Fox's Chris Wallace suggested false assertion for McCain: Dem Congress went home, denying government tools to fight terrorists
SUMMARY: Referring to the expiring revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Fox host Chris Wallace asserted that when Sen. John McCain "gets on the campaign trail and says, 'Look, here is a law that was going to provide the tools for the United States to be able to intercept communications of people who want to kill us and Congress went home, the Democratic Congress went home on a break' -- that's going to be a pretty effective weapon to use against the Democrats in the fall." In fact, contrary to Wallace's suggestion, the government has "the tools" to "intercept communications" of suspected terrorists.
On the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asserted that when Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) "gets on the campaign trail and says, 'Look, here is a law that was going to provide the tools for the United States to be able to intercept communications of people who want to kill us and Congress went home, the Democratic Congress went home on a break' -- that's going to be a pretty effective weapon to use against the Democrats in the fall." The Protect America Act's (PAA) revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which, among other things, expand the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant, expire on February 15. But, contrary to Wallace's suggestion that once the PAA revisions expire the government will lack "the tools" to "intercept communications of people who want to kill us," the government has and has long had the tools to intercept communications of suspected terrorists. Before Congress amended FISA in August 2007, the government had the authority to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists if, under most circumstances, it obtained a court order to eavesdrop on communications either intercepted in the United States or acquired by intentionally targeting the communications of a particular, known U.S. person who is in the United States.
Moreover, House Democratic leaders attempted to pass a three-week extension of the PAA that would have granted lawmakers additional time to construct compromise legislation. That proposal was defeated 229-191 on February 13, with 191 Democrats voting in favor of temporarily extending the PAA, and 34 Democrats joining 195 Republicans in voting against the extension.
Also on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade claimed that "[t]he FISA law is going to expire." Kilmeade joins the growing number of media figures and outlets Media Matters for America has identified that have conflated FISA and the PAA.
From the February 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KILMEADE: Hey, Chris, you ready for a series of serious questions? The FISA law is going to expire. In Baghdad, they passed three major pieces of legislation, they're going to have a vote coming up forward, and nobody seems to care. Why is that?
WALLACE: I don't know. But I'll tell you, this is the kind of a thing that I would think that John McCain would look at and say, "This is going to be grist for the mill in November." Look, it's going to be a tough year for the Republicans. They got a faltering economy, an unpopular war, as I said in my own charming way to the president, an unpopular president. But having said that, when McCain gets on the campaign trail and says, "Look, here is a law that was going to provide the tools for the United States to be able to intercept communications of people who want to kill us and Congress went home, the Democratic Congress went home on a break" -- that's going to be a pretty effective weapon to use against the Democrats in the fall.
Here is a law that was going to provide George W. Bush absolute power to be able to intercept communications of any U.S. citizen for any reason and Congress went home.
The nerve of some people.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
when McCain gets on the campaign trail and says, "Look, here is a law that was going to provide the tools for the United States to be able to intercept communications of people who want to kill us and Congress went home, the Democratic Congress went home on a break" -- that's going to be a pretty effective weapon to use against the Democrats in the fall. // CHRIS WALLACE
I think we should be happy to see McCain come to the gun fight with that feather.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Smirk on, Chrissie, and drive the family business into the ashes.
I have been listening to a lot of GOP radio lately, and the latest cheerleading for the spying -on-Americans act is pretty weak, even by their standards.
The pitch is that the gov. will be restricted from tapping phone calls if they have U.S. area codes.Of course, with cell phones, these area codes can be used by anyone anywhere.As evidence Hugh Hewitt had one of his dependably Brit -accented wh*res relate a story of talking to a friend with a D.C. area code--As he was driving to a wedding in Provence!!!
It's weak, but I'm sure it will work on enough Americans to have an effect.
The most offensive thing I posted was the name of a fitness guy who "Sweats to the Oldies".
It won't allow his name to be used.
Strange, huh?
This, yet again, should be a lesson for the dems in congress. They wanted to grant an extention to the PAA because they were scared of this type of rhetoric from the media. However, the GOP blocks it and not a peep about that is mentioned in stories like this one. So, they should see that any effort to appease blows up in their faces. The noise machine doesn't care about the facts of who kept the legislation that would "protect us" from going through, they will smear the Dems at any cost. They should instead fight tough and get their own message out loud and clear.
In my opinion, that extention should never have gone through anyway. The Dems should learn to stand strong and tall and say, "Kiss my *ss, we're going back to the original FISA law. It works perfectly well and does not trample on our liberties (as much). Anyone who says that we're in more danger or that we don't have the tools we need is a lying sack of crap." Why can't any of them say that?
And why the hell can't the media do its job and report something accurately and in depth. I don't expect Chris "I'm flushing my family name down the toilet" Wallace to do it, but I do for the other media outlets.
Yet Bush was ready to veto the new FISA law unless there was immunity for the telecoms.
And the spying was stopped because Bush didn't pay the bill! I guess it wasn't that importang, after all.
