The end of our current excersize[sic] is “self-control”

Where do you come up with these statements? What current exercise? And you say you want anarchy… but with laws? The don’t go together. Do you also want a dog… thats a cat?

I’m not sure where I stand on these wiretaps. It’s probably going to turn out to be completely legal. And if it involves terrorists, I say tap away, whoever, whenever. But if they do it for other crimes like drug smuggling or something, I’m totally against it. Clarity needs to be added to that FISA document to reflect the importance of terrorism, and the importance of not violating our liberties for any lesser crime.

It is my firm belief that any power given to the government that has a possibility of being misused, will be misused eventually.

(See my previous post here.) …. Is it time for the NSA to start monitoring communications between CIA and NYT employees? …

Not that this even remotely qualifies Bush as a dictator. Once again, the MSM, and the NYT in particular, deviously slant an article to obscure the facts and make things look bad and worse. And just in time to market a book! House and Senate representatives have been briefed, for years now about this, not that they’ll admit to it.

A narrowly focused application of the NSA’s resources on targeted people and external communications nodes (particular e-mail and phones) is not the beginning of the end of privacy in this country.

It’s not like, say, using the IRS to get even with your political enemies. Oops, that was Clinton who did that, so we’ve got to supress the report and stick our fingers in our ears and go nanananana.

Something needs to be done about these leaks, which are killing our national security. I want to see someone stood up against a wall and shot for these kinds of leaks.

I’m really amazed at the idiocy on the left. We are at war people! Do you think it’s just plain ole’ luck that we have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11? The real story about these wiretaps is the fact that the information…

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.

Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions — including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war — the choice was Saddam Hussein’s.

Really, the whole speech was superb. There were other great points, but I didn’t want to copy the whole thing. Read it if you have time.

President Bush delivered a very tough radio address responding to the controversy over the New York Times report on National Security Agency surveillance. The gist, according to Byron York at National Review’s The Corner: the surveillance program is …

The National Security challenges in a post 9/11 world have required our government to take drastic steps to protect the American people. Some of these measures are contained in the PATRIOT ACT which tears down walls between various intelligence assets…