Posted on 10/24/2006 9:40:33 PM PDT by Ooh-Ah
Interviewer: Let me ask you to shift gears to the anti-terrorism initiatives. Last night in the debate, I think you said that you'd support warrant- less wiretapping. How does that square with your suspicion about this White House? Why would you be willing to let them do that without judicial oversight? And on the Military Commissions Act, would that have been something you would have supported? In general, your outlook on anti terrorism initiatives.
Casey: Yeah, I think going backwards the, with regard to the detainees and interrogation, look, we've had people like John McCain, and you could give other examples as well, but people who have looked at this for a long time who have been very serious about making sure that we are very tough in our interrogation, that we get as much information as possible from those we detain and interrogate and also John McCain, showing the kind of independence that Rick Santorum never seems to show, took on the administration and I think they, based upon their experience, I think they got it right and I think I would have support that.
Secondly, on the question of wiretaps, my position all along has been we've got to do everything possible and give every tool that government agencies need, intelligence, law enforcement, give them the tools they need to fight this war on terror. And I think we, in terms of wire tapping, whether its terrorists, known terrorists, or suspected terrorists, we've gotta give this government all the tools it can. And I think what we've seen in the past is the system that has been setup when its operated according to the law, and when the administration goes and puts a wiretap in place and then comes back later and gets a warrant after the fact, the system that has been setup is a pretty solid system, but they often don't comply with it. You can support having a lot of tough wiretapping, but also support the kind of tough oversight of the administration, which I think has been lacking. And I think we can have the two in balance at right.
Interviewer: Well, it might have been misreported this morning, but it certainly seemed to me as if you were endorsing the NSA program which is warrant less wiretapping without court oversight.
Casey: Well, I think, look, my position all along has been you've got to have the ability to wiretap known or suspected terrorists, and I am going to make sure that everything I do in this area is focused on anti terrorism and making sure that we are being as tough as possible to ferret out any kind of plot or and kind of terrorist activity.
Interviewer: Bob, it's real simple, and it seems to me you are dancing around it. Either you believe that the President or his designees need to go to the FISA court and provide some probable cause for the wiretapping, or you don't. They say they don't. They say they can do it on their own say so and there's no oversight of whether the person they're wiretapping is actually credibly a terrorist suspect or not. That's the issue. Do they have to go through the FISA court or not? Nobody's debating that we need to wiretap suspected terrorists.
Casey: You know very well that Senator Specter has worked very hard on this to try to get this right and I think with bi-partisan cooperation, working with people like Senator Specter, as I know I can, that we can get this right. I don't, I don't, I don't see what the...
Interviewer: It's a real simple question. Do they need to go through the FISA Court as the FISA law has said since 1973 or don't they? They say they don't. We say they do. What do you say?
Casey: I think it's worked well.
Interviewer: What has worked well?
Casey: I think it's worked well when you use that system and you use it in the context of making sure that we are doing everything possible to, to...
Interviewer: So, are you saying that the president has been breaking the law since 2002, or whenever the NSA program started?
Casey: I'm saying that people like Senator Specter have a lot of questions about whether or not the law was broken. I don't think anyone has made a determination about that. I think that's pretty clear.
Or hear about Social Security, antiterrorism measures, Amtrak, health care and his leadership style
Anyone care to translate?
snicker
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I cannot believe Rick Santorum is going to get beaten by this boob.
Unbelievable
He's like "Special Ed" from that Crank Yankers show.
I wouldn't have believed it possible but since the debate I'm certain.
Send a letter to
letters@post-gazette.com
or another PA newspaper and spread the word.
CASEY IS AN EMPTY SUIT MEDIOCRITY ...
A letter I wrote.
----
Editor,
I've appreciated Senator Santorum as one of our nation's best Senators, on many
issues and causes: Articulate and correct in defending life; sensible and pro-taxpayer
in supporting the Bush tax cuts that helped make 6 million jobs in the last 4 years.
But most importantly, Santorum's actions and his July speech on describing the global terrorist threat
as rooted in Islamicist fascist extremism show that he fully understands the war we are
in and is supporting the right policies to win it.
