Post by King Rat on Sept 13, 2006 7:41:30 GMT -6
I watched a bit of live House coverage yesterday on CSPAN and have come to the conclusion that if everyone in the US watched CSPAN at least one time during a House debate or subcommittee hearing there wouldn't be a single democrat left in D.C.
The hearing was on warrantless wiretaps. Maxine Waters, D-CA, appeared (honestly) to be either high on something or drunk. She rambled incoherently and couldn't manage to get a question out that anyone could understand. The NSA lawyer looked like a deer in the headlights because HE was the target of her "question". Even other committee members were glancing at each other with a "I can't believe this" look. Finally, Ms. Waters launched into a tirade and was actually yelling accusations at the NSA lawyer. Still unable to form a question, however, she was rescued by an ultra-liberal Constitutional attorney on the panel who took the opportunity to generally bash the Bush administration for its trampling of civil rights. Finally, Ms Waters managed to ask if it was possible for a target of a warrantless wiretap to be an employee of a US Corporation. The NSA lawyer answered that the target had to be a non-citizen believed to have links to a terrorist organization. Ms Waters repeated her "is it POSSIBLE" - literally screaming at him. He stuttered and replied that he guessed it was possible.
The next democrat, a congressman from Mass, started his "question" with a statement that said the NSA lawyer has testified that employees of US corporations are targets of warrantless wiretaps in order to steal trade secrets. Then he quickly "moved past that" and asked a totally unrelated question.
Granted, the NSA lawyer appeared unprepared and was much to meek to face a hostile panel of democrats. The republicans on the panel did nothing to help matters - retaining their spineless posture.
More than once the liberal attorney on the panel (actually there were two) stressed the "fact" that the bill should be rejected because of the "possibility" for an innocent person to have their telephone conversation listened to. An example they actually gave was this: Due to the embassy attack (Syria) earlier in the day it was very possible that someone in the US might call their mother-in-law in Syria later in the day and have that conversation listened to by the US government.
One democrat even complained that it was unfair for the Bush administration to ask congress to vote on such a political hot potato this close to an election.
In other words, it is unfair for Bush to force the democrats to show there TRUE stand on national security right before an election.
The hearing was on warrantless wiretaps. Maxine Waters, D-CA, appeared (honestly) to be either high on something or drunk. She rambled incoherently and couldn't manage to get a question out that anyone could understand. The NSA lawyer looked like a deer in the headlights because HE was the target of her "question". Even other committee members were glancing at each other with a "I can't believe this" look. Finally, Ms. Waters launched into a tirade and was actually yelling accusations at the NSA lawyer. Still unable to form a question, however, she was rescued by an ultra-liberal Constitutional attorney on the panel who took the opportunity to generally bash the Bush administration for its trampling of civil rights. Finally, Ms Waters managed to ask if it was possible for a target of a warrantless wiretap to be an employee of a US Corporation. The NSA lawyer answered that the target had to be a non-citizen believed to have links to a terrorist organization. Ms Waters repeated her "is it POSSIBLE" - literally screaming at him. He stuttered and replied that he guessed it was possible.
The next democrat, a congressman from Mass, started his "question" with a statement that said the NSA lawyer has testified that employees of US corporations are targets of warrantless wiretaps in order to steal trade secrets. Then he quickly "moved past that" and asked a totally unrelated question.
Granted, the NSA lawyer appeared unprepared and was much to meek to face a hostile panel of democrats. The republicans on the panel did nothing to help matters - retaining their spineless posture.
More than once the liberal attorney on the panel (actually there were two) stressed the "fact" that the bill should be rejected because of the "possibility" for an innocent person to have their telephone conversation listened to. An example they actually gave was this: Due to the embassy attack (Syria) earlier in the day it was very possible that someone in the US might call their mother-in-law in Syria later in the day and have that conversation listened to by the US government.
One democrat even complained that it was unfair for the Bush administration to ask congress to vote on such a political hot potato this close to an election.
In other words, it is unfair for Bush to force the democrats to show there TRUE stand on national security right before an election.