POTENTIAL "PANDERERS IN CHIEF" CHANGE IRAQ TALK

Democrats presented, and President Bush signed into law last Sunday, an updated and more powerful version of the wiretap bill that the Democrats made a whole lot of noise about, and against, before the 2006 elections.

The President signed into law a bill giving government even greater powers to allow investigators to monitor international calls and emails without warrants.

The “Protect America Act of 2007” allows government to listen in on communications between people in the U.S. and overseas if the target of the surveillance is outside the country.

In December, 2005, before the Dems took control of Congress, California Senator Diane Feinstein had this to say about the less intrusive eavesdropping methods in use at the time; “(This)…calls into question the integrity and credibility of our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.”

It’s amazing how a dose of reality and the burden of real decision making can put your political decisions on a different course.

Here’s another example of how the real deal can smack some idiotic campaign trash-talk back into a candidate’s “say anything to get elected” mouth. Remember how the Democrats were promising everyone with a sandwich board manufactured by the Party, and no job to keep them from marching for the cameras, that they would get us out of Iraq? Here’s what they have to say now according to the Sunday New York Times:

John Edwards would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries.

Hillary Clinton would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north.

In public appearances, Hillary often says, “If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president, I will.” Then she confirms recently to the New York Times, when reminded of an interview with the paper in March, that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require continued deployment of American troops.

Barrack Hussein Obama would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

ISN’T THAT WHAT WE’RE DOING NOW??!?!?

And there’s this quote, according to The New York Times: “We’ve got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq,” John Edwards, who has run hard against the war, said at a Democratic debate in Chicago this week. “And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi’a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.”

A “possibility that you never hear anyone talking about?” He ought to peek out from behind his wife’s apron from time to time and listen to the folks, not to mention the Administration. Oh, that’s right; he’s too busy working with the poor folks to be bothered.

Maybe the public is finally catching on. The recent Democratic debate on MSNBC, a network that author, commentator and former CBS newsman, Barnard Goldberg calls “the network equivalent of the witness protection program,” drew less than a million viewers. Yawn.

JD.

Environmentalists are already exploiting the recent mining accident as a launch pad for an anti-coal agenda. Sick!