So, if I were on the phone right now, speaking with Osama bin Laden, would you care? Do you think that the NSA should know about it? Do you think that anyone at all in the government should be informed about it?

Well, the Democrats do not.

In the process of the hearings on Judge Alito, the Democrats revealed that they are opposed to the government being able to listen in on telephone conversations between Americans and known terrorist enemies. Seriously.

The leading Democrats in the US Senate believe that you have a civil right to consort with those who are working to kill American citizens. I guess in their mind, the freedom to assemble includes the freedom to slaughter women and children. And yes, that IS today’s leadership of the Democrat Party.

Said Ogre @ 8:27 am | Permalink   

1. That is horrible.

   Comment by Cao — 1/15/2006 @ 9:05 am

---

2. Wrong again. Democrats DEMAND that Osama be spied on.

   We oppose the idea that Bush ordered spying on innocent Americans INSTEAD of terrorists.

   There have been more than 4,000 Americans spied on under Bush’s anti-Patriot Act wiretaps. But not a single terrorist has been caught through it.

   He’s spied on people at the State Department — people he appointed. And it appears that he spied on at least one Democratic Presidential candidate for 2008.

   Spying on his rivals has taken manpower away from the war on terror.

   Think those illegal warrantless wiretaps helped that class nine Mongolian cluster-f*** in Pakistan this weekend where the US attacked an allied nation (without their knowledge), killing 17 civilians but missing the Number 2 al Qaeda op?

   Maybe if we had more NSA people listening to phone calls involving terrorists — instead of Democratic governors here at home — we would have gotten our intel correct — and gotten our target.

   Comment by Denny Hix — 1/15/2006 @ 9:35 am

---

3. ROFL!!!

   Oh, I get it now! The Democrats want only Osama’s side of my phone conversation listened to! I see!

   Comment by Ogre — 1/15/2006 @ 11:35 am

---

4. No, we want both sides listened to.

   We don’t want the President spying on AMERICANS INSTEAD OF terrorists.

   Get a warrant. He can start a wiretap and request the warrant for up to three days later.

   But Bush IS NOT spying on terrorists with the warrantless wiretaps.

   He’s ordered 4,000 people spied on — not a single terrorist arrested, killed, or stopped.

   Comment by Denny Hix — 1/15/2006 @ 1:43 pm

---

5. Denny? Hello? Did you even read what I posted? Your leadership, the leadership of the Democrat party OPPOSES listening to any American on the phone, even if they’re talking with a known terrorist.

   They claim that the newfound civil right to private phone conversations with terrorists is more important than the security of this country.

   This has nothing to do with what you claim Bush has done — this is what the Democrats stand for — NO listening to Americans who are talking to KNOWN terrorists.

   Comment by Ogre — 1/15/2006 @ 1:52 pm

---

6. BTW - Denhy, we WERE listening to osama’s sat phone, until some “journalist” let it slip that we were, at which point HE QUIT USING IT! Also, WE ARE SPYING ON TERRORISTS, and not “innocent” people. How I know this? IF YOU ARE CALLING A KNOWN TERRORIST, YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT.

   As to the “no arrests”, I really don’t think we are worried about reading obl or his cronies their rights, I would rather see a lifeless body being eaten by carion birds on the 5 o’clock news.

   Comment by The Smoke Eater — 1/15/2006 @ 2:05 pm

---

7. Denny? What if they are an American terrorist?

   Should we spy on them then? Or should our borders be a shield?

   Comment by Kender — 1/15/2006 @ 5:58 pm

---

8. Your leadership, the leadership of the Democrat party OPPOSES listening to any American on the phone, even if they’re talking with a known terrorist.

   Except for one teeny little problem: You’re lying.

   There’s no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. The Fox News article you cited says nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should have read it first.

   Did you think that no one was going to call you out on your lie, Ogre?

   – Meatbrain

   Comment by Tommie Stafford — 1/15/2006 @ 10:34 pm

---

9. Perhaps you were educated in a government school and cannot read. From the linked article:

   “Democrats argue that recent news, such as President Bush authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrant-less wiretaps on some Americans if they are calling known Al Qaeda operatives outside of the country, is a prime example of what they consider a dangerous resurgence of presidential power.”

   Comment by Ogre — 1/16/2006 @ 4:43 pm

---

10. Perhaps you simply don’t want to comprehend that sentence. Or perhaps
    you comprehend it just fine, but decided to lie anyway.

