She only wants to spy on our side

  • Follow Editorials

Let's see if we've got this straight.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to get more inside information on how the Bush administration chose to fire various U.S. attorneys. And her friends on the left want the Marines kicked out of Berkeley.

But she has no interest in spying on terrorists determined to attack the United States?

That's just inane. But it's a hallmark of the Democratic approach, which is to blame America first for everything.

This past week, Pelosi was hell-bent to get inside information from the executive branch, or to punish it for not cooperating on the contrived U.S. attorney "scandal." But she was willing to let lapse the Protect America Act that allows the United States to intercept terrorist communications.

Pelosi's ruse was to claim that she and other House Democrats need more time to protect civil liberties in the law. Well, they've had a year. How much time do they want? And how much danger are they willing to expose Americans to in the process?

Pelosi also disingenuously slanders the president for allegedly believing "he has the inherent authority from the Constitution to do whatever he wishes, not necessarily under the law."

What? Then why is he asking the House to follow the Senate in approving this law, which would set parameters on terrorist spying? She just makes no sense at all.

Is this the kind of homeland security we'd get under an all-Democratic Washington?

Comments (140) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
tomgahunter
0
Points
tomgahunter 02/18/08 - 07:34 am
0
0
Let's hope the Democrats live

Let's hope the Democrats live by the law, what a change. As a conservative I find this to be an issue where the Republican party has lost it's way. Maybe if we hired a bunch of lobbiest & showered them with women, young boys & money they would read the constitutation.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/18/08 - 07:45 am
0
0
NO ACES (Augusta Chronicle

NO ACES (Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff) you DON'T have it straight AND YOU KNOW IT! You purposely bend the truth to fill space with right-wing tabloid editorial DISINFORMATION. You DEFAME Pelosi. President Bush fired 9 U.S. Attorneys FOR POLITICAL REASONS (because they would not bring unprepared cases to court against Democrat candidates right before elections, etc.). That is not JUSTICE. That is abuse of our judicial system AND THE WHITE HOUSE conveniently "LOST" emails relative to the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. It wasn't Richard Armitage alone who let that information slip. It was Karl Rove, VP Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff & perhaps The President himself who were involved in that crime. This has NOTHING to do with "spying" on our enemies. The FISA law & FISA court were created in 1978 to allow for legitimate eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Bush wants to spy on U.S. citizens WITHOUT A WARRANT. He can already do so if he suspects illegal activity BUT he must get a warrant RETROACTIVELY. In addition, Bush wants IMMUNITY for telcoms that he strongarms into providing information WITHOUT A WARRANT. That is not justice. NOW YOU HAVE IT STRAIGHT, ACES.

pofwe
5
Points
pofwe 02/18/08 - 07:49 am
0
0
Have you just now realized

Have you just now realized that Pelosi is the luckiest person in the U.S.? Where else in the world could someone without any common sense, patriotism, understanding of the Constitution, or sense of democracy, be elected as the Speaker of the House?
Her constituants must be proud of her anti-American stance.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 02/18/08 - 08:22 am
0
0
I think the tally of

I think the tally of Americans unlawfully spied on is the same as the number of WMD's found in Iraq-none. The leak wasn't the crime obviously as no has held Armitage responsible and he is not serving time after he announced his guilt. Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and was acquitted of one count of making false statements. No one charge Wilson for lying as he argued that, in the State of the Union Address, Bush misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and thus misleadingly suggested that the Iraqi regime sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons. The Butler Report, the Iraq Intelligence Commission and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at various times concluded that Wilson's claims were incorrect. The Senate report stated that Wilson's report actually bolstered, rather than debunked, intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq that the VP or Pres sent him to Niger when it was his wife. Isn't that funny if Wilson had lied under oath like Libby he would have been in big trouble-he just lied to the public. Still it all smells of typical poltical shannanigans.
Remember Cain you can't or don't shoot guns so you don't shoot straight, hee.hee.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 09:07 am
0
0
Cain is criticizing for

