Don’t believe the FISA hype — ‘The sky is not falling’

February 17, 2008

As expected, the president devoted his weekly radio address to Congress’ unwillingness to give him all of the surveillance powers he wants. And, as expected, he made his argument by trying to scare the bejeezus out of people.

“Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad.”

We’ve been covering this quite a bit the last several days, but it’s worth noting that even the unabashedly conservative Washington Times is willing to concede that the drive to scare people isn’t grounded in reality.

Many intelligence scholars and analysts outside the government say that today’s expiration of certain temporary domestic wiretapping laws will have little effect on national security, despite warnings to the contrary by the White House and Capitol Hill Republican leaders.

With the Protect America Act expiring this weekend, domestic wiretapping rules will revert to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain a warrant from a special court to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in the United States.

The original FISA law, these experts say, provides the necessary tools for the intelligence community to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

Timothy Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, said the last time Congress overhauled FISA — after the September 11 terrorist attacks — President Bush praised the action, saying the new law “recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist.”

“Those are the rules we’ll be living under after the Protect America Act expires this weekend,” Mr. Lee added. “There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.”

Keep in mind, the Washington Times and the Cato Institute are not exactly partisans out to make the White House look bad — they’re usually partisans out to make the White House look good.

Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution said because existing warrantless surveillance begun under the temporary laws could continue for up to a year, the “sky is not falling at all.”

Not everyone agrees. The issue has been one of the most fiercely contested in Washington in several months, with Democratic leaders and the Bush administration accusing one another of playing political games with national security.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the expiration of the Protect America Act “will harm our ability to conduct surveillance to detect new threats to our security, including the locations, intentions and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad.”

But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, called the White House’s warning “categorically false.”

“In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the president and our intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation, if the Protect America Act — temporary legislation passed last August — expires.”

Brookings’ Wittes added that he was “somewhat bewildered by the apocalyptic rhetoric” of the White House.

I’m going to assume the comment was tongue in cheek. After all, “apocalyptic rhetoric” is what the Bush gang does best.

And yet the word “Lie” does not appear in any of the national press, or come from the lips of the Democratic politicians, or even appears in this posting. “Hype”? It’s “Lies” Steve, lies.

  • Did someone say “apoplectic rhetoric”?

    While giving $700,000,000 to Kenya, Bush said this morning, ” I’ll be blunt. You know America doesn’t want to spend money on people who steal the money from the people. We like dealing with honest people and compassionate people.” The Transparency Int’l Perception Index ranks Kenya 142nd out of 163 countries surveyed in terms of corruption.

    Oh, that was “apocalypic rhetoric”. Never mind.

  • After all, “apocalyptic rhetoric” is what the Bush gang does best.

    It’s also what they do worst. It’s the only thing they do at all.

  • I admit, this whole situation has me perplexed. Maybe it’s a ploy to gain a power that they don’t need, in an effort to make the Democrats “soft on terrizm.” Initially, I would think that it’s too early in the election cycle for this kind of device, but maybe they’re banking on the populace only having a fuzzy memory of the situation. Details just get in the way when you’re 21st century red-baiting.

  • Don’t believe the FISA hype — ‘The sky is not falling’

    No, but the sky satellites are falling.

    The Dems should just bury this bill and never mention it again.

  • @5:

    I admit, this whole situation has me perplexed. Maybe it’s a ploy to gain a power that they don’t need, in an effort to make the Democrats “soft on terrizm.”

    I think the outlines are clear. The Administration, in using the telecoms, did something so far beyond the pale that it will be the end of them and probably lead to jail time. (I don’t know what it is — I’m just deducing the existence of this crime from their reactions.) Right now, it’s all safely buried. But if the lawsuits against the telecoms go forward, that nasty process called “discovery” will occur and it will all be outed.

    So for simple preservation, this criminal administration has to secure immunity for the telecoms. It’s also why it’s unacceptable to “swap in” the government as liable for the damages… it still would leave them vulnerable to discovery.

    If the House stands tall and the lawsuits go further, bank on seeing them try to invoke “state secrets” on everything. And when that fails? Who knows? Maybe closing the civilian courts….

