may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA," according to Risen. It called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet nuclear program, to offer Iran the blueprint for a "firing set" -- the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion. According to Risen's book, the agent, posing as a greedy Russian scientist keen to steel secrets, delivered to plans as instructed by the CIA to Iran's mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. He had been told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans -- and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran's nuclear knowledge. But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, he added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws -- for money. The CIA declined to comment in detail on the book's claims on Iran -- but issued a vigorous condemnation of Risen's work and methods. "Readers deserve to know that every chapter of State of War contains serious inaccuracies," said Jennifer Millerwise, CIA Director of Public Affairs. "The author's reliance on anonymous sources begs the reader to trust that these are knowledgeable people. As this book demonstrates, anonymous sources are often unreliable. "It is most alarming that the author discloses information that he believes to be ongoing intelligence operations, including actions as critical as stopping dangerous nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. "Setting aside whether what he wrote is accurate or inaccurate, it demonstrates an unfathomable and sad disregard for US national security and those who take life-threatening risks to ensure it." In the same chapter, Risen also claimed that a CIA officer once mistakenly sent a message to an agent, who turned out to be a turncoat, in Iran exposing the US spy network in the country.
  13. McLane follows through on vow, gets Oswalt a bulldozer By CHRIS DUNCAN, AP Sports Writer December 19, 2005 HOUSTON (AP) -- By the third inning of the Houston Astros' pennant-clinching victory over the St. Louis Cardinals, Roy Oswalt was dreaming about a bulldozer. The right-hander remembered what Astros owner Drayton McLane promised him in the clubhouse before the game -- win and you'll get that all-purpose tractor you've always wanted. Oswalt came through, allowing one run in seven innings in the Game 6 victory that sent Houston to its first World Series two months ago. On Monday, McLane fulfilled his part of the bargain, presenting Oswalt with a shiny, new Caterpillar D6N XL -- with a giant red bow on top of the cab. "That's a pretty good gift for Christmas, for sure," Oswalt said. The Weir, Miss., native beamed as he climbed aboard the corn-colored machine, hauled into the parking lot at Minute Maid Park on a flatbed tractor-trailer. "This is a 'dozer you can do anything with," Oswalt said. McLane said a bulldozer has been on Oswalt's wish list almost from the day he moved up to the majors in 2001. The model he purchased for Oswalt cost about $200,000. "Each year, with our players, I ask them what their goals are," McLane said. "I said, 'Roy, what is one of your goals?' He said, 'To own a bulldozer.' That kind of took me back a little bit. I had never heard that before." Oswalt said the bulldozer -- not his rising baseball stardom -- will make him the envy of everyone in his tiny hometown. He'll use the new toy to repair two man-made lakes and build some roads at the 1,000-acre ranch he owns with his brother. "There are going to be a lot of jealous people around where I live," Oswalt said. "I'm going to try to hire out and make a little money in the offseason." Astros general manager Tim Purpura joked that the team made baseball history by placing the first "bulldozer clause" into a contract. Teams are required to disclose any high-dollar gifts given to players. "We've achieved a great historical milestone," Purpura said with a smile. Other than not offering arbitration to Roger Clemens, the Astros have done little dealing this offseason. The 28-year-old Oswalt, who has one year left on a two-year, $17 million contract he signed last February, said he has not spoken with Clemens, who has not said whether he'll retire. "I don't know anything about it," Oswalt said. "They tell me to pitch and I pitch. That's all I do." Purpura said the Astros were in the running to sign Nomar Garciaparra until the five-time All-Star opted for Los Angeles. Last week, the Astros re-signed catcher Brad Ausmus and infielder Mike Lamb. Closer Brad Lidge and third baseman Morgan Ensberg are eligible for arbitration. Purpura was tightlipped about other deals that might be in the works. "We've been in the process of talking to other clubs," Purpura said. "We're going to try to keep working to improve this club, but we have to do it in a way where we're not going to mortgage our future and hurt ourselves long-term."
