CNN's Pilgrim: Opposition to Bush "a fairly risky move"...could be attacks

CNN anchor Pilgrim: Democratic opposition to Bush's domestic spying "a fairly risky move given that any day there could be another attack"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512200011

On the December 19 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, guest host Kitty Pilgrim claimed that Democratic criticism of President Bush's controversial decision to authorize wiretaps of American citizens without warrants is "a fairly risky move given that any day there could be another attack." Pilgrim's comment came during a discussion with Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

TOOBIN: That's right. And he (Bush) went defending this now-controversial NSA policy. But to me the most interesting part of this NSA controversy that started is that you have the Democrats for the first time since September 11th attacking the president about national security. They seem to think, and I don't know if they're right, that the issue of protecting individual rights will trump the issue of we're protecting you from terrorism. I've been shocked at how aggressive the Democrats have come out on this, because this is an issue that has been right into the president's wheelhouse for a long time.

FUND: Especially because we don't know a whole lot about this. We do know that Congress was briefed. We don't know quite how much they were briefed. We know Harry Reid was briefed. Also, during the Clinton administration there was a program called Echelon, which is the NSA scooping up all the electronic communications in the country. Whether or not they were monitoring people at that time is a separate issue. I think it's interesting the Democrats are attacking because people do care about civil liberties. I'm interested that they're attacking before all the facts are in.

PILGRIM: And it certainly seems like a clear stand against the president on terror, a fairly risky move given that any day there could be another attack.

From your headline, I thought you were going to say that opposing Bush was risky because anyone who did so would be attacked! I know it is true, but I was prepared to be surprised to hear that Kitty Pilgrim had said so.

...it was so good (and so twisted) I wanted the whole thing, but alas...

:evilgrin:

But maybe she knows something we don't. Maybe she's been told already by BushCo when and where it's going to happen.

:tinfoilhat:

Are you saying the monkey is using extortion to keep us Dems from attacking him?

That if we complain he will make sure there's another attack?

King George in hommage. He is the only man in 'Murika. He has surpassed all others. He has surpassed God. Hell, he's even surpassed the Rev. Moon."

When will they learn that we knew they were already spying on us and realize that when there is another attack snooping wouldn't have stopped it.

But they learned what someone was having for dinner and who they were fucking.

attack on Clinton's Penis, Abortion and the fact that their Lord & Master was criticized for illegally wiretapping the Dems and journalists, or whomever he secretly, illegally wiretapped.

Everytime I read a journalist that backs Bush's wiretaps, I wonder, what did those illegal wiretaps expose to this Malistration.

PILGRIM: And it certainly seems like a clear stand against the president on terror, a fairly risky move given that any day there could be another attack.
----------------

We, the people are being CONSTANTLY THREATENED by 'our own people'.....who needs enemies when 'we' have 'friends' such as this???

Where's the discourse about peace, harmony, and attempting to live up to ones full potential????

"We" are constantly being terrorized from within.....and I'm totally sick of this sh*t!!!!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2325355

Mr. Conyers is IN FACT spending a considerable amount of his time condemning and working against "terrorism", when he works against a president who is forcing and/or threatening to coerce the compliance of the rest of the community (the US) into supporting an illegal war and subversion of the Constitution of the United States -- by this president CONSTANTLY remindering US citizens of an unnamed/unidentified 'enemy' who is a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> or will commit violence (as bombing).

John Conyers is a true patriot.

----------
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror

---------

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/terror

---------

Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>
synonym see FORCE
_________________________________________

pundits, one and all, to flow in one ear and out the other.

Do not process their ideas, do not consider their ideas, do not fall victim to their predictions, cautions, warnings etc.

For one thing they all contradict one another, for another they don't know what will happen.

And cause it only leads to fear, to a timid approach to action.

:crazy:

Liberal media is all over this story. :puke:

because there "might" be another attack? She should be heaping praise on any elected official who is standing up to truly protect the citizenry by insisting that we abide by Constitutional principles.

How could there possibly be another attack given that the President has done everything necessary to protect the USA from terror?

If you seriously believe that it is possible for terrorists to learn Spanish or that any terrorist could sneak into Mexico and then sneak across the border from Mexico into the USA, then all I can say is that you probably worship a copy of the Constitution and, like the people who wrote that outdated document, you know nothing about practical reality.

Give up your Constitution worship, for it is a false idol! It is not alive, but I assure you that God is alive. God is alive and in control and His middle initial is "W".

W gives you your constitutional rights and W takes them away. Blessed be the name of W.

(Shiver)+

as I was cooking diner and you could have driven a truck thru my mouth. I sent a blistering email after I fried up the bacon and put it in the warming drawer.

Hey Toobin....this has nothing to do with protecting us. Bush can go ahead and wiretap citizens without a warrant if he follows the damn law (a retroactive warrant under FISA)....but he didn't do this.....

Who'll be the first Repuke on TV to tell someone, "Remember what happened to Paul Wellstone"?

"We've only had four years to prepare for this second terrible attack, which wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by Bill Clinton and the opponents of the Gwot. None of this is my fault, I'm only the president of the United States, and have no power with which to protect myself."

If so, why is he given any airtime and why would anyone even stand to be on the same set with him?

thought we were safer under a bush* - at least that's what repugs were blathering about just last year

the only attacks that will happen is the bushies attacking the critics/opposition

there is no doubt * is responsible and as guilty as hell.
Darn liberal media...:sarcasm: