i heard Obama was the AntiChrist... so really, this is a spiritual battle as well.

Whoo! NRO! Greenlight! What are the odds?

/Not subby.

And just think how overloaded the socialist health care system will be with all those newkler injuries!

And I get to help push the big shiny button! Whoo hoo!

Damn, and just when I was ready to vote for anything BUT Republican.

Fear and smear is all they have to run on.

Of course eight more years of republican waste will shrink the dollar to 1/1000th of a euro.

Conservatives: for a bunch of gun loving macho men, you sure are some big pussies.

The next time Islamist terrorists attack us it could be with rabid monkeys. Am I “fear mongering” by saying that?

HeyHi: Conservatives: for a bunch of gun penis extender loving macho men, you sure are some big pussies.

FTFY

Fear mongering, sort of like "Vote for John Kerry or Bush will draft you!" "Vote Democrat or they'll take away social security and you'll be living in the streets!"

HeyHi: Conservatives Republicans: for a bunch of gun loving macho men, you sure are some big pussies.

I have some respect from conservatives. None for republicans.

2004: Only the Republicans will keep you safe.

2008: OMG You're even less safe now than before, but imagine how even more less safe you'ld be if you don't vote Republican again!


Why do they say such nonsense? Because it works.

Bring it on.

A bill to restore that authority passed the Senate by a solidly bipartisan 68-to-29 majority. A bipartisan majority in the House would almost certainly vote in favor of the same measure but Speaker Nancy Pelosi - for more than two months - has used the power of her office to stop members from casting their votes yea or nay.

Why would she do something so irresponsible? Groups on the Left, important to the Democrats in this election season, demand that foreign terrorists abroad be given the same privacy protections enjoyed by American citizens here at home.

You floppy dildo. You know it didn't pass because of the telecom immunity provision.

Also in the mix: Trial lawyers are suing telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence officials immediately after 9/11, allowing them to "mine" data for patterns of terrorist activity. If the trial lawyers - the biggest donors to Democrats - succeed, they will reap billions of dollars. They also will teach the private sector never again to assist government efforts to identify terrorists. The Senate bill would protect the telecoms from these laws suits.

Yes, it's the heroic and patriotic telecom companies vs. the evil lefty trial lawyers. Forget the stupid left/right team bullshiat here. If the government asks you to do something that is questionable, you make sure it's legal first. It's that simple.

Pussies. When I grew up, the nuclear threat was thousands of ICBMS with thermonuclear devices. The mushroom clouds wouldn't signify the loss of a city, they would bring about the fall of civilization.

Oh, and having now read TFA, it's just another FISA whine. Poor babies, can't do warrantless wiretaps any more.

Yep.

The right wingers are scared shiatless.

Next time try being competent losers.

andrewagill: Whoo! NRO! Greenlight! What are the odds?

/Not subby.

Just confirms Fark's liberal bias.

/Also not subby

"I think it's wistful to think that it won't happen by 20 years."

Wistful: 1. Full of wishful yearning.

Wow, what a way to tip their hand. These bastards WANT the terrorists to sling a nuke our way! They're hoping that al-Quaeda gets it's hands on some rusty ex-Soviet warhead and flattens DC! Vote Republican, in other words, and they'll be doing their level best to start WW III 2.0 as soon as they humanly can.

There will be... and a retaliation of monumental proportions. Then all will stop, an outcry from all the world for peace, and there will be... for awhile.

Imagine if all rural areas in Pawh-kisthahn (thanks Barack) and Afghanistan were made uninhabitable....

/go doom.

Oh, and this load of crap: This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.

They can intercept foreign communications under the old FISA bill, and even if it involves a US person, they have 72 hours to get a warrant after the fact. Dildo.

What the Republicans should have done was focus all their money and energy into purchasing and securing the warheads and weapons-grade uranium floating around the former Soviet states starting on September 12, 2001. Those are by far the biggest potential threat to our national security and the easiest to take care of.

Easy to take care of means it would only cost a few hundred billion. Much more cost effective than a war.

