| AP | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| Fox News | 0 | |
| Sac Bee | 0 | |
| The Hill | Obama pollster: U.S. will like healthcare bill, despite poll numbers |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
- Happiness is … February 16, 2010
- Consumed February 12, 2010
Poll watching: 64% support warrantless eavesdropping
… on suspected terrorist operatives here in the US who are believed to be communicating with overseas terrorist operatives. Via Rasmussen:
December 28, 2005–Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
For those who’s lives revolve around polls (namely Democrats and RINOS) this isn’t great news. It shows that a majority of the American people (including a surprising majority of Democrats 51%) have not fallen for media-fueled hype over Bush’s authorization of warrantless wiretaps in the aftermath of 9-11.
This media and Dem/liberal media attack on Bush’s national security credentials doesn’t appear to be bearing the fruit that the usual suspects were no doubt hoping it would. Bravo.
I’ve gotten some emails from a few people who seem to think that I “don’t care” and “dont’ want to discuss” the very serious issue of the President authorizing warrantless wiretapping simply because I haven’t been critical of its use. Let me make this clear: I don’t mind discussing this. It’s up to us to keep our politicians honest and accountable. What I DON’T like is people like the Democrats and RINOs in Washington, DC who are playing politics with our national security, and let’s face it: that’s what’s happening here.
Plamegate was supposedly about our national security, but we know it’s really not because real issues like the blowing of our overseas CIA prisons cover, as well as open reporting of planes linked to CIA front companies landing on foreign soil don’t seem to matter to those who claim a great interest in what affects our national security, especially in terms of conducting the war on terror. The NSA eavesdropping issue has followed that same pattern. I don’t mind honest discussion about this, but what I loathe is dishonest posturing in front of the cameras about this issue from people who would rather play games with our national security and slam the President than actually be part of the *solution.*
Others blogging about this: Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, Ace of Spades, Blogs For Bush, Jeff Goldstein, Rob at Say Anything, Political Teen, Decision ‘08, Confederate Yankee (must-read post), Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive’s, Junkyard Blog
Related Toldjah So posts:
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The terrorists must be smiling
- “If 1941 Were 2005″
- The media’s war
- Winning in spite of defeatist attitudes
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
15 Responses to “Poll watching: 64% support warrantless eavesdropping”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I think a lot of pundits are going to have to rethink a lot of the current paradigms because of this. It seems that the media’s power to drive a story instead of report it might have reached its pinnacle, or maybe, finally, people are starting to get tired and suspicious of the pretty obvious pile-on. Democrats SHOULD be terrified, because they bet everything that the post 9-11 feelings have waned, and I think it’s becoming pretty evident that they’ve lost that bet. Iraq’s a losing issue for the Dems, security is a losing issue for the Dems, the economy is a losing issue for the Dems, and now it seems that their biggest ally, the MSM has been declawed…man…it’s a good time to be on the right side of history, no?
Here’s a question:
“Do you believe the NSA should be able to listen in on your phone calls and read your e-mails without oversight, probable cause, or a warrant?”
Dennis, that’s not at all what they’re doing. People are getting (or trying to get others) worked up over this based on the thought that the NSA is spying on normal, everyday citizens, and that’s not the case at all.
wow. ’suspected terrorist’ that means probable cause right? so enough to get a warrant?
Dennis, the answer is yes when you are communicating outside the country with KNOWN terrorists. What part of that can’t you uncerstand?
This leftie is thinks while eavesdropping is troubling you have to give any president the benefit of the doubt in fighting the GWOT. You can’t expect to follow civilian criminal codes when you’re fighting against fanatics targeting civilians. What would any sane person do if they knew someone might be possibly blow up a bridge or something like that? Wait for it to happen then grab the terrorists? Nah man I don’t think keeping an eye on potential terrorists is violating civil-liberties. What would anyone here do? Probably the same stuff as the 43 admin.
andrew, get a warrant? Just how do you get the phone call back to listen to it while you waited for the warrant?
I’m going to throw this at you. The FISA judge that resigened is suspeced of being the leaker of this and other national security stories you, andrew, and other lefties here are so upset about. What do you say about this judge violating his oath and leaking secrets, outing operations?
Oh, Just a side light. Clinton started the rendering operation in foreign countries. Key Democrat Bush haters like Sandy Berger were involved.
LINK
Dennis Cwell’s question had a flawed premise. Congress has oversight and has been briefed over 12 times.
But otherwise, the answer to your question is YES because then I would be very happy that I was involved in helping this country stay safe from terrorists. If I, Baklava, didn’t know I was on an international call with a terrorist, I would YES sure as heck be glad that the government was doing it’s duty of national security.
ST’s post had this, “Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news.
Interesting. That means that a smaller percentage than last year of people only get thier news from the NT Times or CNN.
Each year an issue presents itelf for this type of question (a question asking the misinformed) and each year the number gets smaller and smaller since 1990.
“andrew, get a warrant? Just how do you get the phone call back to listen to it while you waited for the warrant?”
FISA allows retroactive warrants.
“What do you say about this judge violating his oath and leaking secrets, outing operations?”
Not as heroic as Daniel Ellsberg.