# ARE THE DEMOCRATS READY TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, OR NOT?



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

ARE THE DEMOCRATS READY TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, OR NOT?

"A little drama is also unfolding in Washington over the National Security Agency's wiretap program. Careful attention to this drama clearly shows that Democrats are much more consumed by their hatred of George Bush, and their desire to return to power inside the Beltway, than they are over the threat of future Islamic terrorist attacks on our country.

There is a proposal to take the 29 lawsuits that now exist against the wiretap program and have the FISA court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) decide whether the wiretaps were legal or not. Now this sounds like a reasonable approach, does it not? The lawsuits, filed by Democrats and leftist groups, claim that the wiretaps were illegal. They file 29 different lawsuits. Here comes a proposal to take all 29 fact situations and present them to a duly constituted court, as well as to the Justice Department, to see if they pass muster .... and the Democrats say no.

*Why do Democrats oppose this proposal?* Because they're afraid. *They're afraid that the FISA Court might actually rule that the wiretaps were absolutely legal in the first place, that no law was broken. To the Democrats it is more important to carry on their demonization of George Bush than it is to join with the rest of this country in fighting Islamic fascism and protecting our homeland.*

The return to power in Congress and the White House is Democrat job number one. We're left to wonder where on that list they've place the defense of our country and the safety of our citizens from Islamic terrorist attack.

Yesterday ...after the Democrats succeeded in turning aside Arlen Specter's proposal to submit the 29 lawsuits to the Justice Department and the FISA court, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid, standing alongside Hillary Clinton, actually stood before a press conference and said that it is the Republicans who are playing politics with national security. uke:

The Democrats don't want a court to review the 29 wiretap lawsuits because they're afraid that the courts will side with the president, and its the Republicans who are playing politics with national security. Who's writing this stuff for them, Larry the Cable Guy?

Then the 2008 Democrat presidential candidate makes here appearance ... none other than Hillary Clinton herself!

Hillary is there to present the great Democrat six-point plan for defending America. :withstupid:

Here are the six points.

*Redeploy from Iraq.*

The Democrats needed a fancy word for "withdraw." The American people know that to withdraw from Iraq before we have accomplished our objective is to cut and run. Hence the word "redeploy" instead of "quit and leave."

*Create legal terrorist surveillance and trials. *

They want to create a "legal" terrorist surveillance program uke: , though they don't want the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act court to determine whether or not the program being used currently is, in fact, legal. Make sense to you?  :eyeroll:

*More money for first responders*. 
This is just another way of saying "send more federal taxpayer money to local governments so that they can use that money to hire new people and buy new equipment. *Special emphasis, of course, on local governments where Democrat politicians need a boost.* Remember, please, that some of the first responder money already sent has been used for such purposes as purchasing a trailer so that a local first responder unit could transport their souped-up lawnmower to lawnmower races. :eyeroll:

*Beef up Special Forces.* 
Sorry, the Bush administration is already doing that.

*Increase port, rail and mass transit security.* 
Ditto. Bush administration is already on this task. Perhaps not enough is being done, but it is not being ignored.

*More congressional oversight of intelligence*. 
This simply means politicizing the intelligence function of the Executive branch of government. Read on.

Then, after announcing their wonderful six-point plan, the Democrats actually made the point that their plan was based on more than a year of ... now, get this .... more than a year of consistent national polling data!

Can you believe that?  *Here we have a political party that is actually admitting that it is basing its plan to defend the United States from Islamic fascism on .... polling data*!

Now maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it be a better idea to base your strategy for defending America on a careful and analytical assessment of the nature of the threat, the strength of those who threaten us, and their ability to carry those threats forward? Well, not to the Democrats! *They use polling data as the basis for their strategic defense planning!*

Are they kidding us?  :eyeroll: Is this what the Democrats mean by the sixth plank in their plan for enhancing our national security? Their promise of more congressional oversight of intelligence must mean that they're going to pay closer attention to the polls!"

Oh ... I feel so much safer already.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

_Washington -- By a vote of 96-0, the United States Senate today approved an amendment by Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Byron Dorgan to refocus the nation's mission on bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, chief mastermind of the murderous 9/11 terrorist attacks, by reinstating a now-lapsed intelligence team dedicated to finding bin Laden.

Conrad and Dorgan introduced their amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill after public reports that the Administration had disbanded the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, and had previously shifted Arabic-trained military units off the hunt for the terrorist leader in Afghanistan. In a 23-page White House report on counterterrorism strategy released Tuesday, bin Laden's name appears once, and only as an example of how some terrorists are well educated.

"Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, planned, financed and organized a terrorist operation that killed thousands of Americans. It has now been more than 1,800 days since those attacks, and this man is still on the loose. This man has still not been brought to justice," Senator Conrad said. "The Senate agrees that it is chief among our priorities in the war on terror to bring the mastermind behind Sept. 11 to the justice that a mass murderer deserves."