  • With an election coming up in which the Rethugs look like they will get creamed, I thoroughly expect that we are heading for a “we told you so” event. This bunch of war-mongering fachists are not going to give up that easily.

  • How many straw men will it take to rid ourselves of this Bush league republicanism? The ’08 elections can’t come too soon! -Kevo

  • Why does intelligence matter to these guys? They ignored the intel they had prior to 9/11. They manufactured intel for the Iraq war out of whole cloth to lie us into that conflict. They failed to find the people responsible for the anthrax attacks that were even perpetrated on members of Congress. They resort to torture which is known to produce wildly inaccurate information. They failed to use the intel they had to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora. In the past they have leaked what could be confidential information for political gain. And frankly their party seems to benefit politically from the presence of more terror.

    If there is anything to be learned about the Bushies an intelligence is that it is useless in their hands, except as a reason to demonize Democrats. We’re all safer without them having of it.

  • A sure sign that the kool-aid is beginning to wear off—

    “Oh, dear. Whatever shall I do? It’s been 12 hours and 24 minutes since this joke-of-a-law expired, and I haven’t been attacked by those mean, scary islamo-fascist people yet. Without my daily dose of fearmongery, I might actually begin to realize that the real terrorists are the mean, scary Bu$ho-fascist people….”

    And America takes yet another tentative step back from the edge of the abyss, and toward rejoining the global community. Huzzah!

  • If the nation is at such great risk from the expiration of these surveillance powers why didn’t Bush save us all by agreeing with the Democrats to a 21 day extension thus allowing my family three more weeks of good sleep before the terrorists kill us in our sleep.

  • Bush is keeping us safe during these perilous hours since the Protect Our Asses Act expired. But he’s weakening, my friends, without those extra powers he…can’t…hold off…the terrorists…

  • While the Bush administration is worried for their corporate friends at the telecoms, the real push for immunity is the portion of the bill that grants immunity to government employees who requested the illegal wiretaps. A court of law has already found the Bush administration guilty. This has zero to do with terrorism and everything to do with protecting themselves…which makes it even more appalling that a single Democrat would go along with it.

    Telecom immunity is the diversion heaped on top of the terrorism diversion. Protect America is all about protecting the administration.

  • @13 I pray that Laura is not making any “demands” on him. She too, like the rest of vthe country, must sacrifice in this time of peril for our great country.

  • I wonder if BushCo is starting to wish it hadn’t played with the Rainbow of Terror quite so much. Perhaps Chertoff should have eaten a sandwich when his gut began to twinge. After six years of non-stop broadcast from WTRR radio, people are just plain bored.

    While I agree with the CYA analysis of this latest tantrum, I think there’s a deeper problem for the BushBots. If people ignore the Chimperor and nothing happens, it will make it that much easier for them to ignore the rest of his gibberings. “Hey, he said we’d be blown up and we weren’t. Now he’s saying we have to give him another zillion dollars or the troops will all die. Hmmm…”

    Plus that stupid little shit is so used to getting his way his handlers are afraid he’ll go on a rampage if he’s thwarted.

    Popcorn?

  • Am I missing something here? What if congress agrees and offers immunity to the telecoms. (I don’t like the type of lawyers who salivate at making a few 100 million suing)

    Wouldn’t that also mean that immunity ONLY counts as long as they don’t lie about what they’ve been doing? Isn’t that how it is in criminal law? You get immunity provided you tell the truth and nothing but the truth… all bets off when lying.

    Why not give them immunity provided they cooperate with the congressional hearings and come clean about what exactly the Bush cabal has been asking them to do?

    That may sound simplistic, but certainly another nail in the Bush coffin, when they start claiming executive privilege and state secrets BS.

  • Could the telecoms be afraid of being sued for little “glitches” like this one?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/washington/17fisa.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203282604-dZ2NqFK0hBdWsZTR4Dh1Zg

    Do I believe it was *really* a glitch? Not sure; maybe. Do I believe that they destroyed all that bonus treasure trove without first vetting it for possibly useful info? Like hell I do. And do I believe that it’s potential “usefulness” had anything to do with keeping us safe? Nope, but it might have been useful in keeping some people muzzled.