  14. Let's try to stay on topic please. I can't wait to see what the Texas legislature comes up with to fund the school systems. Like it or not, consolidation could very well be part of the solution! :w00t:
  15. You're kidding right? Have you had your head buried in the sand for the past few weeks? :w00t::whistle::w00t:
  16. Now Judges Are Leaking Andrew C. McCarthy January 05, 2006, 3:59 p.m. National Review Online FISA judges discuss NSA surveillance with the Washington Post. On Thursday morning, the Washington Post published an article (“Surveillance Court Is Seeking Answers — Judges Were Unaware of Eavesdropping”) that is jaw-dropping in the matter-of-factness with which reports on an outrageous impropriety by at least two FISA court judges. The backdrop is that of the eleven judges who sit on the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, only one, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, was briefed by administration officials about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping program prior to its exposure last month by the New York Times. At least some of the other judges are upset about this. Consequently, the administration has evidently agreed to brief the full court next Monday. The paragraph that will be stunning to litigators and honorable federal judges (who, fortunately, constitute the vast majority of the bench) is the following: Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program. Depending on the answers, the judges said they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained. Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense. This is eye-popping on several different levels. First of all, judges speaking to the press regarding matters that may end up in litigation is always a major impropriety, regardless of what kind of matters are involved. Canon 3 of the federal Code of Judicial Conduct expressly admonishes: “A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control.” This is so elementary to fairness and impartiality — the hallmarks of the judicial function — that it is almost surprising to find a rule about it. But let’s leave that aside for a second. These are the judges of the FISA court. Of the hundreds of federal judges in the United States, there are, as already noted, less than a dozen specially chosen for these weighty responsibilities. They are selected largely because they are thought to be of unquestionable rectitude, particularly when it comes to things like leaking to the press. To find federal FISA court judges leaking to the Washington Post about an upcoming closed meeting with administration officials about the highest classified matters of national security in the middle of a war is simply shocking. Even more mind-blowing, though, is to find them discussing what they see as the merits of the issue. Without having heard any facts or taken any submissions on the governing law — and in the cowardice of anonymity — here they are speculating for the media about what positions they might take depending on how the administration answers their questions. Here they are preliminarily weighing in on the validity of defense claims in cases where FISA evidence was introduced. This is an inexplicable judicial misconduct. If a judge pulled a stunt like this in a run-of-the-mill criminal case, it would be grounds for his removal. To have FISA court judges doing it is astounding. The administration would be well within its rights to decline to provide the briefing the FISA court has asked for — at least until the judges who spoke anonymously to the press come forward and explain themselves (if there can be any explanation for this). A major problem of the whole FISA enterprise is the questionable constitutionality (not to mention the wisdom) of Congress’s delegating judges — who have no particular expertise by virtue of being judges — to exercise what are executive-branch national-security powers. Regardless of what you think of FISA, though, judges who leak anonymously to the press on matters of this nature are unfit to sit on a national-security court. — Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
  17. !. Cool Hand Luke 2. The Sting 3. The Hustler
  18. Openly attempting to undermine our military efforts is flat out treason! There was a time not too long ago that he Murtha would be facing those exact charges! :w00t:
  19. Lou Rawl's version of "Wind Beneth My Wings" is one of my favorite all-time songs! If you haven't heard him sing it, you are really missing something! :thumbsup:
  20. Gen. Pace Criticizes Sen. Murtha Remark Jan 05 5:24 PM US/Eastern By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WASHINGTON A Democratic congressman's remarks about the military are damaging to troop morale and to the Army's efforts to rebound from a recruiting slump, the nation's top general said Thursday. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon news conference to comment on remarks by Rep. John Murtha, D- Pa., a Marine Corps veteran who has become a leading voice in Congress advocating an early withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Pace was asked specifically about an ABC News interview this week in which Murtha, 73, said if he were eligible to join the military today he would not, nor would he expect others to join. "That's damaging to recruiting," Pace said. "It's damaging to morale of the troops who are deployed, and it's damaging to the morale of their families who believe in what they are doing to serve this country." Pace called the news conference to discuss his weeklong trip to Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region. He said he found good troop morale and a "quiet confidence" that U.S. efforts in Iraq were on the right track. He added that Murtha's comments were among the first things he heard about upon returning Tuesday. Military officers usually are reluctant to get drawn into political debates, but Pace said Murtha's remarks about recruiting are relevant to his responsibilities as Joint Chiefs chairman. Pace praised the congressman's record but criticized his remarks. "When a respected leader like Mr. Murtha, who has spent 37 extremely honorable years as a Marine, fought in two wars, has served the country extremely well in the Congress of the United States _ when a respected individual like that says what he said, and 18- and 19-year- olds look to their leadership to determine how they are expected to act, they can get the wrong message," Pace said. Aides at Murtha's Johnstown, Pa., office did not immediately return a call for comment. Pace also predicted that the Saddam Hussein loyalists and other Iraqis who comprise the great bulk of the insurgency will increasingly give up, now that Iraq has approved its own constitution and held elections. Pace said he believes the violence, which flared anew Thursday on one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months, will abate as more Iraqis become convinced that the December elections will produce a representative government that will improve their lives. "As they see their own government providing a way ahead that all of their citizens can understand as progress for their country, ... those who are fighting against the government right now who are Iraqis will more and more lay down their arms and decide to become part of the future of Iraq and not the past," Pace said. In describing the continuing violence, Pace pointedly referred to terrorists and the al-Qaida network, rather than the anti-government Iraqis who are believed to comprise more than 90 percent of the insurgency. "I do believe that over the course of the coming year that violence will subside," he said. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
  21. Hairry Reid is probably toast! :w00t:
  22. When you hear the liberal media report . . . "Americans are saying" :w00t: More times than not, it's NOT what average Americans are saying . . . rather it's the liberal media trying to shape public opinion toward their own slanted view point. :whistle:
  23. You are right, several past presidents have used electronic surveillence without a warrant. The big difference is President Bush is doing it for a legitimate reason . . . to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. The president was not the one that let Americans know about this "top secret" program, it was some disloyaldisgruntled government employee or politician who leaked it to the liberal media to try and make the administration look bad. Whoever it was should be tried for treason! Believe me, there are a lot of clandestine "top secret" programs in place that the average American just can't be informed about for security reasons. When they are "leaked" to the press for political reasons, it only harms all Americans. :whistle: You would think the same liberal media that was outraged at the comparatively insignificant Valerie Plame leak and calling for investigations and firings would be just a wee bit interested in who leaked this "top secret" program . . . but then it just proves how phony their outrage over security has been . . . unless it serves their liberal agenda! :w00t:
  • Create New...