What some NY Times reporter said on C-Span this morning was that immunity was needed because the lawsuits would bankrupt the telecoms. If that's the truth, then why the fear-mongering? But what everyone fails to remember is that the illegal spying began BEFORE 9/11.
personally, i wouldn't mind if they abolished all laws permitting such surveillance and all the agencies to boot. just as with the attacks on 9/11, and the wtc attack in '93, by far the greatest percentage of people killed were libs. there were a few conservatives who were martyred, such as Barbara Olson, but it's a price we must pay.
you people are absolutely deranged, and perhaps you will be in the terrorists sights. one can hope.
the point of the democrats is that there is no danger. so let's be honest about it. open the borders, stop the surveillance, and let's see what happens.
as for the 200 years, you forget the alien and sedition act under adams, lincoln suspending habeas corpus, and here's a little summary for you:
Woodrow Wilson arrested hundreds of antiwar Americans, including a presidential candidate, for protesting the draft; deported anarchists to Communist Russia; and imprisoned a movie producer for depicting the British as an American enemy in his film about the American Revolution. (Under the 1918 Sedition Act, it was a federal crime to criticize a U.S. ally, which Britain was.) Franklin Roosevelt oversaw an Office of Censorship, made plans to detain hundreds of peaceful political enemies, imprisoned war opponents, and interned 110,000 innocent Japanese Americans. Lyndon Johnson had the FBI spy on reporters and used the FBI and CIA to wiretap, monitor, and infiltrate the campaign of his presidential rival, Barry Goldwater.
But we don’t need to go back so far to indict the Democrats on civil liberties issues. Under Bill Clinton, the police state grew perhaps as much as it feasibly could during a relative time of peace. According to the ACLU, Clinton expanded stealth surveillance of the citizenry far beyond anything seen under any prior administration. Clinton sought to allow the feds to peek at everyone’s bank account, have a key to all private encryption and e-mail, and censor the Internet. After the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton signed the draconian Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, expanding the authority of secret courts, unleashing the FBI to investigate First Amendment–protected activities, and allowing the INS to deport American citizens.
Under Clinton, there was also the military operation on American soil just outside Waco, Texas, where about 80 American civilians died when a 51-day standoff culminated in a fire breaking out after a federal tank rammed through a religious sect’s home and gassed its women and children with poisonous and flammable CS gas. In this case, an imaginary meth lab was the original rationale to circumvent Posse Comitatus’s prohibitions on military involvement in law enforcement—the drug war, which the Democrats have consistently and enthusiastically upheld, has also been a disaster for civil liberties and the rule of law.
When the Democrats controlled both the presidency and the legislature, as they did during much of Wilson, all of FDR, and all of Johnson, civil liberties suffered greatly. When, under Clinton, they split the government with Republicans, the police state nevertheless grew—meaning neither the GOP nor partisan gridlock is our salvation, either.
but as i say, if you have the courage of your convictions, let's dismantle all of it and give it a go.
how very convenient to overlook the fact that 6 federal agents were murdered by the branch davidians at waco. you must be soft on crime.
"the point of the democrats is that there is no danger. so let's be honest about it. open the borders, stop the surveillance, and let's see what happens.
[...]
but as i say, if you have the courage of your convictions, let's dismantle all of it and give it a go."
I'm guessing this is verbatim from whatever right-wing fear monger you've entrusted to define the Democratic position for you.
Quote one prominent Democrat who has flatly said, "there is no danger."
Quote one prominent Democrat who has flatly said, "stop the surveillance," as opposed to "stop the warrantless surveillance."
kennedy accused the president of fear mongering. perhaps he's right. let's drop our guard and see if it's all made up, and that we really have nothing to fear but our own president and the director of national intelligence who said he needed the bill.
i don't know why everyone is so intent about a judge providing oversight. my experience with judges, albeit limited, is that i would not one of them deciding anything having to do with me or my family.
kennedy accused the president of fear mongering. perhaps he's right. let's drop our guard and see if it's all made up, and that we really have nothing to fear but our own president and the director of national intelligence who said he needed the bill.
i don't know why everyone is so intent about a judge providing oversight. my experience with judges, albeit limited, is that i would not one of them deciding anything having to do with me or my family.
kennedy accused the president of fear mongering. perhaps he's right. let's drop our guard and see if it's all made up, and that we really have nothing to fear but our own president and the director of national intelligence who said he needed the bill.
i don't know why everyone is so intent about a judge providing oversight. my experience with judges, albeit limited, is that i would not one of them deciding anything having to do with me or my family.
id"i don't know why everyone is so intent about a judge providing oversight. my experience with judges, albeit limited, is that i would not one of them deciding anything having to do with me or my family."
No, you'd rather relinquish your Fourth Amendment rights in favor of absolute power and authority by the president.
Would you rather that a judge not have any say in the matter if law enforcement wants to search your house? How about if they want to search your family? No problems there? "Permission granted"?
i was involved in a law suit that i brought against a former business partner. this guy had embezzled money from the company, cooked the books, hid important information from me, and eventually cheated me out of a few million dollars.
the judge in the case was clueless. he understood nothing about business. he was a political hack, appointed, not elected. he made so many decisions contrary to law and commonsense, it was ridiculous. in the end he threw us out of court, saying, we, the plaintiffs, were so sophisticated that we could not have been cheated without our knowing it.
i don't see how relying on a judge gains you anything.