    Kristol, of Weakly Substandard went on TV today (according to Think Progress; I don’t watch TV) demanding that the Congress should give the pResident the benefit of the doubt; if Our Dear Leader says he needs the immunity, he must have a very good reason. Sorry, Mr K; after 7+ years of constant lies, I’m past having any doubts about the Liar-in-Chief.

  • Martin @ 1: Amen, brother! I am sick to death of the abandonment of the words “lie” and “lying” from the lexicon of our scribbling class. Instead we hear everything but: spin, mislead, hype, etc ad nauseum. Bush is clearly and deliberately lying here, and should be called on the carpet by every responsible journalist until he’s shamed into shutting his lying pie-hole. Instead we have to wait for the friggin’ Washington Times to point it out? WTF!? I don’t spend my time in front of the TV, I just can’t take it, but to my knowledge Olbermann is about the only guy on TV who’ll use the word and use it when it needs to be used, and look at his ratings. People appreciate calling a spade a spade (or a lie a lie). So many politicians would be forced to clean up their act if the word lie wasn’t such an orphan in public discourse.

    You’ll virtually never hear it uttered on the floor of Congress, either, for it would upset the camaraderie of the august chambers. Thus our leaders (shudder) stand up and spout lie after lie (yes, plenty of Dems are egregious offenders, this is not a one-sided thing) in the halls of Congress and sit down knowing that their following “esteemed colleagues” won’t call them out. If what they’ve just said was a pack of lies, they can rely on being perhaps disagreed with but almost never called on the carpet as a liar. Thus the Congressional version of “teaching the controversy,” where a flat-out lie is given equal stature with the truth. Alas, the MSM has caught the disease bigtime.

    It makes me want to run for Congress. They need one good lie-detector willing to stand up and call them out, time after time, until they learn the meaning of the word “lie” and avoid being branded with it like the plague. Yeah, in my dreams. The internet is certainly helping further the day, though. CB, be part of the revolution: Don’t shrink from calling a lie a lie. You don’t have to be politically correct to liars. Let honesty prevail, brutally if necessary.

  • Thanks for the link. I take exception to the idea that we’re “usually partisans out to make the White House look good.” Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with our work would realize this isn’t true. Our scholars have criticized the president repeatedly on the war, No Child Left Behind, energy policy, agriculture policy, spending, health care, warrantless surveillance, executive power, free speech, drug policy, and a ton of other issues. I would hope you’d learn a bit more about our work before casting aspersions.

  • Bruno said, (I don’t like the type of lawyers who salivate at making a few 100 million suing)

    The lawsuits that have been advanced, and will be blocked if Bush prevails, were filed by the ACLU and EFF. I’m not sure the individual lawyers will stand to make a $100mil, but in this case, I’d be fine if they did.

    from: http://www.eff.org/about

    EFF is a donor-funded nonprofit and depends on your support to continue successfully defending your digital rights.

    from: http://www.aclu.org/about/

    The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters.

  • As I mentioned the other day, lies of omission are still lies. What Hoyer and the guys from CATO and Brookings fail to mention is the following from a FISA court ruling last year:

    The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

    That was the reason for the Protect America Act in the first place.

    The only liars are the leftists who say the only enemies are their own countrymen.

  • Except, Steve, that there has never been an issue with adding a proviso to handle the case you raise — with proper oversight. It could have been done long ago, if the GOP and some misguided Democrats weren’t trying to add telecom immunity to the bill.

    The PCA, as anyone can discover with minimal effort, went much farther.

    Find a “leftist” who says that the only enemies are his own countrymen. For each one you do, I’ll produce two from the right who pronounce “liberals in this country” as the enemy.

    You appear to be suffering from projection today.

  • Except, Steve, that there has never been an issue with adding a proviso to handle the case you raise — with proper oversight. It could have been done long ago, if the GOP and some misguided Democrats weren’t trying to add telecom immunity to the bill. Bull. Did you actually read last year’s PAA? It’s here. First off, neither you or I actually know the details of the case because it is still sealed. Therefore, there’s no way to know if a “proviso” is needed. Which is why there was a scramble to update FISA, and that is where the PAA fit in. The Democrat leadership only allowed it to go through provided there was a 180-day limit on the bill, which was extended 15 days, and which has now expired.

