Democrats cave to Bush on Surveillance. Is this what they will do with Iran, Mexico, Al-Qeada and Gangs?

Question

They will not fight for the people only thier own skins

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?ei=5065&en=4e05f95a4b60ac78&ex=1187064000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Answer 1

The democrats just bragged that the FISA law they sent back to Bush was a shell of what he wanted and declared victory.

I think what this says is that the democratic party leadership has absolutely no respect for it's membership.

They are counting on the fact that as long as the constituency has a deep, irrational, vitriolic hatred for Bush, they will be too distracted and stupid to see what's sitting right under their nose.

That's pretty insulting and a miscalculation. Liberals are dumb but in general, Democrats are not. If I were a democrat I wouldn't be a happy camper right now and that explains how this democratic congress has managed to get its history's lowest rating and they did it in record breaking time.

Answer 2

Saying they caved is wrong. Democrats have some good ideas for the surveillance program, especially FISA oversight. Due to the scope of the surveillance, getting warrants and approval through FISA is impractical. The Democrats want to allow for after-the-fact FISA approval, but at least this creates a paper trail of who was surveilled when, where and why. This is a much needed property of the surveillance program if it is to guarantee that our rights aren't being taken away and that the program isn't being abused.

Answer 3

Perhaps you should read something other than the headline.

Bush did not get surveillance without court oversight, and he didn't get a permanent bill--this is good for six months only.

In other words, Bush got told NO on the two things he wanted in the surveillance bill

Answer 4

Its a win-win for the democrats really. One thing is that they have more fodder with which to attack Bush. Another thing is that it is something that is needed to keep America safe from terrorists. So they can attack Bush and prop themselves up a little bit for being "tough on terrror", but that is about it.

Answer 5

Possibly --- that's a real concern.

The only possible difference is that the reason they caved is because of perceived public opinion --- they didn't want to look weak compared to Bush calling for more tools to fight terrorism.

But that's not a real comfort -- since at best it means they will always choose what makes them look good over what actually is good for the country.

Answer 6

The problem with laws like this are not when there's a Republican admin. It's when the Democrats get their turn to use them. Remember Clinton's enemies list upon whom he sicced the IRS? The left with these laws will be like the KGB...count on it!

Answer 7

you have missed the point. they wanted it also but wanted to appear to resist to pander to the left.

they know that the only way to try to prevent and attack is to listen to those who are making plans to do so.

we ask our government to protect us but want to tie their hands on the most valuable resource they have to do so.

the dems know that 'chatter' has increased and that means that something is going to happen or attempts will be made to make another attack happen.

the dems fear this as much as the cons, they are not stupid...they knew that if an attacked occurred while they were on vacation and leaving this hanging, they would have to accept some responsibility and would not be able to blame it all on Bush.

they wanted it to but like always, they want to eat their cake and have it too.

Answer 8

They always planned to to this because it was needed. They just used it for a while for political fodder.

Answer 9

They didn't cave in.. they WANT it. This was a back room deal from the start.

Answer 10

they are so afraid of being called unpatriotic, they let bush get away with stomping on the constitution. (Nice hat.)