10
Jul

President Bush Signs Bi-Partisan Terrorist Surveillance Bill

Posted by: Mike's America @ 8:40 pm in Uncategorized

Visited 549 times, 1 so far today

I guess Democrats have realized an election is coming up!

President George W. Bush delivers remarks prior to the signing of H.R. 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment Act of 2008, Thursday, July 10, 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House. Joining President Bush at the signing ceremony are from left, Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M.; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.; U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey; Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.; Rep.Darrell Issa, R-Calif.; Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, Vice President Dick Cheney; Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman; Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, Rep. John Boehner, R- Ohio; Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R- Mich.; Missouri Senator Kit Bond, Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.; Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas; Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas; and West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Joined by members of both parties, including the Democrat chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, President Bush finally signed the long overdue FISA bill to allow for monitoring of terrorist communications.

The votes in both houses were bipartisan and lopsided in favor of the bills (House roll call here, Senate roll call here). Barack Obama voted for the bill which he swore to filibuster. Even Nancy Pelosi voted for it. Only one Republican, Rep.Johnson (IL) voted joined 128 House Democrats in voting against the bill. In the Senate, no Republicans joined the 28 Democrats and the Socialist Bernie Sanders (VT) in voting no.

In contrast to the low key Oval Office ceremony for signing the Iraq war funding bill on June 30, this event showcased Democrat’s concerns about being seen as soft on terrorists in the weeks remaining before the November election.

One wonders why Democrats obstructed passage of the bill and allowed foreign surveillance of terrorists to lapse for so many months if they were going to end up supporting the bill in the end?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print this article!
  • Facebook
  • Fark
  • StumbleUpon
  • Blogsvine
  • Bumpzee
  • del.icio.us
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 10th, 2008 at 8:40 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

7 comments so far

BarbaraS
 1 

I see where the ACLU is suing Bush for the FISA law. What is with a private citizen suing the the president and congress for the laws they pass? The president and congress represent all the people not just one or a few. I am sure the libs want this to go to the SC and have their puppets declare it unconstitutional but this is asinine. What kind of chaos would we have if we allow this situation to continue. We might as well eliminate the presidency and congress and let the SC make our laws. Much like Iran’s mullahs. This is just the left trying to get the laws they want through the courts. And we can only rely on Kennedy to do the right thing. The founding fathers must be turning over in their graves. They never expected the Judiciary to turn political.
Could someone tell me what ae the checks on the Judiciary? Or are there none at all.

July 11th, 2008 at 5:28 am
BarbaraS
 2 

As soon as we get a republican congress we need to abolish the law that said the government would pay fees to the ACLU and other like them on civil rights cases. That might stop their trivial and inane lawsuits that threaten the very fabric of our government.

July 11th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Mike's America
 3 

Don’t forget that one of the ACLU’s cheif lawyers now sits on the Supreme Court. Her name is Justice Ginsburg.

July 11th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Scott Malensek
 4 

Um, didn’t Congressional Democrats run on the promise to prosecute those who were eavesdropping on Americans? Now, instead, the Democrats’ Congress gives those who they alleged were infringing on our rights a free pass, AND they revise the FISA law to fit the Bush Admin desires.

Hmmm, interesting. Does this mean the Democrats’ Congress is inept, or that they deliberately misled their way to power?

Ahhhhh, the good ole days of 2006….

July 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am
DaNang67
 5 

I’ve been reading the headlines and headline summaries related to this event just like most Americans would and they prove that you folks are mistaken.

George Bush owns this bill. He must have written it, cast all the votes to pass it and signed it single handed! It was in the news. It can’t be wrong.

July 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Mike's America
 6 

You’re right DaNang. If a Democrat were in the White House instead of Bush this bill would never have been passed.

If Dems were in the White House we wouldn’t be monitoring terrorist communciations AT ALL!

Heck, Obama has promised to inform any terrorist suspects that we are watching them just so they feel their rights are violated.

July 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
MataHarley
 7 

Notably missing from the photo…. Pelosi and Reid, as well as the two POTUS candidates, and POTUS-in-waiting candidate, HRC.

BTW, you can sue the Executive Branch, but you cannot sue the legislative or judicial branches of the US. Congress is immune as a body.

You can, however, sue individual members for other misc charges, i.e. Murtha condemning the Haditha soldiers as guilty before trial in public appearances.

July 11th, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

Email me if your comment is caught in spam