"Our amendment makes certain that bringing Osama bin Laden to justice will be one of our country's most important priorities, and that he is pursued with real energy and with focus, clarity and a specific set of goals," Dorgan said. "Five years ago, Osama bin Laden directed the attack against America, yet today he remains free and continues to threaten America from his secret location. I applaud the Senate for approving our amendment, and for voting to re-invigorate the effort to apprehend him and bring him to justice, something that, when accomplished, will make all Americans more safe."

The legislation is called the "Bring bin Laden to Justice" amendment. It dedicates $200 million in emergency money to an intelligence task force focused on bin Laden; backers of the amendment increased the resources dedicated to the task force from $20 million after talks with fellow senators, staff and analysts. The amendment would also require a classified report to Congress every 90 days on the activities of the federal government related to bringing bin Laden and other top associates of al-Qaeda to justice.

The Senate is expected to pass the Defense Appropriations bill later today. _

I guess I am not sure if this is a democratic spin or not, but it appears by this report that the current Administration is looking to disband the unit working on getting Bin Laden and it was North Dakota's two Democrats that amended and was voted 96-0 to re-instate money towards capturing Bin Laden.

I think they want to protect the country.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You can criticize Bush for a lot of things but the idea that Bush isn't after Bin laden and his henchmen is not realistic. Hes the first president thats really faced the situation head on since Jimmy Carter and he was forced to by 9-11.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Good post .......But

Are the Republicans ready to protect this country, or not? Republicans seem to think that by YOU giving up your privacy rights "no doubt they will get around to taking more of your rights in the future" that America will be a safer place. meanwile we have wide open boarders that spew over with illegal immagration and that goes relitivaley unchecked. :eyeroll: Also the front line security "airport security" is left to the lowest paid of the job force "and their commitment shows" Sounds like both sides are full of bull :eyeroll: Gee I sure feel safe!
I will get back to you all later with my plan to make America safe its easy, its fun and it will piss off allot of people!!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I am not criticizing bush personally. I just posted the report because it was relavent to the subject. If the vote was 96-0 then obviously Republicans are backing this amendment as well.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

republicans in congress uke:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Bobm: You aren't secretly Gordon Kahl are you?

Seems you dislike our government in all formats. I know he didn't die in the barnfire down south like the FBI says.

Have you got family in Medina, Gackle, Wishek, or Ashley?

I know they still have meetings down there. Those people always peaked my curiousity.

I am not trying to offend you or anything like that. Just curious because you post alot of stuff against what is going on.


----------



## snoduf (Jul 27, 2006)

"No one can read the Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government serverly limited;the words 'no'and'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first 7 articals of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights. --Edmund A. Opitz

"The single biggest mistake we could make is to allow a suppessed populous to own firearms"--Adolph Hitler


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bobm: You aren't secretly Gordon Kahl are you?


never heard of him who is he??

and I criticize anyone I think is doing the wrong thing based on my lifes experience not party affiliation.

The republican congress whom I have supported for many many years has blown it and proven themselves to be politicians first and patriots second, the dems are worse.

I see a congress that political power (or in the case of the dems regaining it) is more important than the security of this country.

Prove me wrong



> I am not trying to offend you or anything like that. Just curious because you post alot of stuff against what is going on.


What is going on is the selling out of america with a combination of political correctness, political gamesmanship, and liberal stupidity.

We have a common enemy that has stated they want to kill us, all of us, and conmgress is not willing to work together to fight it reguardless of party affilitation with few exceptions like liberman ect.

I am a political junkie, but I'm also the father of five kids and I want them safe.

We have a choice, face Islamic jihadism or die, it really is that simple.

This country will have to suffer another attack and if the Iranians have anything to say about it millions of americans will die( their president has publicly stated this as their goal), before the American public wakes up, things are so good hear no one wants to face the facts....except Bush.

Bush ****** me off domestically, but he sees the Islamic Jihadists for what they are.

As a woman how does a ****-ectomy, wearing a burka, and honor killings sound to you. Thats their law..........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

live2hunt said:


> Bobm: You aren't secretly Gordon Kahl are you?
> 
> Seems you dislike our government in all formats. I know he didn't die in the barnfire down south like the FBI says.
> 
> ...


To me this looks like if you can't win an argument you try to discredit. That's an old liberal trick. They do the same thing to the NRA and many people buy into it. Bob is nothing like Gordon Kahl, and I am qualified to tell the difference. I worked with the FBI and the federal Marshals some on that case. I did aerial reconnaissance among other things. 
Debate is great, but the attempt to make that comparison is a shot below the belt. Of course the media, and the television show didn't get the character of Gordon Kahl right either. He thought taxes were illegal and didn't want to pay taxes, but he sure was willing to be the recipient of federal money. Enough said.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

live2hunt said:


> Bobm: You aren't secretly Gordon Kahl are you?
> 
> Seems you dislike our government in all formats. I know he didn't die in the barnfire down south like the FBI says.
> 
> ...


