“Fearmongering” and “Scare Tactics” [Updated]

(?)

Paul Hodes Only a dream, apparently… Carol Shea Porter

Sunday’s Union Leader had a story that, once again, clearly demonstrates why it is imperative, given the dangerous world in which we live, New Hampshire must send its two current Congressmen packing come November. Reacting to President Bush’s warning this week about the danger of not renewing the intelligence bill providing for electronic surveillance of potential threats, the antiwar peacenik turned Congresswoman brushed it off as if it was of little importance…

DERRY – U.S. Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter accused President Bush of fear-mongering yesterday, insisting the nation is not more vulnerable to a terror attack without the electronic surveillance legislation he wants in place.

"This really is a big scare tactic. Nothing terrible is going to happen" New Hampshire’s 1st District representative said at a town hall meeting in Derry’s Municipal Center.

Really? How does Ms. Shea Porter know this? Does she believe that the lack of further attacks following September 11th, 2001 is simply because our enemies have somehow seen the light? Let’s remember Osama bin Laden’s words from his 1996 "Declaration of Jihad against the United States" in which he takes note of how he and his followers will engage the US:

Today your brothers and sons, the sons of the two Holy Places, have started their Jihad in the cause of Allah, to expel the occupying enemy out of the country of the two Holy places. And there is no doubt you would like to carry out this mission too, in order to re-establish the greatness of this Ummah and to liberate its’ occupied sanctities.

Nevertheless, it must be obvious to you that, due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted i.e using fast moving light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other word to initiate a guerrilla warfare, were the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it.

And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in a conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy (the exceptions are the bold and the forceful operations carried out by the members of the armed forces individually, that is without the movement of the formal forces in its conventional shape and hence the responses will not be directed, strongly, against the army) unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved; and great losses induced on the enemy side (that would shaken and destroy its foundations and infrastructures) that will help to expel the enemy defeated out of the country.

The question for Shea Porter is who does she believe? Obviously, she doesn’t give a whit about President Bush or any of his intelligence advisors. What of Bin Laden? Is he simply "fearmongering" too? Remember, he issued the above words in 1996 and the events of September 11, 2001 followed. I know that he and the other leaders of the radical Islamic movement have only stepped up their rhetoric in the years since.

And of course, while he hasn’t yet run his mouth like Shea Porter (that I’m aware of, anyway), our other Congressman (sigh), Paul Hodes, hasn’t helped, either. In a press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), it is noted that

After continually blocking a vote on bipartisan FISA legislation this week, Paul Hodes (NH-02) and the Democrats are leaving town without reauthorizing the Protect America Act, stranding our law enforcement with outdated laws and simultaneously putting millions of American lives in danger. House Republican leaders and the President of the United States said that they were committed to remaining in Washington until the people’s business is done, but Paul Hodes and the Democrats have chosen inaction and are skipping town, allowing the current FISA law to expire this Saturday, February 16, 2008.

“Paul Hodes and his Democrat Party in Washington proved once again today that they have completely squandered their new majority in favor of political games, reckless tactics and an extremely liberal legislative agenda,” NRCC Communications Director Jessica Boulanger said. “Delaying a vote on this critical legislation is completely irresponsible.”

Indeed. Our two freshmen Democrats "representing" the Granite State in Congress continue to bring shame to themselves and our state as they press forward with their blind allegiance to the Pelosi/Reid agenda of retreat and surrender in the face of an implaccable enemy. Again from today’s UL:

A strong opponent of the war, Shea-Porter said the billions of dollars spent each month financing military action in Iraq is slowing down medical research and infrastructure needs at home.

"If we take a dollar from you and send it to Iraq, that’s one less dollar for a particular disease or a bridge that we desperately need. We can’t keep paying forever," she said. "I know we’ve got enemies, but we’ve got limited resources also."

Why is it that liberal Democrats only care about taxdollars when it comes to the military? What diseases will be cured when Shea-Porter and Bin Laden have their way? The "disease" of being an infidel? What bridge will be built when Shea-Porter and Bin Laden finally defeat the enemy, George W. Bush? All the money will be needed to build mosques and to pay the costs of cleaning up the rubble of our once great cities and burying the dead. There’ll be nothing left to build a bridge– except for the one to the 7th century…

Again, from Osama bin Laden in 1996:

Those youths will not ask you for explanations, they will tell you singing there is nothing between us need to be explained, there is only killing and neck smiting.