Don't vote democrat! They'll make you abort your guns, turn your taxes gay, and bring jobs in sweat shops back from China so your children will be working IN A SWEAT SHOP!!1eleventyone!

/Everybody panic

Paedophile_Deluxe: They can intercept foreign communications under the old FISA bill, and even if it involves a US person, they have 72 hours to get a warrant after the fact. Dildo.

The paragraph you linked to is a perfect example of misleading writing. Mr. May writes that U.S. officials "labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval" for wiretaps. This statement is misleading, because it simply says that it took ten hours to get the approval. NOT that the wiretaps were delayed by ten hours.

What I don't understand is why we shouldn't apply this logic to any crime. It takes time to get authorization to do stuff, so shouldn't we simply eliminate the requirement that police get warrants for anything, ever?

FTFA: "The law that gave America's intelligence agencies the authority to freely monitor the communications of foreign terrorists abroad expired in February."

This goes on for multiple paragraphs, the author slyly talking around the 800lb gorilla in the room: all the phone calls from foreign countries are to people in the US. It is disingenious to suggest the goal here is to extend protections afforded to US persons to foriegners. How could you possibly miss that the person on the other end of the phone, a US citizen, is entitled to Constitutionally guaranteed privacy? Is it really that hard to get a warrant?

These idiots that would shred the Constitution and piss away freedoms that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died for makes me sick.

I hope nobody here that objects to the NRO/Republicans using this shameful tactic are supporting Hillary in this campaign. She's as guilty of this as anybody, but she's doing it to a candidate in her own party.

I'm not an Obama guy, I just find it disgusting.

I'm more worried about a particular scenario where the Terrorists won't have to do shiat because we'll have continued to decimate our own environment, our resources, and ultimately our chances for survival under the leadership of a political class that failed to help save us from ourselves. I may prefer one of the candidates over the other, but I don't expect that any will really change to outcome in the long run if elected.

This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.

it's funny that Republicans are suddenly concerned with creating a policy aimed at saving the lives of 3 soldiers, when Democrats and quite a bit of the American population have been pretty concerned with an even bigger policy that would have saved the lives of over 4,000 soldiers: DON'T GO TO WAR...

The republicans can either wish upon a star for another terrorist attack or actually start talking about the real issues we are having in 2008, like our energy deficit and the housing market.

It looks like they are going to hope for another terror attack on their watch and then somehow turn that into them being best to defend our nation from terror attacks.

Did somebody say DESTROY US ALL! ?
'Cos I think somebody said DESTROY US ALL!.

and if you don't vote democrat in 2004 bush will usher in a fundamentalist state, start a war with Iran and draft everyone under 50 into the army.

Same coin, different side. Fear mongering is par for the partisan course. They're both the same so the only way they can get you to vote for them is to make the other guy worse.

But it does make for fun threads watching farkers defend them.

Spanky_McFarksalot: and if you don't vote democrat in 2004 bush will usher in a fundamentalist state, start a war with Iran and draft everyone under 50 into the army.

Same coin, different side. Fear mongering is par for the partisan course. They're both the same so the only way they can get you to vote for them is to make the other guy worse.

But it does make for fun threads watching farkers defend them.

Who the fark said that? I do remember the prediction that we'd still be in Iraq and the economy would slide further into recession, that one seemed to come true.

Headso: The republicans can either wish upon a star for another terrorist attack or actually start talking about the real issues we are having in 2008, like our energy deficit and the housing market.

It looks like they are going to hope for another terror attack on their watch and then somehow turn that into them being best to defend our nation from terror attacks.

That's just it. McCain ISN'T talking about terrorism. Hell he is on a poverty tour this week.

Hang On Voltaire: That's just it. McCain ISN'T talking about terrorism. Hell he is on a poverty tour this week.

And it's a pitty, too. If the media was covering what he was writing, plenty of people would see that he's a country club Republican who is out of touch with working class people AND with the GOP base.

Claiming that the recession is all a delusion; telling people to get a second or third job; claiming that an insignificant cut in gas taxes will make the world go round. This is the best you guys can do?

You're right -- McCain isn't talking about terrorism, because he's engaging in a surrogate strategy of pretending to be above the fray. It's just too bad that people aren't listening to what he IS saying.