As a matter of fact, I grew up in Medina, my mothers parents came from Ashley, and I still have relatives in all 4 places. I was also a patient and a friend of Doc Martin.

So, what exactly are you trying to say? That anyone from these towns are anti-government tax protestors? :evil:

Oh, and you forgot to mention the town of Heaton, where Gordie was actually from. And if I recall Heaton is about as close to Devils Lake as it is to Medina.
:sniper:

huntin1


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

OK you have my curiosity up, who is this guy and what did he do?

Please go easy on live2hunt remember Jack Nicholsons line in the movie "It doesn't get any better than this" ( I think thats the title) when asked to descibe a woman

"well you take a man, and remove reason and logic" :lol: :lol:

I'm sure she was just poking fun at me, I have broad shoulders and thick skin I can take it :wink: :beer:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Bobm,

Gordon Kahl was an radical extremist who was involved in a shootout with US Marshals in 1983, 2 of the Marshals died. Check this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Kahl

There are others with more information. And you will get lots of conflicting stories. When you read the name Darrell Graf (he worte a book about the incident, most of it slanted) don't believe much of what he says. I grew up with him and he always was an idiot.

I worked 14 hours the day of that shootout, the first 6 hours on a road block, the rest of the time staked out at the hospital in case Gordon tried to see his son Yori.

To this day I still can't say that the Marshals were 100% right, but in my mind that really does not matter much. You just don't resist any arrest by firing weapons at law enforcement.

huntin1


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

As Bobm said, I was mostly just poking fun at him. I didn't mean to offend and if it was read like that, then I appologize.

If you re-read my post I thought I clarified that because I was extremely curious at how Bobm posts. He obviously doesn't way to one side or the other.

Plainsmen: I wasn't argueing with Bobm on this post. He posted something and I thought what I found on the Internet was relevant to the post. In his second post, I felt he was digging on me about bashing bush and I was not. I also said in my last line that it wasn't meant to offend him. I was more curious than anything.

Huntin1: I lived in Napoleon. It was talked about alot and many meetings went on and still do today. I also had the chance to listen to Gordon's wife speak to a group of us (we were in high school) a few years after the event. I have always been intriqued by the story and their lifestyle.

Bobm: I meant no relevance to you as Gordon Kahl. It was more to poke fun a little because you were bashing both D's and R's in the same breathe.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'm a conservative on some things like defense, socially liberal on others ( well maybe not liberal I just don't agree with the way some problems are being handled, like illicit drug use for instance).

I'm a American first and foremost, my hot button is the inability for congress to pull together and show a united front against the Islamic Jihadists that want to kill all of us.

All they want to do try to derail Bush in an effort to make political points, they ought to be shot for that. THe Ds are most of the problem, but some R's are not worth a bucket of cold urine either.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Live2hunt

It appears I have misjudged your intent. Please accept my apologies for that. I am sure it was not your intention, but after old MT I am perhaps over suspicious. I always feel that many times things said in jest, are not meant in jest at all. After all the seed of though has already been planted no matter your intent, and that is how some people operate. Evidently it isn't your MO. 
Although I have never met Bob, I respect him very much as you do. My anger was more in defense of Bob than an attack on you. After reading Bob's post for so long it is abundantly clear that he wants what is best for this nation and although some may not agree with he or I I believe he has a very clear picture of what is happening.
I am no Gordan Kahl myself, but still, like Bob, I am unhappy with most of our politicians. It is like being between a rock and a hard spot to overwork an old cliché. A vote for republicans is a vote for defense of this nation and firearm rights, but it is also a vote for business like outfitters who sell us the wildlife that belongs to us. On the other hand a vote for a democrat is a vote for more environmental responsibility (perhaps more than is real), but it is also a vote for abortion on demand, gay rights, gay marriage, more gun laws against the law abiding, more codling of the real criminals etc. It is like voting for something bad (republicans) or something absolutely terrible (democrats). 
Show me someone who is absolutely happy with everything either party does, and I will show you someone who doesn't know what is going on.

I wonder how much Hillary paid Cindy Sheehan to call her a power monger. I suppose it was meant in context to her support for the war on terror, and we were supposed to believe it ---- when pigs fly.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

This are all speculations. IN fact, this is American people who does not want wiretaping. Democrats will protect our country better, if we elect the right president. Bush is not a great president elected by not great people. This is a historical mistake. Bush and Republicans made our road unnecesarily difficult.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

BS Americans do want wiretapping of calls from terrorist supporting nations which is all they were or ever intended to do in the program.

Common Americans are smart enough to know the difference between wiretapping calls from Islamic countries and Mable talking to Gladis about her groceries.

SO is Seven dogs but as a leftist Bush hater ,he seeks to mislead people about the program and weaken our defense.

That, Live2hunt, is the problem in this country and its going to get alot of americans killed one of these days.

Islamic Jihadists want to kill us, all of us.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Seven puppies,
:eyeroll: Who is the right president in your eyes?????????
We are curious... :huh: :stirpot: oke:


----------