    The key phrase is “warrant-less wiretaps”. The sentence you quoted
    does not say or imply that Democrats oppose legal wiretaps. Nor
    does it say or imply that Democrats “believe that you have a civil
    right to consort with those who are working to kill American citizens.”

    You invented both claims out of whole cloth. You made them up and
    presented them as facts, Ogre. What’s the word for that? Yes — it’s
    called lying.

    The crux of the matter is that we have a President who believes himself
    to be above the law. It’s not the wiretaps themselves that have
    Democrats AND REPUBLICANS alike up in arms, my untruthful friend. It’s
    Bush’s flagrant disregard for the rule of law.

    Oh, and Smoke Eater — drop the crap about Osama’s satellite phone. It’s
    a crock of shit, mostly since Osama
    himself revealed to a CNN correspondent that he used a satellite
    phone the year before he stopped using it.

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Rubin Conklin — 1/17/2006 @ 6:31 pm

---

11. Well, you seem to recognize the word lying, but somehow can’t see it when you’re doing it.

    In my example, it is called drawing logical conclusions. If you oppose X and I do X, then you oppose me. It really is that simple.

    Introducing this whole pile of crap about “legal” wiretaps is just that — a pile of crap. It’s called a straw man by more intelligent people.

    Democrats oppose ANYTHING the president does that will help in the war on terror. In this example, they oppose exactly what they said they oppose — which is exactly what I’m pointing out.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/18/2006 @ 8:02 am

---

12. Well, you seem to recognize the word lying, but somehow can’t see it when you’re doing it.

    We’re dealing with facts here, Ogre, and your fact-free accusations just don’t cut it. Cite the specific statement I’ve made that is
    false. Be prepared to back up your accusation with facts.

    In my example, it is called drawing logical conclusions.

    Actually, this is the first time you’ve mentioned logic in this thread. Let’s look at the facts:

    The Fox News article mentions only warrantless wiretaps in regard to the Democrats’ concerns. You immediately and dishonestly claimed that this means that Democrats oppose all wiretaps.

    There’s no logic here… only your lies.

    Democrats oppose ANYTHING the president does that will help in the war on terror.

    Your claim is demonstrably false. Many Democrats in Congress voted to approve the original Patriot Act. Many voted to extend the act late
    last year.

    In this example, they oppose exactly what they said they oppose…

    Yet you haven’t cited a single Democrat saying anything. Where are your facts, Ogre?

    Are you saying that there have been no warrantless wiretaps? If so, that’s false.

    Are you saying that Democrats oppose all wiretaps? If so, that’s false.

    Are you saying that only Democrats oppose the President’s warrantless wiretaps? If so, that’s false.

    Make an argument that you can support with relevant facts, Ogre. Quote a Democratic leader actually saying that he opposes all wiretaps. Your
    tactic of inventing blatantly false interpretations of news reports is transparently dishonest. When you lie, expect that you’ll be called to account.

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Driscoll Michael — 1/20/2006 @ 9:53 pm

---

13. I’m tired of typing the same comments over and over again, just because you refuse to read or comprehend them. For a reply to your nonsense, just read any of my previous comments (especially #9) or the main post. They all say the same thing, and you refuse to admit the Democrat leadership is doing what they are doing.

    Your nickname, Meatbrain, is quite appropriate.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/21/2006 @ 8:31 am

---

14. His nickname should be ‘no brain’.

    Comment by Cao — 1/21/2006 @ 8:40 am

---

15. For a reply to your nonsense, just read any of my
    previous comments (especially #9) or the main post.

    Okay, let’s look again at comment 9:

    From the linked article:

    “Democrats argue that recent news, such as President Bush authorizing
    the National Security Agency to conduct warrant-less wiretaps on some
    Americans if they are calling known Al Qaeda operatives outside of the
    country, is a prime example of what they consider a dangerous
    resurgence of presidential power.”

    There’s absolutely nothing in there to support your apparent claim:
    that Democrats oppose all wiretaps.

    If you’re trying to make some other point, make it.

    They all say the same thing, and you refuse to admit the
    Democrat leadership is doing what they are doing.

    What exactly is it that you claim the Democrat leadership is
    doing? You seem entirely too reluctant to do anything but wave a quote
    from a Fox News article in the air and make angry noises. That’s not an
    argument, Ogre — it’s merely a temper tantrum.

