Gay Patriot Header Image

Sen. Cornyn vs. Sen. Feingold

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 3:07 pm - March 14, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,War On Terror

This is too funny! (hat tip – Powerline)

Sen. Cornyn’s tally on the Feingold Censure Resolution.

Results of Feingold Censure Resolution (S.Res. 398): Day 2

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

– U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee and member of the Judiciary Committee said,

“I have taken a long and serious look at the legal authorities governing the NSA program that is the focus of this hearing. It is misleading to characterize the NSA program as some sort of broad-based ‘domestic’ spying on U.S. citizens. The NSA program is narrowly focused. It targets the international communications of al Qaeda in an effort to connect the dots and prevent another 9/11.”

Awesome.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

20 Comments

  1. Bruce I posted something by mistake. Please contact me.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 4:45 pm - March 14, 2006

  2. Bruce, I love the tally! But I still don’t get why Frist even allowed Feingold to hoist his presidential censure flag up the pole? Sometimes having the same party control the WH, the Senate, the House, the Judiciary, SCOTUS, and nearly everything else on the political landscape except corrupt urban metropolitan areas can be a disbenefit.

    Why’d Frist let Feingold move forward on it? Is it really backroom, hallway chamber politics to undercut Reid’s leadership and paint the Sen Dems into an untenable corner? Seems to me that Murtha got away with murder on his unilateral withdrawal posturing a few months ago… isn’t this a similar gig?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 5:55 pm - March 14, 2006

  3. The Senate should pass a resolution affirming the obvious – that, in fact, the NSA terrorist surveillance for general defense-intelligence purposes (not criminal investigations) is appropriate, legal and right.

    Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - March 14, 2006

  4. Because, Matt, stupdity is most effectively countered by making it completely obvious.

    This is why I regularly remind people that Cindy Sheehan is a paid and endorsed spokesperson for the Democratic Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - March 14, 2006

  5. “Stupidity”, of course. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - March 14, 2006

  6. Bruce. Nevermind.

    Comment by hank — March 14, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - March 14, 2006

  7. so, frist thinks open discussions in congress about the rule of law might be harmfulto iraq?

    feingold introduces a censure resolution
    and how does God’s Own Party react?
    frist thinks we need to supress our own democracy and ignore the rule of law in order to model democracy for the iraqis

    i thought reason number 7 for invading iraq was to make it a democratic nation?
    musta been wrong.

    Comment by joe — March 14, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - March 14, 2006

  8. Amusing, Joe. Your own party refuses to back Feingold… so what does that make them?

    Comment by DaveP. — March 15, 2006 @ 2:34 am - March 15, 2006

  9. Michigan-Matt will appreciate this: Debbie Stabenow (Dingbat-MI) Unveils New Democrat Slogan

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 5:14 am - March 15, 2006

  10. ND30, I wish it were so. If stupidity implodes bad policy and political actors in Washington, then few would be left standing and Carter would have never made it out of Plains.

    There’s just gotta be more to Frist allowing Feingold to run with this utter nonsense… it’s on the same level as Conyers doing the DSM-Imbeach Bush road show. There’s gotta be more. There just has to be.

    But for sure, Feingold wins the CharlieSchumer Award for Pandering this week.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 6:19 am - March 15, 2006

  11. Actually, the reason Feingold did this has nothing to do with Bush or Republicans, it’s to separate other Democrat presidential wannabes from the hardcore kook fringe left base that dominates the Democrat party right now. Kerry and Hillary can’t endorse the resolution without alienating sensible, mainstream voters. But by not endorsing the resolution, they piss off the kook left fringe that dominates the primary process.

    The resolution isn’t aimed at taking down Bush or Frist, it’s aimed at taking down Hillary and John Kerry.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 7:27 am - March 15, 2006

  12. It’s a well known and well documented fact that civil liberties expand and contract relative to the militaristic and security requirements of our country at a specific time. This is another example of it. Additionally, the NSA wire tapping efforts were (as previously stated) very narrowly tailored to terrorist communications. If those communications originated in another country from a foreign national, then the (1) that person is not a U.S. citizen and (2) not residing in our country. As such, the U.S. Constitution’s jurisdictional reach would not be impeded upon and therefore, the wire taps would not be unconstitutional. If the wire tap were conducted in that situation and pa person either in the U.S. or a U.S. citizen were the recipient of the communication, then I think you’re still within the permissible confines of constitutionality as it would not have been a person subject to the jurisdiction of our 4th Amendment rights that was the target of the wire tap. Just like if we had an understanding (just an example here) with Columbia to investigate cocaine dealers and search anyone there. If they’re on Columbian soil and not a U.S. citizen, then no warrant is required and if we happened upon a recorded phone call while listening to the phone lines of that dealer to a U.S. citizen, you’re still ok since it was beyond the Constitutions reach as to when/where the wire tap began.

    So why did the rest of the Senate let this moonbat raise his issue? Well, because it’s too early to tell if there was any constitutional violation with the NSA program. By not jumping the gun and being reactionary, the other 99 folks in there show their voting base and constituants that they take measured steps in regard to national security. The other 99 also make themselves appear more centrist to the majority of Americans which is where the majority of voters fall.

    Mid-term elections, here we come.

    Comment by ARCountryBoy — March 15, 2006 @ 8:11 am - March 15, 2006

  13. VdaK, thanks for the StupidCow picture and a rational ‘xplanation for Feingold’s stunt. NDXXX’s comments make more sense, now. Thanks.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 15, 2006 @ 8:33 am - March 15, 2006

  14. #13 — I posted the Debbie Stupidcow pic on my blog. It actually encompasses the entire Michigan senatorially delegation. Carl Lenin is dangerous, and Debbie Stupidcow is incompetent.

    Comment by V the K — March 15, 2006 @ 9:56 am - March 15, 2006

  15. Carl Lenin. That’s good — and accurate.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 15, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - March 15, 2006

  16. look, if you goobers want another president who thinks he’s not subject to the law – you’ve got him! congrats! – i’d like to have someone in charge who makes an attempt to at least look like he’s following the rules. the fact that no one in the democratic party is standing behind feingold matters to me not at all – as a lifelong democrat, i can honestly say that my party has become the biggest collection of no-nads i’ve ever seen. feingold’s on the right track; if we continue to let our leaders ignore the law, we have nothing left to defend against the forces of “tur.”

    Comment by mac — March 15, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - March 15, 2006

  17. my party has become the biggest collection of no-nads i’ve ever seen

    Just for you.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 15, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - March 15, 2006

  18. #16. Mac, you guys just never learn. Just because you really, really want to believe that Bush broke the law that doesn’t mean it’s true. And as far as the Dem Party having no nads, well, I agree. They don’t have the nads to keep the country safe and make the hard decisions that need to be made in the War on Terror. On the other hand it takes huge balls to be so openly anti-American as many on the left are. To bad for you that they’re running your Party.

    Comment by Dave — March 15, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - March 15, 2006

  19. #4

    Isn’t this illustrating absurdity with absurdity?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 16, 2006 @ 2:22 am - March 16, 2006

  20. #16

    i’d like to have someone in charge who makes an attempt to at least look like he’s following the rules.

    Which explains why nobody gave a damn when lord BJ was performing actual domestic surveillance. You were firmly clamped on his dick like the cow was and you STILL won’t question his decisions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 16, 2006 @ 2:29 am - March 16, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.