    I’m sorry you don’t like telecom immunity, but the majority of Congress actually wanted it to pass. The Senate received the House bill, voted to put in telecom immunity (by a more than 2-1 margin), and passed it on the House to vote on. And Pelosi ignored it.

    Find a “leftist” who says that the only enemies are his own countrymen. Any leftist, including those in Congress, who are doing everything they can to drag this war on longer than it needs to. That would include Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Obama, Glenn Greenwald, Mr. Benen, Kucinich, the Democratic media, and so on, and so on, and so on. Even with conservatives who believe that the many leftists are the enemies of America, they at least know who is the enemy that needs to be killed. That’s the terrorists. We actually want to win. You all don’t.

  • Steve,

    You talk out of both sides of your face when you claim, as the reason for amending FISA, the court case you refer to, and then that we don’t know if it means that FISA needs to be amended. The article you referenced was very clear that, at the time, the case referred to was the reason the administration gave for the “emergency”. Now you claim it’s not clear?

    I’m opposed to our government breaking the law, and I’m violently opposed to allowing the government to play calvinball with the law. What’s your point?

    I see you couldn’t come up with an example of a leftist with the beliefs you claimed. Imagine my surprise.

    How have the “leftists” “prolonged the war”? Please be specific, because from where I sit, this is delusional. Are you from Bizarro world, perhaps?

  • Charles, here’s what you first said, “Except, Steve, that there has never been an issue with adding a proviso to handle the case you raise — with proper oversight. It could have been done long ago, if the GOP and some misguided Democrats weren’t trying to add telecom immunity to the bill.” Then you followed up with, “The PCA, as anyone can discover with minimal effort, went much farther.” I’m still unclear what you are talking about. The PAA that was passed last year and expired over the weekend had oversight. You make it sound like additional oversight was needed. Then you added in something called the PCA. I know about the PAA (which I linked to earlier), I know about the RESTORE Act of 2007, and I know about the “FISA Amendments Act of 2008” that the Senate passed last week. I don’t know what the PCA is or what it does. Now, I’m not at all sure what you mean by more oversight, and that is what you seemed to think the article indicated the case meant. That’s not what I got out of it.

    FISA was never meant to hamstring surveillance of a purely foreign nature (meaning non-U.S. persons are not covered by the 4th Amendment; we can monitor them all we want), but to keep surveillance of U.S. persons from being abused by the federal government who say they would be doing so in the name of foreign surveillance. Now the technology is such that a vast number of communications (internet, cell phone, email) go through hubs that are based in the U.S., even if the start of the communication is a non-U.S. person and the recipient of the communication is also a non-U.S. person. That is what I understand the ruling was about, based on the WaPo article I linked to earlier. Period. You’re adding in things like “oversight” and “PCA” has you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Now, as far as Republicans and misguided Democrats, that is a majority of Congress. You “liberals” keep saying how Bush and Republicans are defying the “will of the people” when they veto or block bills, blah, blah, blah (I used the same arguement in 2005 and 2006 when Republicans had control; that argument doesn’t wash). Well, now we have a truly bipartisan bill, one that represents the “will of the people”, not being voted on by a hypocritical idealogue who is more interested in playing politics than in protecting the U.S.; that is, Nancy Pelosi.

    With that, I take exception with this statement, “I’m opposed to our government breaking the law, and I’m violently opposed to allowing the government to play calvinball with the law. What’s your point?” Which law? See, I’m more opposed to politicians who ignore their own oaths of office to protect this country and the Constitution in a time of war, a war they voted for. That is what Nancy Pelosi has done, and to do so for partisan political gain and campaign money. She’s supposed to write the laws; and when the law needs to be fixed, she has to fix it. She refuses to do so. She refuses to vote on a bipartisan bill that represents the “will of the people”. So I ask, whose the hypocrite? And by the way, if you can’t name the law the government broke, and refuse to abide by the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty, then you have more problems than I previously thought. I don’t do that, not even with Nancy Pelosi, or any of those others I named earlier.