    Use your big boy voice and make a supportable argument.

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Scott Granger — 1/21/2006 @ 2:19 pm

---

16. To our loyal, mouthy and completely reprehensible legion of “meatbrains” who are dangerously close to having a whole range of IPs banned for trolling, I wish to point something out.

    “Democrats argue that recent news, such as President Bush authorizing
    the National Security Agency to conduct warrant-less wiretaps on some
    Americans if they are calling known Al Qaeda operatives outside of the
    country, is a prime example of what they consider a dangerous
    resurgence of presidential power.”

    The above statement shows;

    A) That Democrats OPPOSE wiretaps to “known Al Qaeda operatives outside of the country”;

    B)According to the Democrats this is “a prime example of what they consider a dangerous resurgence of presidential power”;

    to which the conclusion can only be drawn that if the democrats oppose wiretaps, legal or not, of people communicating with terrorists, they must oppose all wiretaps, because to oppose wiretaps on our known ENEMIES would necessarily and naturally dictate that wiretaps on those that are simply SUSPECTED be our enemies would be absolutely hypocritical….

    upon further examination of that last statement, and suddenly remembering that the democrats SPECIALIZE in HYPOCRITICAL BELIEFS, I can see where you are coming from.

    I get it now. Since democrats are hypocrites, they can oppose wiretaps on known enemies, while supporting wiretaps on suspected enemies…..gotcha….

    Comment by Kender — 1/21/2006 @ 11:26 pm

---

17. Kender, it’s worse than talking to a wall. I think a whole box full of rocks has better reading comprehension than this meatbrain fellow.

    He seems to have missed the original post. Way back up there at the top, I posted what Democrats are opposed to. At no time did I say they were opposed to ALL wiretaps. However, they ARE opposed to wiretapping my fictional conversation with Osama — as was mentioned in the actual post that’s supposedly under discussion here.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/21/2006 @ 11:44 pm

---

18. Ogre, thinking meat, aka meatbrain, doesn’t have the mental faculties for constant debate…..he has enlisted the help of at least 3 others….IPs are up for banning….admin is discussing this subject.

    Comment by Kender — 1/22/2006 @ 12:08 am

---

19. Democrats OPPOSE wiretaps

    You deliberately ignore the fact that the wiretaps in question were
    made without the legally required warrants, Kender. You chose to make a
    dishonest claim. Why?

    if the democrats oppose wiretaps, legal or not, of
    people communicating with terrorists, they must oppose all
    wiretaps

    Opposition to warrantless wiretaps does not imply opposition to legal
    wiretaps. You are again being dishonest, Kender. Why?

    I posted what Democrats are opposed to. At no time did I
    say they were opposed to ALL wiretaps.

    False. Ogre claimed that Democrats “are opposed to the government being
    able to listen in on telephone conversations between Americans and
    known terrorist enemies” — meaning all wiretaps. You choose to lie
    about your own past statements, Ogre. Why?

    However, they ARE opposed to wiretapping my fictional
    conversation with Osama

    False. Democrats AND MANY REPUBLICANS are opposed to the President’s
    decision to violate FISA.

    None of you seem capable of discussing that simple fact. Why?

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Gilbert Werner — 1/22/2006 @ 6:08 am

---

20. Admin has approved

    Comment by Cao — 1/22/2006 @ 9:11 am

---

21. I’m done with the meatbrain cabal. I’m sure if Teddy Kennedy told him that 1+1=1,074.6, he’d be convinced of that “fact,” too.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/22/2006 @ 2:12 pm

---

22. He/they are vicious idiot(s) who are more interested in attacking than discussing.

    Comment by Cao — 1/22/2006 @ 2:29 pm

---

23. I was thinking “Blind Fools,” myself, but it could be either “Intentionally Delusional,” or “Insane Hatred” too.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/22/2006 @ 3:00 pm

---

24. You all have my sympathy. How aggravating it must be, to be confronted with an adversary who insists on discussing the facts. Your peurile fantasies about how other people think and feel avail you naught.

    FACT: The FISA statute dictates that warrants be obtained for wiretaps within 72 hours of the establishment of a wiretap.

    FACT: President Bush has ordered multiple wiretaps without making any attempts to obtain the necessary warrants since 2002, and possibly before that.

