President Bush Lambasts Irresponsible Democrats
Yesterday, President Bush tried getting Ms. Pelosi and her minions to pass the FISA reform bill. Instead of taking their responsibility seriously, they left for vacation. Here’s President Bush’s statement:
Good afternoon. This Saturday at midnight, legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning will be compromised. It would be a mistake if the Congress were to allow this to happen.
Members of Congress knew all along that this deadline was approaching. They said it themselves. They’ve had more than six months to discuss and deliberate. And now they must act, and pass legislation that will ensure our intelligence professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.
Earlier this week the Senate did act, and passed a strong bill, and did so with a bipartisan majority. The Senate bill will ensure that we can effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. The Senate bill will provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in the efforts to protect America after the attacks of September the 11th. Without this protection, without this liability shield, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts. And that, of course, would put the American people at risk.
Now it’s the House’s turn to act. It is clear that the Senate bill would pass the House with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can put partisanship aside, and pass a good bill. There’s no reason why the House cannot do the same, and pass the Senate bill immediately.
Our government has no greater responsibility than getting this work done, and there really is no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. I urge congressional leaders to let the will of the House and the American people prevail, and vote on the Senate bill before adjourning for their recess. Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence. Failure to act would also make the private sector less willing to help us protect the country, and this is unacceptable. The House should not leave Washington without passing the Senate bill.
I am scheduled to leave tomorrow for a long-planned trip to five African nations. Moments ago, my staff informed the House leadership that I’m prepared to delay my departure, and stay in Washington with them, if it will help them complete their work on this critical bill.
The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor terrorist communications. Our intelligence professionals are working day and night to keep us safe, and they’re waiting to see whether Congress will give them the tools they need to succeed or tie their hands by failing to act. The American people are watching this debate, as well. They expect Congress to meet its responsibilities before they leave town on a recess.
Before leaving, he took this question:
Q Mr. President, I realize this is a sensitive matter, but I’m wondering if there’s a way you can spell out for the American public what the practical impact may be, if this law expires, on our intelligence professionals, say, next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope it doesn’t. But clearly, there will be a gap. And of course, we won’t be able to assess that gap until the time. Step one is, I guess you got to come to the conclusion that there’s a threat to America, or not a threat. And evidently some people just don’t feel that sense of urgency. I do. And the reason I do is I firmly believe that there’s still people out there who would do us harm.
Secondly, I know that the tools that I’ve just described are necessary to protect us. Why? Because we need to know what people are saying, what they’re planning and what they’re thinking. And the tool that I have just described has been very effective.
Thirdly, people are wondering why companies need liability protection. Well, if you cooperate with the government and then get sued for billions of dollars because of the cooperation, you’re less likely to cooperate. And obviously we’re going to need people working with us to find out what the enemy is saying and thinking and plotting and planning.
And so it’s a — to me it’s a — I guess one way to look at it is, some may not feel that same sense of urgency I do. I heard somebody say, well, this is just pure politics. No, this is what is necessary to protect the American people from harm. And I recognize
there hasn’t been an attack on our country, but that does not mean that there’s not still an enemy that lurks, plans and plots.And one of the reasons we’ve been effective is because we put new tools in place that give our professionals that which is necessary to protect us. This is a different kind of
threat than we’ve ever faced before, it’s a different kind of war that we’re fighting, and it requires a different approach.Again, I’ll repeat to you that the Congress took a look at this issue and decided that the tools were necessary to give to our professionals last — late last summer. And if it was necessary late last summer, why is it not necessary today? What has changed? Well, the threat hasn’t gone away. It’s still there, it’s still real, and we better be worried about it as a nation. And the House has now got time to go out and get the deal done.
Yesterday, a couple of days, votes ago in the Senate made it abundantly clear that Republicans and Democrats can come together and put a good piece of legislation together and get it passed. And the House leadership has an opportunity to do that now.
Yes, Democrats are playing politics with this bill. If there’s another terrorist attack that could’ve been prevented by passing this bill, that blood will be on Ms. Pelosi’s and House Democrats’ hands. PERIOD. The House had over six months to put together a clean bill. Instead, as I posted yesterday, idiots like John Conyers were making foolish statements like this:
House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers said lawmakers should not be “stampeded” into approving permanent legislation now, saying more time is required to examine documents among other things.
Stampeded??? Let’s get serious. Representatives have had months to “examine documents.” Instead, they did nothing to close the gap that was created by a FISA appellate court ruling. As a result, intelligence officials will be faced with this scenario:
Mr. McConnell, lead negotiator for the administration in lobbying for the bill, said in an interview that the court’s restrictions had made his job much more difficult.
“It was crazy, because I’m sitting here signing out warrants on known Al Qaeda operatives that are killing Americans, doing foreign communications,” he said. “And the only reason I’m signing that warrant is because it touches the U.S. communications infrastructure. That’s what we fixed.”
House Democrats weren’t the only people causing problems. Hillary and Obama couldn’t be bothered to vote for the bill that passed the Senate yesterday, though Obama voted for several amendments to the bill that would’ve weakened our intel-gathering capabilities.
This is a wake-up call to all the apathetic conservatives who are considering staying home in November. Staying home in 2006 to “teach them a lesson” put Ms. Pelosi in a position of power to let the Protect America Act lapse. I hope you won’t have to live with the guilt of not having done everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks.