It boggles my mind that the excellent, articulate, hard-working conservative Senator
Rick Santorum is being bested in polls by an empty suit mediocrity.
I would ask Pennsylvania voters: Please vote to keep Santorum,
not just for the sake of your state, but for the sake of our country.
This country needs Rick Santorum.
Casey has had an easy campaign: Play safe, don't make mistakes and watch Santorum go down.
But even that task he's done poorly - in each debate, Santorum outshone him on knowledge of the issues, articulateness, and specificity. In other arenas, Casey babbles incoherently on national security issues.
Casey is a liberal mediocrity who is hiding being incoherence masked as moderation, much like Carter in 1976; and Casey like Carter is running a fuzzball campaign that merely relied on negatives on the other side to coast to victory.
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/
Hopefully this bloc of voters will come to their senses when they realize how unbearable the alternative would be.
"Unfortunately Santorum has alienated many in Pa. with his active support of Sen. Specter over Toomy. "
EVEN THOUGH TOOMEY STRONGLY SUPPORTS AND ENDORSES SANTORUM NOW?!?
ARRRGH! This is mind-boggling.
Pro-tax-cut, Schumer/Hillary/Kennedy sockpuppet and empty suit mediocrity Liberal Bob Casey Jr will beat out one of our nation's best Senators, because that conservative Senator put a personal relationship with a colleague above ideological purity 2 years ago ...
That is such bad bad thinking on so many levels, I get a migraine just thinking about the stupidity of it!
Santorum: Articulate and correct in defending life; sensible and pro-taxpayer
in supporting the Bush tax cuts that helped make 6 million jobs in the last 4 years.
But most importantly, Santorum's actions and his July speech on describing the global terrorist threat
as rooted in Islamicist fascist extremism show that he fully understands the war we are
in and is supporting the right policies to win it.
Casey: Liberal. Incoherent. Idiot. Mediocrity. Will make Hillary Uber-Leader....
See my letter ...
"I would ask Pennsylvania voters: Please vote to keep Santorum,
not just for the sake of your state, but for the sake of our country.
This country needs Rick Santorum."
RIGHT?
I was very surprised to receive a recorded phone message from Mr. Toomy about 3 weeks ago stating that he fully supports Sen. Santorum!
There are many here that are still very bitter at Santorum's support of Specter.
Lets hope that they come to their senses before it's too late! As you know Casey is a ZERO running on his father's name recognition.
ping
Conservatives who think they need to "punish" Rick Santorum because he backed Arlen Specter need to think about this: if they succeed in defeating Rick, there will never be another conservative Senator from a Blue state. And I would daresay even other conservatives from Red states will start to trim their sails in terms of defending life, defending marriage, defending the family, and defending America against Islamic fascism. The message they will get is, don't stick your neck out or you will be caricatured and savaged by the media, and even conservatives will never think you are conservative enough. We will end up with a Senate full of Lindsey Grahams. Is that what you really want?
Hey, don't kill the messenger! I'm in Rick's corner 100%.
If the election is as close as I think it may be the deciding factor may be the known voter fraud that will occur in Phila. & Allegheny counties. Rendell's machine is very strong in these urban areas.
It could be that they are withholding their support to "Punish" Rick and make him sweat before the election. I believe the conservative base will eventually support Rick and strongly believe in his ideology.
Lets hope that I'm correct in my belief.
bump
Thanks--LOL!
Empty Suits
How an empty suit can be endorsed by the Phily Inquirer and be ahead of a serious candidate during a war, is beyond me. It is a very sad commentary on our times.
I hope Pennsylvanians will think about this when they vote.
How an empty suit can be endorsed by the Phily Inquirer and be ahead of a serious candidate during a war, is beyond me. It is a very sad commentary on our times.I also hope Pennsylvanians will think about how history will view their very important vote.I hope Pennsylvanians will think about this when they vote.
President Bush also just said at his press conference how history will look back and say:
What happened to those people in 2006? How could they let...(have to get full quote later)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.