From TFA: Gary Anthony Ackerman, research director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, also recently told Congress that "the prospect of terrorists detonating a nuclear device on American soil sometime within the next quarter-century is real and growing a near certainty."

I fixed that for him. With all the little countries that don't like us developing noocular weapons, the statistical likelihood of a terrorist gaining access to a device rises in a logarithmic fashion (I'd be willing to wager). We can try and avoid it, monitor for it, et al, but if it's going to happen there's very little to be done about it. The price of a free society is danger and possible death, deal with it. Truth be told, it won't matter whom is in the Oval Office other than that is whom will be blamed.

Hang On Voltaire: Hell he is on a poverty tour this week.

well, he is lacking in the donations area!

/rimshot

I heard his religion practices eating human flesh and drinking human blood! they call it "communion"

This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.


Wow, you'd think with all those hand-picked right-wing judicial appointments they've been making, one of those guys would pick up the phone. But no-o-o-o-o-o, their bought and paid for judges must have all been on corporate retreats or something.

/just imagine how many lives they could save if only they were free of all legislative and administrative restraints. give them the power, politicians, it's for the troops!

Do you know who else run fear-mongering ads saying "if you don't vote for me, you'll die?"



/GO Obama

This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.


That is a pretty dubious claim. The likely hood that some clowns in Iraq would actually jabber on a call to the US about the exact locations of the troops they captured is virtually zero. Because only calls to, from, or within the US are within US Jurisdiction I don't see how Iraq captures can be relevant to this issue. Why would any baddies in Iraq call the US anyway, let alone give out information on the phones that any half-wit Jihadi would assume was tapped. I'll go ahead and call BS... big time. I would question the journalistic integrity here.

And I'm actually one of the people affected by the wiretapping procedures. I'm an American living abroad who makes calls to and from the US all the time. Since I'm not a terrorist, spy, or criminal and I'm not inclined to say where the bodies are buried over the phone, I can't really come up with a good reason to care if some word recognition algorithm is parsing the transcripts of my calls.

This policy may already have cost American lives. In at least one instance, U.S. officials labored for nearly ten hours to get legal approval necessary to conduct wiretaps to help them locate three American soldiers kidnapped by al-Qaeda combatants in Iraq. The soldiers were not successfully rescued.

I call total bullshiat.

wow, fear mongering, like global warming, right?

Standing in line at O'Hare this weekend, found myself next to a couple of USMC career types who were blathering talking points about how Hillary haaeetes the military and how "it's not a civil war in Iraq, it's us keeping the terrorists from coming over here", etc.

I kept my inner facepalm, well, inner until they started talking about how "only having 30,000 troops in Iraq" would cause them all to be killed in their sleep. I politely turned to them and said, "well, that does depend on how they're deployed and what they're defending or attacking".

You would have thought that I had called into question the innocence of their 16-year-old sisters they way they lit into me. Thankfully, my row got called at about the same time that they called me stupid for believing everything the media tells us about Iraq (point of information -- I don't even follow what the media says about Iraq anymore because they have no sources to speak of except official ones) so I was able to walk away without having been able to fit a word in edgewise.

Why are people stupid?

The idea that we are more likely than five years ago leads you to believe we should not have the party of the last five years in charge of these things. Right? Right?!?!

That article is the most underhanded, manipulative pile of presumptive crap I've read all month -- and I'm here every day.

You don't need a "liberal bias" to be enraged at this administration's performance or political tactics.

lol, this is the most hilarious NRO article I've read yet. Someone needs to write this guy a prescription for xanax.

This is so wrong it makes

He invaded a non-threating country that was in-check. Further more he seems pretend to be really good buddies with Pakistan and ignores N. Korea, two countries that are spreading nuclear arms.

Who reads this and believes it?

Is the NRO sponsoring all of these links? Damn.

When do we start getting two or three main-page links a day to, say, The Nation?

Damned "liberal" Fark...
;)

Maybe if we elect a Democrat he/she won't ignore the briefing memos about terrorists ready to attack within the US.