    Yes, Glenn Greenwald hates America. Oh, maybe not the America he wishes it were, where everything he says is taken as infallible; no, he hates the America that is defined by the current U.S. Constitution. And that would be true of those others I named.

  • Steve,

    1. Sorry if I confused you. I keep typing PCA when I mean PAA. It should have been clear that I was talking about the act in question.
    2. “Had oversight” — Oh, yes, in the PAA the “oversight” was by the AG, who, by an aamazing coincidence, could also certify any target! Then he could look at what he had authorized and say “yup.” This is “oversight” only in a joke.
    3. What is all this blather about majorities and “will of the people?” We have no way of determining the will of the people. Our government works the way it works –sometimes a determined minority can sway the end result. Live with it.
    4. FISA prohibits warrantless wiretapping. The Bush administration broke this law, as is all but proven. As well as many other laws. Since they have admitted, now, to waterboarding prisoners, a crime for which people under American jurisdiction have been sent to prison and executed, this is not even a matter for question.
    5. Your assertion about Glenn Greenwald, in particular, is unwarranted, slimy, and contemptible. Since Glenn’s upholding of civil liberty is in the finest American traditions, while your assertion would have fit into the McCarthy pogroms, I would argue that he is a patriot, while you are a sniveling authoritarian follower.

  • 2. “Had oversight” — Oh, yes, in the PAA the “oversight” was by the AG, who, by an aamazing coincidence, could also certify any target! Then he could look at what he had authorized and say “yup.” This is “oversight” only in a joke. There’s more to it than that, but I’m not going to quibble.

    3. What is all this blather about majorities and “will of the people?” We have no way of determining the will of the people. Our government works the way it works –sometimes a determined minority can sway the end result. Live with it. I have. You need to.

    4. FISA prohibits warrantless wiretapping. The Bush administration broke this law, as is all but proven. As well as many other laws. Since they have admitted, now, to waterboarding prisoners, a crime for which people under American jurisdiction have been sent to prison and executed, this is not even a matter for question. I see you need to brush up on case law. When the story broke about all of this a little more than two years ago, you may have had a case. But a bunch of suits came forward, most notably ACLU v. NSA. In case you forgot it, let me enlighten you. A panel of the 6th Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs due to lack of standing; the government invoked the state secrets privilege, the court agreed, and the plaintiffs couldn’t prove they themselves were being monitored, especially since they couldn’t show any harm done to them. As a result, all of those other cases sit DOA. So to continue to say that “the Bush administration broke this law” is ignoring what is going on, that is unless you can actually find which law was broken. As far as waterboarding, that isn’t relevant to this discussion.

    5. Your assertion about Glenn Greenwald, in particular, is unwarranted, slimy, and contemptible. Since Glenn’s upholding of civil liberty is in the finest American traditions, while your assertion would have fit into the McCarthy pogroms, I would argue that he is a patriot, while you are a sniveling authoritarian follower. It is Greenwald who is engaging in these “McCarthyite” tactics, not me. And if he’s such a great lawyer, how come he never mentions ACLU v. NSA? Maybe because it doesn’t fit in with the political agenda he spews? Puh-lease.

    The argument is political, not legal.

  • Steve,

    What is wrong with the brains of people who insist that, because the Bush administration has invoked the state security privilege or a court has refused to take a case on technical grounds, “no law has been broken”? This is a ridiculous argument that people hide behind when they cannot defend the actions of the Bush administration. If you want to claim that they haven’t been found guilty, I’ll agree. But the fact that they’ve broken laws is separate from being prosecuted or found guilty, and is no longer arguable — and I notice youu don’t argue that.

    I’m not slavering after their hides. I only want a return to the rule of law. I do worry that letting them off the hook may embolden a future administration, but I will settle for just getting rid of the administration.

    McCarthy and authoritarian followers like you appeal to patriotism and the fear of [insert the bogeyman of the hour here] to further the authoritarian agenda, which appears aimed at destroying the Bill of Rights. I’m profoundly grateful for Greenwald and those who stand up for our rights.

