Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Gareth
Geneva conventions only apply to soldiers captured in uniform, fighting for a recognized government, i.e not Al Qaeda typesNSA program only covered suspected terrorists calling from outside the US to a US phone number, so it didn't violate any laws covering domestic wiretaps. The program was reviewed by the DOJ and both Dem and Repub members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate were briefed on the program regularly.
Like the Patriot Act, and the Swift money transfer surveillance program, the NSA program is a very reasonable program that a substantial majority of the US population agrees with.
And Eddie, opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act, the NSA program and the Swift money transfer surveillance program is all the evidence you need to deem someone a card carrying member of the loony left.
Pelosi has been pretty much out of sight for the last few weeks, strange behavior for a potential speaker at election time don't you think? Why would that be? Because she is well to the left of the average American perhaps and the Dems running the election (Rahm Emmanuel in the House) want her out of sight
One of the interesting thing about this election is that a lot of the new Dem candidates that may well be elected are much more conservative than the Dem House leadership, most of the new Dem Reps are more than likely sensible enough to support the 3 programs referred to above, so it could make for an interesting time for Pelosi and her fellow more senior left leaning Dem leaders.
-
Watch out for exit polls. Remember 2004?
-
Danyl & Joe
Why hasn't the US hasn't been attacked since 9/11?
Maybe Osama has been at the beach, or have there been several massive attacks in the US that the Bush administration has covered up to cling desperately to power to keep making money from Halliburton?
-
Danyl Mclauchlan
"What's nuts is that you believe this nonsense"
Danyl, all I can say is that I live in the US, I talk to Americans everyday, I travel around the US, I watch US TV every night, and you don't.
I can tell you without fear of contrdiction that the Dems went nuts over the NSA program because I watched Dems on TV every night for weeks and weeks blowing their stacks about the NSA program, demanding that it be shut down and Bush be impeached and all the usual crap etc.
Here is an excerpt from an article that spells thing sout pretty plainly:
Here's a clue: 90 percent of House Democrats voted against the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program; 80 percent voted against the terrorist interrogation bill. All these counterterror programs are at risk if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets the speaker's gavel next year . . .
-
Russell,
The perspective on Pelosi et al I wrote about is not based on one statement or interview, taken in context or out of context, but a whole series of clearly stated views, answers and policy positions she and the Dems have.Murtha is not being persecuted; his views and his offered solution of redeploying the troops in Iraq to Okinawa is just too stupid to be true. Every Dem ran away from that suggestion and Murtha himself (after being a major league blow hard for months, he has been notably absent from the campaign).
There is no implication about whether or not one endlessly repeats various phrases (that is a Dem talking point). The implication is that you need to use every tool in your tool box to defeat terrorists and the nations that support and enable them. Military, political, diplomacy, economics, intelligence (yes, water boarding), and law enforcement. The fact is that the US hasn't been hit again after 9/11 and that is not an accident.
And when we speak of law enforcement, we need to focus on prevention, not prosecution. Believe it or not, Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's 2IC at Justice and an 9/11 Commission member (major conflict, there is no way she should have been on the 9/11 commission) said that in the mid 1990s, when she toughened the rules further restricting what the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies could share with each other, she did it, and the Clinton Administration signed off on it because "she wanted to make sure that whatever information was gathered could be used for evidence in a trial"
Got that? A trial, in other words, she was focused on after a terrorist act had been committed, not preventing the terrorist act. That is what I menat about this approach not being much use for the next lot of people who have to jump from the next WTC.
When people deride the Dems for their "law enforcement" approach to terrorism, this is what is being referred to.
-
Danyl Mclauchlan
How will the Dems make life is easier for terrorists? Where have you been hiding?
The Dems are against the Patriot Act, and are on record as saying they would do what they can to repeal it. The Patriot Act allows the CIA to talk to the FBI and local law enforcement to tell them that they might be a terrorist cell they need to watch. Isn't the idea of not allowing the intelligence and law enforcement branches of government to talk to each other insane? According to the 9/11 Commission, this was one of the most critical failings that led to the 9/11 not being uncovered. And Nancy wants to get rid of it. Pelosi voted for the Patriot Act the first time around, but she and her collegues almost succeeded in having it not be renewed a short time ago.
The Dems are against the NSA listening in on calls that suspected terrorists make from outside the US to phone numbers in the US. So if an Al Qaeda guy is caught in Pakistan, and his address book or laptop is catured with a bunch of phone numbers, Pelosi does not want to allow the NSA to listen in on any calls made to those numbers. Isn't that just nuts?
The Dems are against "following the money", and want to shut down the program that was set up after 9/11 with everyone's (Dem and Repub) agreement to use the SWIFT system to track terrorists money transfers. How stupid is that?
So, yes absolutely, abandonig those 3 programs would make life easier for terrorists to plan and execute attacks.
-
Craig, you are quite correct, A Dem House will be much more protectionist. Forget a free trade agreement for NZ. They wont care if Doha goes no where.
-
Impeach Bush, on what basis? There have been several full on investigations of the use of intelligence pre Iraq in both the US and the UK and it was found that there was no misuse or manipulation. Bad intelligence yes, but that is the CIA's fault, not the White House
How does it help progress any of the major challenges in the US or the world to day to have an impeachment hearing that won’t result in an impeachment?
All the great "impeach Bush" reasons have been found to have no substance. That Salon list that was referred to in an earlier post was a load of rubbish for the most part. Just one example of so many, all the stuff about Karl Rove leaking Joe Wilson's wife's name was found to be a load of BS. Richard Armitage, Colin Powel's 2nd in charge at the State Dept let that name slip (not that is was illegal anyway, Valerie Plame hadn’t been under cover for years, she had a desk job at Langley). -
Danyl Mclauchlan
What specifically?
-
Over here it is the left that does vote fraud, you wont get that from sites like Salon.com and CNN which are solidly left media outlets. Be very skeptical of the US MSM, there is no doubt which way they lean.
Just one example for you: The FBI has an investigation of a left group called ACORN in Missouri for 35,000 fradulent voter registrations. 35,000!! That is a lot of fraud. Also apparently there are 10,500 dead people registered to vote in Missouri as well, and I would happily bet which way they will "vote".
I will try and find a blog with a consolidated list of dodgy Dem tactics andf post it on this site. It doesn't make pretty reading.