Cain is criticizing for twisting the truth. What a laugh! He routinely posts blogs about how the suge isn't working, while ignoring any that says it does. Intentional deception specialist.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 09:10 am
0
0
Ever thought about proving

Ever thought about proving some of those accusations Cain? What you do is called libel.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 02/18/08 - 09:22 am
0
0
NO Cain you DON'T have it

NO Cain you DON'T have it straight AND YOU KNOW IT! You purposely bend the truth to fill space with left-wing tabloid editorial DISINFORMATION. You DEFAME Bush. Wow a few words changed from his original and it fits. The President of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, with the consent of the United States Senate, and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office. What happened was these U.S. attorneys were dismissed without explanation and replaced with interim appointees, under the then-recent provisions of the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization. No law was broken but Congress was investigating whether the firings were politically motivated-not that they were illegal in itself.

He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named
0
Points
He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named 02/18/08 - 09:38 am
0
0
Cain, I noticed you managed

Cain, I noticed you managed to slip in that old and thoroughly disproved statement about Plame being a covert agent. She could have wore a CIA AGENT shirt to work and nobody would have cared. And you talk about bending the truth....flat out ridiculous.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/18/08 - 09:42 am
0
0
I must point out that the

I must point out that the person posting at 8:07 AM & 8:10 AM is not me but someone using a close approximation of my name. He doesn't post on the subject at hand only against me USING A CLOSE APPROXIMATION OF MY NAME. Now as far as The President and the laws governing his ability to spy on American citizens I cite these blogs which in turn reference mainstream source material. Augusta Chronicle editorials are not sacrosanct. They aren't stating FACT. They are stating OPINION and it's TRUTH-TWISTING OPINION. Bizarro, The President must act LAWFULLY. His office cannot operate on whimsy. He has to have sound reasons to fire U.S. Attorneys who were doing their jobs. This issue is not going away. "How quickly we forget" by mcjoan [Daily Kos front-page story] Sun Feb 17, 2008
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/17/192219/178/946/458732
"Why Isn't FISA Enough?" by scarecrow [Firedoglake] Monday February 18, 2008
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/18/why-isnt-fisa-enough/#more-17846

He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named
0
Points
He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named 02/18/08 - 09:42 am
0
0
Oh and YES IT FREAKING WAS

Oh and YES IT FREAKING WAS RICHARD ARMITAGE ALONE!!! All Karl Rove did was confirm when he was asked about it. You FLAT OUT LIED but then that's just par for your course isn't it?

He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named
0
Points
He_Who_Must_Not_Be_Named 02/18/08 - 09:44 am
0
0
As much as you people hate

As much as you people hate Karl Rove, if there was one SCRAP of evidence that he had done anything wrong he would have been crucified, broken on the rack and impaled.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 02/18/08 - 10:26 am
0
0
The President must act

The President must act lawfully, but sometimes even under the law the presidents actions are questionable. It is true for Bush and was true for Clinton in his term ending pardons for example. I agree it all stinks but apparently it is both Rep and Dem who are playing political games. Wilson's actions, Plame's actions, Fitzgerald's actions, Libby, Armitage, etc. are all culpable in this. Once the source of the link was exposed, which was within a few weeks of his Fitz's appointment he knew it was Armitage, he should have been prosecuting Armitage and all other culpable. He chases the other possible culpable (Cheney, Libby, Bush, etc) with no fruit. He only prosecutes Libby for lying not the leak, although the person responsible for the leak-Armitage goes unprosecuted. The whole enchilada stinks. How much of the tax payers money was wasted on this one?

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 02/18/08 - 10:44 am
0
0
Oh yeah, apparently the U.S.