  • What is wrong with the brains of people who insist that, because the Bush administration has invoked the state security privilege or a court has refused to take a case on technical grounds, “no law has been broken”? This is a ridiculous argument that people hide behind when they cannot defend the actions of the Bush administration. And I’m sick of people who don’t seriously realize that there’s a damn war on. I’m sorry the enemy doesn’t have the military might of Nazi Germany (although their phony and violent usurpation of Islam is just as evil), to more justify a war. Unless you believe the U.S. should have slaughtered every living thing in Afghanistan instead of doing the best it can in going after the enemy.

    But the fact that they’ve broken laws is separate from being prosecuted or found guilty, and is no longer arguable — and I notice youu don’t argue that. I don’t argue that because I don’t believe any laws were broken.

    I’m not slavering after their hides. I only want a return to the rule of law Don’t you get it? There’s a war on; the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as stated in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution; the 4th Amendment guarantees rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and what has been going on regarding the NSA hasn’t been unreasonable due to the fact that there is a war on; no statute can trump the Constitution. This is the rule of law in the United States. I’m not sure what the hell kind of rule of law you’re talking about, but it doesn’t sound like the one practiced in the United States.

    And I’m doing arguing about Greenwald.

  • One other thing about ACLU v. NSA. Regardless of the state secrets privilege, the plaintiffs couldn’t show that anything adverse happened to them. They were never targets of the government, the government didn’t stop them from doing their jobs, the government betrayed no secrets between plaintiffs and their contacts, none of that. If they were monitored, and there’s no way for anybody to know, it was because they were talking to Al Qaeda, the people the U.S. is at war with according to the government. Cry me a river if they couldn’t contact the enemy.

  • Steve,

    “But we’re at war!” — the last refuge of the authoritarian follower. “Article II!” I don’t believe Yoo, why should I believe you?

    “But nobody can prove they were deprived of civil liberty!” — and so, with the active support of the right, the Bush administration has staged a sneak attack on the bill of rights. The Constitution can’t protect itself. As Bush has said, “it’s only a piece of paper.”

    Carry on, Steve, people who agree with you will help make his statement come true.

  • “But we’re at war!” — the last refuge of the authoritarian follower. I see. So when the U.S. is at war, the government becomes authoritarian, and you have a problem with it. Poor thing. Were you around during WWII? Let me add: all but eleven of all the members of the House or Representatives voted against or were reported “not voting” for the 2001 AUMF, and the Senate approved it unanimously. Did your Congressperson vote for it (obviously both your Senators did)? And, if so, did you vote any of them out of office for their vote? If you didn’t vote against any of those three people, then you’re a hypocrite. (My Congressperson did vote for it, as did both my Senators at the time, Durbin and Fitzgerald, the latter having since retired.)

    Don’t tell me. You’re one of those who believe fighting terrorists should be done as an expanded police action, with warrants, handcuffs, papers that say “rule of law”, agreements with other countries, and all that, and not with the military, right? To show how “good” a people we are, the Constitutional rights that are for the people of the United States need to be extended to those who have never been in any way a U.S. person and whose only thought is to kill us. Great.

    Don’t you think your namby-pamby approach to fighting terrorism, as was done for roughly 30 years, can be thought of as a failure, especially considering the UN has proven itself to be an organization of terrorist enablers, and that maybe it’s actually the right thing to do to have the military go out and kill the terrorists, which includes using the terrorist surveillance program?

  • Clarification: Let me add: all but eleven of all the members of the House or Representatives voted against or were reported “not voting” for the 2001 AUMF,… It should have read, “Let me add: all but eleven of all the members (1 voted against, 10 were reported as “not voting”) of the House or Representatives voted for the 2001 AUMF,…”

  • Steve,

    1. Not that it’s any of your business, but I did not vote to re-elect anyone who voted for the AUMF. I wasn’t born in WWII, but I was for Vietnam. Save your “we’re at war” crap for somebody like yourself who thinks a low-level conflict like Iraq is “war.”

    2. Since terrorism has been with us in spite of all the wars won or lost — and the methods you advocate were tried in Algeria, with terrible consequences — it would seem that pinning the hope of eliminating terrorism through war or a police state is a fool’s errand. The rest of your rants have nothing to do with anything I said.

    You’re really angry, aren’t you?

    • Comments are closed.