Quote of the day

posted at 11:30 pm on August 22, 2007 by Allahpundit

“We’re going backwards. We couldn’t keep up.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Many thanks Allah. Im glad to see this up here because of all the fuss the dems through over the FISA debate

William Amos on August 22, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Fear not, Waxman or Schumer or Levin will sort this stuff right out.

thegreatbeast on August 22, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Here’s another quote:

“Glenn Greenwald has a female sock puppet who wants to sex chat Whore-aldo”

And good day to you, SIR!

Keith_Z on August 23, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Only 100 in the U.S.? Of course, that’s 100 too many for the ACLU. But not enough for us folk who prefer a safer America.

jediwebdude on August 23, 2007 at 1:18 AM

• Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.

Get that? Fewer than 100 people – Democrats compromised a program that they KNOW protects americans and KNEW was – in a population of 301,139,947 – fewer than 100 are being monitored? Because they prefer power to people’s live?

Also…

In addition, Hoekstra said he thinks McConnell wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers. “I think they felt they had to become more public,” he said.

Why, because Democrats lie?

Topsecretk9 on August 23, 2007 at 1:23 AM

Here’s the money quote:

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

“Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we’re doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die,” he said.

And you know why the democrats don’t care? Because they won’t die…they have security. Just us peasants. F*ck us, we’re expendable. If a few of us die, that would be great for them, then they could scream George Bush isn’t protecting us.

JustTruth101 on August 23, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Might be only 100 people now but if it looks like Hillary is gonna get the White House we better shut it down quick because that 100 will soon be every registered Republican and Independant.

Buzzy on August 23, 2007 at 1:41 AM

“It does not matter how slowly you go, so long as you do not stop, you will eventually get there, unless you are going backwards, then you are on your own, I can’t help you.”
- Confucius updated

MB4 on August 23, 2007 at 2:44 AM

I just stumbled into something at George Washington University; the National Security archives. Old stuff, but if you brows through some of the stuff obtained by FOIA requests, you get a sense of ‘methods and sources’.

You also get a sense that the intelligence community knows a lot more than they are letting on; the public perception that the CIA is a bunch of bungling fools suits them just fine. Yes, there are still a bunch of stuffed shirts, full of hot air saying, “nothing is going to happen”, and six days later something big blows up.

You also get a sense of why the liberal left is terrified of surveillance.

Does “Mad Magazine” still exist? and do they still do the ‘spy vs spy’ thing?

rockhauler on August 23, 2007 at 4:03 AM

Does “Mad Magazine” still exist?

rockhauler on August 23, 2007 at 4:03 AM

Yes, but you wouldn’t believe how far left they are these days. I picked up a copy back in April, they had a very funny cover of “The Donald” and Rosie in a “Gone with the Wind” parody. I was very sorry I did that, after I read the inside of it. Very anti-Bush, anti-Cheney, very liberal slant in everything inside the magazine. A pity, I used to like it a lot. I suppose I grew up since the sixties. A pity they didn’t.

Texas Nick 77 on August 23, 2007 at 5:50 AM

Rosie thinks she is one of the 100.

csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 7:43 AM

At the end of the interview, McConnell cautioned reporter Chris Roberts that he should consider whether enemies of the U.S. could gain from the information he just shared in the interview, Roberts said. McConnell left it to the paper to decide what to publish.

I am bamfoozled. The National Intelligence Director gives an interview and then leaves it up to the El Paso Times to determine if the information shared in the interview will help our enemies?

Either this guy is as dumb as a stump or he needs to fire his communications director (assuming that the “leak” was fully intentional).

What’s next? An interview with the Rockville Gazette on actual surveillance techniques?

kjspeedial on August 23, 2007 at 8:49 AM

Why is it that, we in this country, feel that it’s our God-given right to know everything?

MrFreeman07 on August 23, 2007 at 10:08 AM

kjspeedial addressed part of what I was going to say, by pointing out the absurdity of an Intelligence Director spilling his guts, and then as an afterthought asking a reporter to censor himself. These Intelligence(?) guys are who we are counting on to not only protect us, but also protect and defend our Constitution. I railed against the USAPATRIOT Act when it was first passed and also the Warrantless Searches when they were first disclosed.
In spite of the claims and counterclaims, forsaking the rights of common citizens for any purpose is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers thought it was important enough that they included Judicial Oversight as Article 4 of the Bill of Rights:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As I understand it, the Constitution can’t be changed, shorted or temporaily set aside without an Amendment approved by 3/4ths of the States – not by Congress, the President, a National Intelligence Director, Judge or even a Majority of the people.
Do you want to leave your freedom and liberty in the hands of a just a few elected and unelected individuals? I don’t.
I can count many instances in my lifetime when rights were taken away or curtailled, but I only remember one that was given – a right-turn on red.

tgillian on August 23, 2007 at 10:18 AM

I’m aware that many people entertain the hope that barriers to fighting muslim terrorists and their supporters will fall or be reduced “after the next attack.” However, I’ll repeat that the Americans were relatively fortunate on September 11; had al-Qaida targeted all four or five planes at the White House and the Capitol or the offices of the House and Senate, the condition of the United States might have been far worse. It seems prudent to take the risks to destroy muslim terrorists and their supporters immediately, inasmuch as the next attack could be far worse, or even the last.

Kralizec on August 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM

I think if you read the piece:

In a phone interview, Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra said he never felt at liberty to discuss some of the information that McConnell did, including the FISA court rulings, but the executive branch gets to decide what is classified. “What I think it tells you is how important they believe it is to get this FISA thing done right,” said Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

He said McConnell is hurt by the personal attacks on him during the FISA recent debate. Among them, Democrats have alleged that he negotiated in bad faith and was too beholden to the White House.

In addition, Hoekstra said he thinks McConnell wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers. “I think they felt they had to become more public,” he said.

This was no accident – this is game on – let’s tell the citizenry just how devious the Democrats are – they’ve blown the damn program anyhow.

Topsecretk9 on August 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM

McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number.

Can this be correct? or possible, in post 9/11 America?
Thats equivalent to 10 people using 2 and 1/2 days of work to gain one warrant for one phone number?

please tell me the Dems haven’t made it that bad…please.

shooter on August 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM

tgillian and anyone else with a mistaken sense of “the right of privacy”,

Telephone conversations have NEVER been a medium which included a presumption of privacy from a legal standpoint. Prior to the mid 1970s, when computers began handling the major bulk of telephone switching traffic, it was possible for an operator to be monitoring any given phone call at any given time. On long distance calls it was far more likely than on local calls.

Some of us can still remember when you had to be careful of your language while on the phone, because if an operator heard you using profanity, you could be visited by the FCC and fined. Criminals had to use codespeak and other “secure” communication methods, because discussing a crime over the phone could bring them under scrutiny.

That we have, somewhere along the line, ascribed ultimate sanctity to our electronic communications is founded neither in history OR in the law. Let Uncle Charlie listen, I say, and let the chips fall where they may.

Freelancer on August 24, 2007 at 7:00 AM