Oh yeah, apparently the U.S. attorneys may not have been doing there jobs in prosecuting Dem fraud, and evidence of hindering Rep fraud accusations. The Attorney General would be remiss for not firing either if he thought their political affiliation would bias their actions to favor Dem or Rep. I don't know if there is any real evidence to this. I really believe part of the firings were related to testing the waters of the new Patriot Act and new authority given to the Attorney General and not related to direct political party agenda. The President seems to think that short of marshal law during this war on terror that certain compromises need to be made related to civil liberties so we can catch terrorist, and it seems a play to expand the executive branch authority during the war on terror. Some logic to it but also very scary. Power plays amongst the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are not uncommon.

giveitsomethought
3
Points
giveitsomethought 02/18/08 - 10:49 am
0
0
Cut and pasted from 6:45am

Cut and pasted from 6:45am The FISA law & FISA court were created in 1978 to allow for legitimate eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Bush wants to spy on U.S. citizens WITHOUT A WARRANT. He can already do so if he suspects illegal activity BUT he must get a warrant RETROACTIVELY. Now what words do you not understand?

Brad Owens
4749
Points
Brad Owens 02/18/08 - 11:12 am
0
0
What is wrong with getting a

What is wrong with getting a FISA warrant BEFORE you spy on Americans? Just wondering. Oh and by the way, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent can neither be confirmed or denied but that misses the point here. No one should compromise ANY member of our intelligence community for POLITICAL reasons. Its just wrong and puts politics above national defense.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 02/18/08 - 11:17 am
0
0
Brad, The argument is that in

Brad, The argument is that in a pinch the government must act immediately to wiretap suspected terrorist communications. That provision is already allowed for under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) laws. President Bush objects to the requirement that the government must then get a warrant AFTER THE FACT. (The govt has 72 hours to get this warrant AFTER THE FACT and the FISA court NEVER denies the govt a warrant.) Bush wants the authority to spy on whomever he wishes WITHOUT WARRANT OR FISA COURT OVERSIGHT. Bush also wants immunity for telcoms who hand over info to the govt without a warrant. Finally, if Bush really thought United States was in danger from failure to give him everything he wants - he could have signed a continuation of the current law - but he refused to do that. So if anyone is endangering Americans it is President Bush!

RichmondCountyResident1
29
Points
RichmondCountyResident1 02/18/08 - 11:18 am
0
0
Well said, O Cain, the 6:45

Well said, O Cain, the 6:45 post is right on the money.Keep up the good work. A Cain you are loser, trying to confuse and derail this guys messages. Grow up and understand O Cain has a right to his belief.A Cain why don't you get your own username, enough is enough. Spying on Americans, suspending the Geneva Convention rules,holding prisoners seven years before charges are brought, let's get back to the Constitution. Vote Democrat in 2008!!!!

Dr.J
0
Points
Dr.J 02/18/08 - 11:26 am
0
0
It's amazing how little

It's amazing how little people really know about what it takes to keep our country secure. I guess it will take another 911 to convince the democrats that the would has changed. I wish all democrats would look up the meaning of Foreign before making such stupid statements.

mgp
0
Points
mgp 02/18/08 - 11:26 am
0
0
What part of "spying on

What part of "spying on terrorists determined to attack the United States?" is confusing??? I don't understand why anybody would be opposed to that. Don't we want to keep another 9/11 from happening?

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 02/18/08 - 12:01 pm
0
0
What I find perplexing is

What I find perplexing is people objecting to wire taps. The government can tap my phone any time it pleases. They would only hear very dull conversations taking place between my wife, myself and my children. We have nothing to hide so why should I object? We are at risk, big time, of having more terrorist attacks. Is it asking too much to allow our federal agencies to make wire taps without warrants? I think not. Quit all of this partisan hatred and accept the fact that the enemy wants us divided and relishes in out infighting.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 12:07 pm
0
0
I must point out that the

I must point out that the person posting at 8:42 AM is not me but someone using a close approximation of my name. He doesn't post on the subject at hand only against me USING A CLOSE APPROXIMATION OF MY NAME, and whines every time I make fun of his lunitic rantings. He has YET to EVER back up his libel with facts.....and never will.

