Article

2008-02-24 Home Front: Politix

Are House Democrats serious about national security?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2008-02-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 "Are House Democrats serious about national security?"

No.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-24 00:09|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-02-24 00:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?"

A. YES!!!

Q. Do House Democrats believe that the Federal Government should be allowed to completely ignore the US Constitution just so the nation can have the illusion that it is more secure?

A. NO!

Q. Do House Republicans believe that the Federal Government should be allowed to completely ignore the US Constitution just so the nation can have the illusion that it is more secure?

A. YES!!!!

Posted by liberalredneck01 2008-02-24 00:24|| 2008-02-24 00:24|| Front Page Top

#3 All Democrats are dead serious about national security. They completely committed to undermining it.

Posted by Iblis 2008-02-24 00:32|| 2008-02-24 00:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Congress is our enemy domestic.

Posted by newc">newc 2008-02-24 00:33|| 2008-02-24 00:33|| Front Page Top

#5 "#2 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?"

A. YES!!!"

Care to give us an example? (Preferably without the teenie-bopper multiple exclamation points.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-24 00:34|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-02-24 00:34|| Front Page Top

#6 LiberalRedNeck is just a troll, folks. Your choices are:

1) don't feed him
2) use him as a chew toy

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-02-24 01:09|| 2008-02-24 01:09|| Front Page Top

Click on pic if you don't already recognize it to enjoy the full experience it has to offer! :-)

Posted by gorb 2008-02-24 03:02|| 2008-02-24 03:02|| Front Page Top

#8 Do House Democrats think the Constitution gives liberties to unforeseeable criminals to the point that it is a suicide pact?

YES!!!

Posted by gorb 2008-02-24 03:07|| 2008-02-24 03:07|| Front Page Top

#9 If only such editorials could be expressed in YouTube videos, or clever five-second sound-bites, other folks might get a clue.

Posted by Bobby 2008-02-24 06:35|| 2008-02-24 06:35|| Front Page Top

#10 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?"

A. YES!!!

Hmmm....no. Cooperheads you be. Even they didn't attempt to directly interfere with the conduct of the war. Payback was a mother then. It's going to be again.

You don't interfere with the Commander in Chief in the execution of his sworn Constitution duty by playing politics. Timetables are not the prerogative of Congress. Interrogation of theater commanders in the execution of operations for political shows is not the business of Congress. Issuing proclamations that are in contradiction to law and treaty, let alone counter to actions accepted as executed by Saint Roosevelt, is not support but pure political theater. It is done for party and positioning over national security.

Congress has solely the powers of the purse, the approval of the appointment of commissioned officers, and makes the law as incorporated in Title X USC. Everything else belongs to the Executive for execution. Those were established by our English heritage and enshrined in the Constitution. The founding fathers knew that any military conflict required a single commander, that division of command historically lead to defeat. Which, of course, is what many in the Donk party actively seek, defeat.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-02-24 09:05|| 2008-02-24 09:05|| Front Page Top

#11 I saw on Fox News last night where Lawyers are already lining up to sue companies that complied with Federal requests for information.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2008-02-24 10:04|| 2008-02-24 10:04|| Front Page Top

#12 It's about time the rest of America wakes up to what the docs have been saying for years. Trial lawyers are a cancer.

Posted by doc 2008-02-24 10:50|| 2008-02-24 10:50|| Front Page Top

#13 Liberal RedNeck
It is not just the Protect America Act. There are also the 2700 earmarks in the Defense Budget.

PBS (hardly a conservative mouthpiece) had a show on how earmarks are being used to force the DOD to buy equipment they don't want, equipment they rejected, and equipment that is actually dangerous to use.

The problem is the Dems see the Defense Budget as a gravy train to use as source of cash for contributers. They don't really think someone's life might depend on the equipment actually working.

The show focused on a ship the Navy was forced to spend $20 million for that they had rejected. They never used it an gave it to the U of Washington for $1 (i.e. a 19,999,999 loss). The U decided it was worth $1, and gave to the SF Police dept. where it now patrols SF Harbor.

Meanwhile we can't get .45 caliber pistols or 6.8mm assault rifles for our troops because there isn't enough money.

If they were serious, they would be trying to give our troops stuff they really need, instead of looting their budget.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-02-24 14:04|| 2008-02-24 14:04|| Front Page Top

#14 There are already over 40 lawsuits files --

There's:
Verizon / MCI
This category includes a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of customers against various Verizon and MCI entities, alleging wholesale dragnet surveillance.

Hepting v. AT&T
EFF filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the NSA in its massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications

Here's Rep Smith from Texas on the floor of The House:

Any bill must include two critical provisions. First, Congress has the responsibility to enact long-term legislation that allows intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on foreign targets without a court order. A U.S. Army intelligence officer in Iraq should not have to contact a Federal judge in Washington to conduct surveillance on Iraqi insurgents.

Second, Congress must provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies that responded to government requests for information following the terrorist attacks of September 11. Close to 40 frivolous lawsuits against the telephone companies already have been filed. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of meritless lawsuits.

Terrorists have not placed an expiration date on their plots to destroy the American way of life. Congress should not put an expiration date on our intelligence community's ability to protect our Nation.

Posted by Sherry">Sherry 2008-02-24 15:13|| 2008-02-24 15:13|| Front Page Top

23:52 smn
23:43 OldSpook
23:14 phil_b
23:12 phil_b
22:59 Procopius2k
22:56 Procopius2k
22:50 Secret Master
22:47 phil_b
22:42 trailing wife
22:35 trailing wife
22:33 Crease Poodle1618
22:32 trailing wife
22:23 Crease Poodle1618
22:18 anymouse
21:54 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:53 lotp
21:44 Pappy
21:43 JosephMendiola
21:37 JosephMendiola
21:26 Old Patriot
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:22 mhw
21:20 JosephMendiola
21:19 Frank G