There he goes again… fearmongering. Tell bin Laden to put a cork in it– Shea Porter is on the scene and has no time or use for such scare tactics…

[UPDATE]

Don’t just take my word for it– consider this roundup of opinion & thought on the matter– and notice, not all of them are Republicans…

CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)



DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MIKE MCCONNELL: “We are already losing capability due to the failure to address liability protection.” (DNI Mike McConnell, Op-Ed, “A Key Gap In Fighting Terrorism,” The Washington Post, 02/15/08)

FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER: “Well, I would say, in protecting the homeland it’s absolutely essential. In this — it’s absolutely essential we have the support, willing support of communication carriers.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/05/08)


CIA DIRECTOR MICHAEL HAYDEN: “These are very fragile relationships. We lost industrial cooperation, at CIA, with partners on the mere revelation of the SWIFT program in public discourse. Not because they were doing anything related to that program whatsoever but just the fear that the vulnerability they would have to their smooth functioning of their business had caused people, who are otherwise patriotic and committed, to back away from their totally lawful cooperation with our agency.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/05/08)

DNI MCCONNELL: “Expiration Of The Act Would Lead To The Loss Of Important Tools The Intelligence Community Relies On To Discover The Plans Of Our Enemies.” (Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 02/07/08)


DNI McConnell: House Democrats Have D
one “Grave Damage To Our Capabilities To Protect The Nation.”


DNI MCCONNELL: “Before I start, I want to thank you, Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Bond and members of the committee and the staff sitting behind you, and the reason for that thanks is all the effort over the months to get the FISA legislation passed through the Senate with an overwhelming majority, passed two days ago, bipartisan support, and I think it is commendable. I believe, under this committee’s leadership, we now have a bill that is essential for our community to do its job in protecting the country. The Senate bill needs to be enacted now into law. If it is not, whether the bill is extended or expires, either way, it will do grave damage to our capabilities to protect the nation if we don’t have your bill passed.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/14/08)


DNI McConnell: With Expiration Of The PAA, We Now “Have To Satisfy A Probable Cause Standard” To Monitor Any New Terrorist We Identify


DNI MCCONNELL: “…it’s very important that I highlight for this committee what else happened. What else? One, we lose the ability to compel the carriers to help us. Two, there is no liability protection for the carriers. Therefore, they’re thinking twice about helping us, making it much more difficult. And, three, this is a very dynamic situation. While we may have something on some key targets that we’re working, recruitment, training, different names, different personalities will pop up. Under the Protect America Act, that was manageable. So if it expires, that new dynamic is not — it would put us back in a position, under the old FISA legislation, in which we would have to satisfy a probable cause standard if collection were obtained in the country, meaning a wire in the United States. So there is some level of protection, but it’s not where we need to be.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/14/08)

Like it? Share it!

Sarah Silverman

You do know that spiking the legislation Bush has in mind would have absolutely no impact on the government’s authority to wiretap conversations between people inside and outside the U.S., and that the House blocking it merely means that the feds are required to get a warrant retroactively , correct?

And you that that Shea-Porter’s specific opposition to these (wasteful, pointless) surveillance measures implies that she doesn’t believe not only in surveillance but in terrorism, period — is that correct?

And since you blubber so gravely about 9/11 (nice photo! I’d forgotten all about that stuff!), you’re saying that the measures Bush would put in place would have the capability to prevent attacks like those of 9/11/2001, is that correct?

If you believe the former, you’re a typical right-wing reactionary, a blockhead who cannot even conceive of grey areas, much less admit to their existence. And if you believe the latter, you sure as heck better be all for gun control, because surely you believe that anti-gun legislation can keep nutballs like the kid who just shot 20+ people in Decatur, Illinois from doing such things.

Oops! You’re rabidly against gun control. Well, why the blatant double standard? Don’t you see that even if you’re right about one of these things, you cannot be right about both?
Oh yeah — it’s the right-wing reactionary blockhead thing. Gotcha.
The thing about you wingers is that you’re not clever enough to understand how transparent you are. You don’t like Shea-Porter because she’s a Democrat, and you’d be better served by simply being honest about this rather than sinking into a bog of arrant hypocrisy. However, if you are credulous enough to believe on its face anything that comes out of Bush’s mouth regarding the government’s spending on war and terror, all while remaining oblivious to the massive waste the “democratization” of Iraq constitutes for all of us, then you are not a conservative at all, just a lemming.
Don’t feel bad, though – in believing that your opinions are worth considering merely because you trumpet them online and on your mindless propaganda mini-show, you’ve got plenty of company. Even in a slipshod economy, the U.S. continues cranking out halfwits and slaves to sound bites at an almost heroic pace.
Eric Shirley