    SIMPLE QUESTION: What information do warrantless wiretaps gather that wiretaps established in compliance with FISA cannot?

    Now, everybody make gurgling noises about ‘the Meatbrain cabal’ and ‘Teddy Kennedy’ and ‘Insane Hatred’. Prove to all who read this — again! — that you are utterly incapable of answering a simple, relevant question. You should all be shot.

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Dominick Jenkins — 1/22/2006 @ 4:16 pm

---

25. The utter insanity here is almost beyond belief. Feel free to join the discussion about the topic that I posted. Of course, I’m sure Meatbrain will not be able to without changing the topic of conversation, as usual.

    If you want to discuss other topics, feel free to create your own blog where you can discuss whatever you like. Here in this thread, I will discuss with anyone — who wants to talk about the topic I posted.

    Comment by Ogre — 1/23/2006 @ 6:09 am

---

26. To the meatbrain cabal, let me ask you this;

    What, exactly, worries you about the government monitoring international calls to suspected terrorists?

    Are you afraid they may get some info on you that you don’t want made public? Are you, “dominick”, “Gilbert”, “Scott”, “tommie” or whatever new name you will post under next, shagging little boys down under?

    Or you, “driscoll michael”….are you trying desperately to get a US visa before they find out you have shagged some 4 year old girl in an attempt to rid yourself of the exceptionally virulent strain of HIV they have running around in south africa?

    What about you “rubin”, or the original “meatbrain”….afraid that someone may find out that even in oh-so-permissive amsterdam you have a fondness for burkahs, mullahs and exploding acolytes?

    Or should I finally ask you, Tom, if your skill at using proxy servers to mask your identity and location is a serious need to hide from authorities in Virginia, or simply a way for you to feel like less of an impotent technoweenie with the social skills of a sociopathic retard?

    Which one is it, Tom? Are you hiding? Or are you a violent retard that can’t get along in public?

    Comment by Kender — 1/23/2006 @ 3:23 pm

---

27. Ogre wrote:

    The utter insanity here is almost beyond belief.

    Yes, it is. But the insanity is to maintain that Democrats oppose wiretaps aimed at gathering intelligence against al Qaeda. None of them do, except me, my pal Teddy, his butt-buddy Tom, and Mr. Diane F., and you know this.

    The actual insane part is this: Is the President bound by the law, or can he obey it at will? This, of course, is something that has absolutely nothing to do with anything you were talking about in your post — hence the lies that I made up about what some conveniently unnamed Democrats (and I) allegedly do or do not believe.

    I will discuss with anyone - who wants to talk about the topic I posted.

    Fine. But I really don’t want to do that, so I’ll only pretend to. You state:

    However, [Democrats] ARE opposed to wiretapping my fictional conversation with Osama

    Yes, I am. So what? So are many other Democrats, even if they won’t come out and admit it. You know it, I know it, what of it?

    No names? No facts? No surprise there, because I’m right and you’re wrong. Nanny-nanny-do-do.

    Kender wrote:

    What, exactly, worries you about the government monitoring international calls to suspected terrorists?

    As has already been pointed out: There is no serious opposition to legal wiretaps directed against suspected terrorists, except by me and my Democrat pals. The issue is that President Bush ordered wiretaps against known terrorists, and we just don’t like that.

    I like you, Kender. Since I cannot discuss the facts, I just continue to yell incessantly about nonsense.

    I should beat both of you with a large stick, but I’m not strong enough.

    – Meatbrain

    Comment by Karl Huffman — 1/23/2006 @ 8:48 pm

---

28. No, meatbrain # 3726, I asked YOU a simple question:

    What, exactly, worries you about the government monitoring international calls to suspected terrorists?

    I don’t believe Bush broke the law. International communications are to be monitored, especially whe they originate or terminate with a suspected terrorist.

    The dems are fighting this. What part of that don’t you morons understand?

    Comment by Kender — 1/24/2006 @ 2:20 am

---

29. You know what meathead? After rereading your comments from this thread and others here, I have come to the conclusion that you are simply insane, and with the threats you bandy about ocassionally you would seem to be a danger to yourself and others.

    Please cease and desist or I shall report you to the proper authorities, starting with your hosting company and ending with some government agency.

    Comment by Kender — 1/24/2006 @ 2:46 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website