Technorati Tags: FISA, President Bush, Surveillance, National Security, Mike McConnell, Republicans, John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
February 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Would it be ironic if the next terrorist to set of a car bomb did so in Front of the House of Reprsentativs, or the House Office Building.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Thank you for posting this article…I called several congressmen, some in my state and also in DC on Thursday. I emailed my congressman in my district with a comprehensive letter saying why this bill needs to be signed. This is the first time I have called several congressmen on an issue. I encourage everyone to do the same. Let your voice be heard.
Not surprised at all about Hillary/Obama…
Again, thank you so much for posting this very important information.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
blah, blah, terrorism, blah. Why has it become such a Pavlovian response to support anything and everything related to terrorism, no matter the cost?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
First, is Liem your real name? Sure sounds like it’s really Nancy, or Teddy, or Harry, or so on.
Second, why would anyone be upset that “intelligence” agencies don’t have a handle on who the bad guys are in our midst? If anything happens, it’s gonna be GW’s fault anyway, and what’s a few (or a few thousand) dead souls if it results in a donkey prez?
A long time ago I thought maybe the donkey leadership was only misguided. Now, I can only believe they really do wish ill upon our country. Look at their record. There’s absolutely no other possible explanation, not even a weak (if vociferous) “personal liberty” issue.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
First of all, Liem is Vietnamese so I accept your apology.
Second of all, I have no problem with wiretapping, as long as the proper warrants are in place to ensure legal accountability. The intelligence community can continue to do their jobs and Americans can continue to be protected without trading personal liberty for security. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And lastly, Dems wish ill will on their own country and people? Haha, are you serious?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
First (again), the reference was to the expressions of your first comment, not your name. It is so boilerplate donkey.
Second, although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, neither is it an absolute truth that whatever the guvmint does is evil, as donkeys seem to believe (unless it involves giving my hard-earned money to professional protestors in Berkeley).
How can it be explained any more clearly than, since communications are so mobile now, it would be virtually impossible to get the necessary intelligence to keep this country safe from those FOREIGNERS who would do us harm with agents (foreign and domestic) already in this country if agencies were required to get a warrant for every “wiretap” (misnamed, for sure)?
And third, yes, I truly believe the Pelosis and Reids of that “not-even-in-the-park” branch of donkeys wish ill on this country, because it is more important for them to destroy the Constitution that made us great in order to gain power than it is to protect that same Constitution and the citizens that it covers.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Yeah, they are all up in arms now about protecting your phone, but wait until it comes time to enforce one of their silly ass laws to insure “fairness” or “equality” of some sort.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Nah, it’s the dumb provisions like gun ownership and property rights. Everyone knows those were put into the amendments surrepticiously and shouldn’t be there!
And the rights that should have been explicitly included weren’t, like the right to happiness (not the right to pursue, but actual happiness) weren’t, so the umbrellas and penumbras and all have to be “discovered”, and that’s just so darned inconvenient.
And, of course, there’s always the issues of individual rights for the murdered. It is the mother of the individual who can decide life or death for an unborn child (or, in some cases, partially born), but it is the state who knows the child has rights if the mother is murdered and the unborn child happens to die, too. Ask Bobby Cutts about that one.
Income redistribution? Well, it’s right there in black and white in the Constitution, isn’t it?
What’s wrong with all those “haves” that they can’t see all these things, and more?
Vipers. Ignorant, conniving vipers.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Well, of course, the governmemnt now they’ll need to make sure your not doing any funny business like buying a gun over the phone, or plotting with some tax consultant to get out of paying your fair share, or buying your own health insurance. Why thats a perfectly legitimate sphere of surveillance.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“blah, blah, terrorism, blah. Why has it become such a Pavlovian response to support anything and everything related to terrorism, no matter the cost?”
-Comment by Liem.
Liem, I understand, and I’m sure Pres. Bush understands, that some people don’t like the idea of surveillance measures being taken. He knows that folks want to go back to the “good ol’ days” of coasting with our head in the sand, thinking no harm could ever come to our country. Pearl Harbor was just a historical occurrence to those who didn’t experience the effects. Now, they are our allies.
I just have one reminder…
September 11, 2001.
Unfortunately, our world was changed forever on that day. Except there is good out of every tragedy. The good is that we will be on the offensive, no longer in denial. And, the good is that we haven’t had another successful attack on our homeland since then.
Personally, I don’t have anything to hide…it is curious to consider if those protesting the PAA the most, do.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Oh please, is that Sept. 11 thing supposed to justify everything? I have a reminder for you as well: Iraq.
We were on the offensive and we put our trust in this administration that there were WMDs, that Iraq would be easy and the oil would pay for itself. There has been absolutely no accountability for these failures.
Another September 11th doesn’t need to happen because so many Americans are already so terrorized.
Personally, I don’t have anything to hide either. I just don’t understand why the government has to suspicious of anyone and everyone they please.
Not only that, the argument to protect the telecom companies retroactively from lawsuits is horribly weak. “To compel their cooperation in the future.” If legal warrants were issued, the telecoms would be forced to comply. So why is there a need for this clause?
February 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I think you’re all missing the point. The point is, accept or deny, the reps should have done SOMETHING by now. If they kill the bill, good for them. No “Bill” is going to solve any problems. however, for or against, do your jobs and move on…