Dems Hurting our Security....again

[acronym]

Quote from hapaboy:

You astound me, acronym.

Every time I think you have some sense you come out with ridiculous prattle like this stinking pile of dung.

Yeah, you left something out, primarily that handcuffing our military on the ground by having lawyers pour over the legality of something such as, oh, going searching for one's colleagues who have been kidnapped, for example...like what happened recently. Or didn't you bother to read that far?

I know you hate Bush and all that, but for chrissakes, would you be singing a different tune if it were Aussie troops we were talking about?

I see.
So, how long did it take to get action on vietnam pows, many of whom never officially existed? I didnt know that was lawyers fault! Oh, its the dems, my bad.
Do the israelis have all of the hostage soldiers back yet? My guess is lawyers werent a big factor there. They dont fuck around.

Maybe i missed something, but there are some large contradictions in the article.

The protect america act, was passed when? This is a new bill, or has it been in force for while?

The article is confusing, because it states, because this wasnt passed just now, it would be necessary to REVERT to pre 9/11 policy.

That suggests it was in force, so why didnt it help captured troops LAST MAY???
And as far as lawyers go, well most elected representatives are trained lawyers. I rest my case........

 

[Covertibility]

Quote from hapaboy:

How does that help our troops in the field when their buddies are kidnapped and they have to wait for hours for lawyers to hammer out FISA requests, etc.???

Your quoting a story from the NY Post? You believe everything thats written in that paper? And like the above poster says, if the troops were kidnapped while this Act was on the books, there shouldn't have been this alleged delay of intelligence gathering while lawyers were working on the details. It appears this article, like many other stories from the right wingers, is a figment of the imagination.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from acronym:

I see.
So, how long did it take to get action on vietnam pows, many of whom never officially existed? I didnt know that was lawyers fault! Oh, its the dems, my bad.
Do the israelis have all of the hostage soldiers back yet? My guess is lawyers werent a big factor there. They dont fuck around.

Maybe i missed something, but there are some large contradictions in the article.

The protect america act, was passed when? This is a new bill, or has it been in force for while?

The article is confusing, because it states, because this wasnt passed just now, it would be necessary to REVERT to pre 9/11 policy.

That suggests it was in force, so why didnt it help captured troops LAST MAY???
And as far as lawyers go, well most elected representatives are trained lawyers. I rest my case........

Your brain is resting, but not your case.

The law was enacted last August, AFTER the troops had been kidnapped.

Keep trying, Acro. Eventually even you will get dizzy from the circles you keep spinning around in.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Covertibility:

Your quoting a story from the NY Post? You believe everything thats written in that paper?

Oh, I get it, had the NY Times reported it, then you would have believed it....gotcha...

And like the above poster says, if the troops were kidnapped while this Act was on the books, there shouldn't have been this alleged delay of intelligence gathering while lawyers were working on the details. It appears this article, like many other stories from the right wingers, is a figment of the imagination.

Like that "above poster," you've got your facts all wrong, but this is common among moonbats.

The only thing that is a figment of the imagination is your conclusion that the absence of strong surveillance laws are not harmful to the security of this country.

 

[Covertibility]

Quote from hapaboy:

Oh, I get it, had the NY Times reported it, then you would have believed it....gotcha...

Like that "above poster," you've got your facts all wrong, but this is common among moonbats.

The only thing that is a figment of the imagination is your conclusion that the absence of strong surveillance laws are not harmful to the security of this country.

I looked up the Act and noticed when it was enacted but couldn't edit the post due to 30 minute timer. I'll wait for another source to confirm the so called lawyer-kidnap troop fiasco. Its hard to believe Rupert Murdoch as a source of information especially when it concerns this administration.

That Act will be put back in but without what Bush wants, the telecom immunity clause. Intel Chief: Telecom Immunity a Security Issue. Comandante en Jefe Bush is just looking out for the corporate interests as usual.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Covertibility:

Your quoting a story from the NY Post? You believe everything thats written in that paper? And like the above poster says, if the troops were kidnapped while this Act was on the books, there shouldn't have been this alleged delay of intelligence gathering while lawyers were working on the details. It appears this article, like many other stories from the right wingers, is a figment of the imagination.

NY Post... you mean rupert murdoch's filth rag? no hidden agenda there. yeah right! i will side with the founding fathers on this one... they were extremely cautious about giving up freedom for security... they realized eventually when you do this you lose both. rupert murdoch is a traitor and needs to be sentenced accordingly.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Covertibility:

I looked up the Act and noticed when it was enacted but couldn't edit the post due to 30 minute timer. I'll wait for another source to confirm the so called lawyer-kidnap troop fiasco. Its hard to believe Rupert Murdoch as a source of information especially when it concerns this administration.

That Act will be put back in but without what Bush wants, the telecom immunity clause. Intel Chief: Telecom Immunity a Security Issue. Comandante en Jefe Bush is just looking out for the corporate interests as usual.

Nice dodge.

Like you couldn't have posted that you found out when it was enacted!

It's very hard to believe Covertibility and other moonbats, especially when it concerns this administration.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from hapaboy:

Nice dodge.

Like you couldn't have posted that you found out when it was enacted!

It's very hard to believe Covertibility and other moonbats, especially when it concerns this administration.

as i understand it, the democrats offered to extend this act while they negotiated a new one but Bush rejected this. how odd... then he goes out and whines about fake terrorist. sounds like some moonbutts to me.

so if these fake terrorist (false flags) strike it is solely on Bush's watch and he will be 100% to blame. nice going hapadumbass.


President Bush had pledged to veto any bill that merely extended the temporary law without resolving the matter of immunity for telecommunications firms that helped the government with its secret eavesdropping program after 9/11. A "patchwork extension" wouldn't give the security needed to protect the nation, Mr. Bush said, and he urged Republican lawmakers to vote against it.