sjgraci
2
Points
sjgraci 02/18/08 - 12:14 pm
0
0
How Anti-American of you

How Anti-American of you Carelton Duvall. Go live in the former Soviet Union countries you'd feel right at home, especially Russia, where wire tapping of citizens occured(s) regularly. What's worse, is the Bush administration gathered far more information ILLEGALY from its citizens than the Soviet Union. Massive data mining from AT&T and Verizon including domestic calls, emails, and web browser hits of that naughty picture you looked at. That is why he wants immunity, for Corporate America and himself. Big brother is watching all of us. Bush is a criminal. The Augusta Chronicle is a part of the crime and a bunch of liars.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 12:17 pm
0
0
sjgraci....prove it or you

sjgraci....prove it or you are guilty of libel as well!

gagirl40
113
Points
gagirl40 02/18/08 - 12:18 pm
0
0
I can't even read this

I can't even read this right-wing propaganda bull anymore! By the Chronicle and by some of you Bush Koolaide drinkers. It's unbelievable that in this day and age so many people can be so easily brought to the bidding of it's corrupt leaders! Good try Cain, but they're already brainwashed, nothing you say can help them now. Have at it people...I'm done!

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 02/18/08 - 12:20 pm
0
0
sigraci, I am more American

sigraci, I am more American than you will ever be. I served my country during WWII and did so proudly. I am also posting over my real name, something that you do not have the courage to do. Don't suggest to me that I go to Russia. I suggest that would be more appropriate for you and Cain.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 12:22 pm
0
0
Good riddance.

Good riddance.

Bizarro
13
Points
Bizarro 02/18/08 - 12:23 pm
0
0
Carleton's logic makes sense.

Carleton's logic makes sense. What benefit would taps have on innocent citizens-oh were having chicken tonight for supper. If a citizen is commiting a crime don't we want them arrested. Innocent people have nothing to hide nor are any interest, and those who are criminal need to be outed. One could argue that people with criminal intent don't like it because they have something to hide. I'm surprised no one has suggested that the govt should tap Cain's phone to see what subversive or criminal activity he is concerned will be exposed. No one involved in the process has mentioned the govt has an interest in private citizens mundane activities, and there are pleny of whistle blowers in the system to out such an offense. I think FISA was mostly sufficient and some modifications were needed, but I'm not sure of the extent in the Patriot Act. I don't think many are comfortable with it but apparently their concerns for terrorism are greater than their concerns with passing the act on a contigent basis.

KSL
135589
Points
KSL 02/18/08 - 12:28 pm
0
0
Wire taps to prevent

Wire taps to prevent terrorist attacks or possession of FBI files to gather embarrassing information on political opponents in order to pressure them to back off. Which is the worse presidential abuse of power?

Republicant
3
Points
Republicant 02/18/08 - 12:47 pm
0
0
Once you allow the government

Once you allow the government to wiretap citizens because you are not doing anything illegal, who knows what may be construed as illegal at some point? With the Patriot act, the problem lies in it's vague definitions. If you say something that may be construed in an illegal connotation, such as the words "bomb" in conjunction with "president" or "assasinate" would that info be enough to have a computer that is listening for key words send that call to an analyst? If so, according to the patriot act, your home could be searched without a warrant or your knowledge. You could be detained for an unspecified length of time, no contact with attorneys or family, and not even know what you are being charged with. As long as someone accuses you of being involved with foreign terror networks, nothing else is required.

JonR
0
Points
JonR 02/18/08 - 12:49 pm
0
0
Get out the tin foil hats and

Get out the tin foil hats and turn on the X-Files!

Back to Top

Top headlines

Search of alleged dealer's home found drugs, firearms

An Augusta man who alleged sheriff's officers have used illegal steroids, some for years, came to the attention of a Richmond County Sheriff's narcotics officer twice, according to an ...
Search Augusta jobs