Ms. Silverman,
I check the Granite Grok almost daily and I have disagreed with Mr. Lambert on occasion. Your post is a bit agressive don’t you think? I’m not quite sure why you have to be quite so hateful when you post here. Frankly, you sound like one of the lunatics who post on sites like Daily Kos and Democrat Underground. Why don’t you try and get your point across without sounding like you need a straight jacket. While I don’t have the time to post regarding my feelings on this issue right now I will tell you that I agree with Mr. Lambert on this. Opposite opinions are great but why the hate? So many on the left have railed against President Bush and how he is “divisive”. Sounds a lot like the divise ones are people who write posts like that. Lighten up.
Artie Lang

I see you chose not to address anything Ms. Silverman said.
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

I stand by my post. One cannot argue with people that don’t believe in the realityas it exists.
mgordon

So you aren’t able to defend reality? Or are you just not capable of defending your own words?
http://www.granitegrok.com doug

Answers to Sarah:
1.) It is about the immunity given to private communications companies, and the ability to listen to suspected terrorists without probable cause BEFORE they strike. Read the quotes in my post by Rockefeller, DNI McConnel, etc. 2.)Yes– My contention is just that– that CSP doesn’t believe in terrorism… or that the government must be proactive in stopping it. She opposes ALL military and intelligence proposals that don’t come from Pelosi/Reid. 3.) The measures put in place very well might have prevented 9/11. Surely they have thus far prevented another. 4.)The only gray is when people don’t think to logical conclusions, like most libs. I think that if one or more students had been packing heat, the shooter would have been stopped sooner. Perhaps if people knew that there would ALWAYS be somebody trained and ready to shoot back, they wouldn’t get started in the first place………..I see no double standard in opposing gun control and favoring the surveillance of foreigners and terrorists. It’s like being asked, “Do you walk to work or carry a lunch?”– what’s the connection?……The problem with liberals like Sarah is that, when you start from the premise that everything Bush and his people say are lies, you can’t even have a debate. This is denying reality. Look at the pics at the top of the post. I don’t want that to happen again. I want to rid the earth of the scum that caused it, and perpetuate the ideology that led to it…. Thanks for reading GraniteGrok!
Terry Stewart

Oh there you go again Doug. It’s not nice to remind these 9/10 people that 9/11 was anything but an isolated insodent. Sarah is angry, I mean really angry and nasty too, because you’re right. How she throws gun control into the mix is a nice detraction from the reality of 9/11 and the basic fact remains that there are evil people that simply want to do harm to others. I forget, for Sarah, it was our fault for provoking them. Like the short dressed girl that provoked the rapist.(oops that doesn’t fit into her paradigm) It’s interesting to note that most gun related murders are now occurring in “gun free” zones. (note to self, don’t go there without a gun to protect yourself) If you actually read the revised wire tapping laws, they are still heavily favored toward the perpetrator. In fact, they are far less intrusive to your Bill of Rights than most legislative gun laws.(oops, that doesn’t fit their paradigm either) Of course most of the liberals advocate for the enemy so why stop now! Like Carol Shea Porter they simply hate Bush and will oppose everthing he does regardless of the reality. But then again, I’m just another Block Head.
ice9

Al Qaeda doesn’t hate tall buildings–they hate freedom.
They have maneuvered you, and all of us (We’re all complicit, some more than others) into damaging our own freedoms in hopeless pursuit of some diminishing return of “safety” whored out for political gain. It’s bizarre that you and your ilk will happily talk of courageous gun-waving resistance to anybody but you immediately surrender your sweetest and most valuable possession–your freedom–on the thinnest of pretexts.
I can’t tell from that jittery screed above how much of it you really believe. The photographic juxtaposition, and the ugly attacks, and the casual claim on pure reality, suggest that you are of the unredeemably vicious strain.
Far right republicans used to be reliable for two things: hilarious sexual priggishness and occasionally courageous defense of the pure freedoms. What yellow brick road leads Barry Goldwater around to support the PAA reup? It takes an Escherian hallucination to see that one. You’re a deluded tool.
ice
Wynter

Well this is a waste of an article. I agree with Sarah Silverman’s comments. This guy is simply a right-wing cutthroat with no facts to back up his complaints.
FISA is still in place and our Intelligence Services have all the information they need to do their jobs. All the crap put out by the new Attorney General is a weak attempt to make it look like there is a problem. The real problem the AG was having was that the telecom companies wanted to simply be “paid” for all the back work the government had forget to pay them.
The whole scare tactic by the Bush Administration is so hollow that this nutcase has to pull the 9/11 pictures out to add some horror to his show. Bad taste, dude. They died, but you are simply “using” their deaths for your own agenda. Honor them and don’t ever pull those pictures out again.
Wynter
Loudon, NH