Christie: Obama "has done nothing" differently from Bush on War on Terror

[Federosky]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/us/politics/christie-cites-9-11-in-assailing-libertarian-trend-in-gop.html?_r=0&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1374833479-w9eo2Qfib1Ny6V6BXdxOxQ

"President Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. And I mean practically nothing,” he said. “And you know why? Cause they work.”

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Why does

Chris Christie's opinion matter? Democratics here in NJ? We hate him. And it seems even at DU I can't get away from this obnoxious asshole's opinions on E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

[Dawgs]

2. Except for that one time. n/t

[cyberswede]

3. LOL

[think]

4. Bush's policies work great for grifters like The Carlyle Group & Halliburton

[stevenleser]

5. FISA vs. Warrantless wiretapping is a pretty big change.

That's just for starters. Unless anyone who disagrees, including Christie, can tell me who we warrantless wiretapped? How many warrantless wiretaps were put out under Bush. Answer those kinds of questions if you dont think there is a difference.

[Federosky]

7. warrantless wiretapping was made legal in 2008

For targets outside the US, even if the other person is inside.

So you probably shouldn't ask who this administration has warrantless wiretapped, because the answer is not "nobody".

[stevenleser]

8. I suppose it's to much to expect for you to see how ridiculous what you wrote is.

We're supposed to be upset now that agencies whose prime directive is spying against foreign people and entities are actually spying against foreign people and entities.

[jazzimov]

11. WITH warrants? nt

[Federosky]

12. You asked who Obama was wiretapping without a warran, and I gave you the answer

And the answer you sought is ridiculous? Why did you ask then? Did you want me to tell you that a warrant is issued for every person this administration wiretaps?

My guess is that you didn't know that warrantless wiretapping in those cases was made legal by Congress.

[stevenleser]

13. Of course I knew that. The question is, why do you think it is significant. What do you think the

CIA and NSA do? Did you just learn that they spy on foreigners?

Did you think there was a point in their history that they did not do that?

Did you think there was a point in their history where they got warrants to spy on foreigners?

[Federosky]

17. Jazzimov asked you a question, and you totally ignored it (See post #11)

You probably didn't answer because you think THAT was significant.

[stevenleser]

18. Its the same inane question you asked. Did you ever think the CIA or NSA got warrants to spy on

overseas folks? Is this some sort of contention now?

[Federosky]

19. face it. you thought warrants were required. you learned otherwise in this thread

Now you spin.

[stevenleser]

20. Face it, you're trying to spin what you are presenting as something new or different. It's not.

Did you really think the CIA or NSA ever needed warrants to spy on overseas folks?

I am going to keep asking you that same question. There is nothing new there.

Provide proof that the CIA or NSA needed warrants to spy on people overseas. Go ahead.

[Federosky]

22. OF COURSE the NSA " ever" got warrants to spy on foreign people

In cases where a US person was at the other end. Have you ever heard of FISA, the 1978 original? You are inadequately informed.

[stevenleser]

28. LOL, now you are claiming the CIA and NSA have always gotten warrants to spy on foreigners!

LOL, in 1970, a CIA spy in Moscow wants to get information on a potential KGB agent but wait! Before he gets it, according to you, he makes a call to a district court in DC and tells them he needs a warrant. No, he doesnt know the agents real name for sure, but he needs that warrant to spy!!!!




Go sell crazy somewhere else.

[Federosky]

29. You asked me if the NSA/CIA "ever" got a warrant for a foreigner

Now you realized that "ever" wasn't a winner for you, since FISA required a warrant starting on 1978, when a US person was involved too.

So you then narrowed it to pre-1978 years (1970). How slick.

[stevenleser]

30. LOL! You're still doing it!!!!! Oh this is too good!

[Recursion]

14. Negative

Warrantless surveillance requires both targets be non-US citizens. There are four levels of safeguards, including an FBI desk dedicated solely to keeping data from US citizens out of NSA hands.

[Federosky]

16. That's incorrect. If a foreign target speaks to ANYONE, American or not, no court order is required

From the justice dept. website: "
FACT: If a foreign target communicates with someone in the United States and the communication involves terrorism or foreign intelligence, the new law remains consistent with the intent of the old law – intelligence professionals can intercept that communication without a court order. As the President has said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it.""

Nothing is said about the person in the US being US Citizen or non-Citizen. http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/paa-dispelling-myths.html

[RedCappedBandit]

6. So Christie thinks Bush's policies work. Got it. nt

[treestar]

9. Not really. Obama got bin Laden

while Bush just farted around on that.

And Bush or his followers would have started another war by now, or we'd still be in Iraq and still be building up in Afghanistan.

[bigwillq]

15. And Bush got Saddam.

So it's a draw.

[jazzimov]

10. really, Chris?

Bush illegally invaded Iraq - Obama stopped that war.
Bush advocated torture as part of "enhanced interrogation" - Obama stopped it.
Bush gave up on Osama bin Laden - Obama killed him.
Bush used GITMO as a terrorist torture camp - Obama issued orders to close it (although that was blocked by NIMBY's in Congress).

I could go on and on, but these are some of the major DIFFERENCES between the policies of Bush and Obama regarding the "war on terror".

[gulliver]

21. Glad Christie is saying that.

It's a good line for him, and it builds consensus and cooperation. The "has done nothing" part you headline is walked back to "practically nothing" in the next sentence. That means that Obama has done something. This is coming from a Republican.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Christie's opinion was being promoted on DU yesterday as if he was not scum

some of his fellow 'moderates' really got off on Christie claiming that Rand Paul has Democratic support so they touted Christie as some wise voice of the center when he is in fact a right wing anti gay Republican bag of idiocy.

[Autumn]

24. And there we are. Another sterling recommendation. n/t

[ProSense]

25. Rand Paul Hits Back At Chris Christie

Rand Paul Hits Back At Chris Christie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023345646

Doing my part to promote RW infighting.

[BeyondGeography]

26. He sounds much smarter when he's beating up school boards in public

[Pretzel_Warrior]

27. Hey, lard ass! You couldn't be more wrong.

[HardTimes99]

31. The policies 'work' if losing the war is your objective. Or perpetuating it

for eternity.

Osama bin Laden has achieved 2 of his strategic objectives already:

The U.S. has withdrawn its forces from the holy land of Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. has been defeated in two wars against Muslim nations (Iraq and Afghanistan).

OBL's major strategic objective - the re-establishment of an Islamic Caliphate from Indonesia to North Africa - remains unrealized. But still possible, if not probable.

Christie deserves credit for fatuous (npi) comment of the week.