Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."
Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005
As reported by the New York Times on Friday, "Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."
A senior intelligence officer says Bush personally and repeatedly gave the NSA permission for these taps--more than three dozen times since October 2001. Each time, the White House counsel and the Attorney General--whose job it is to guard and defend our civil liberties and freedoms--certified the lawfulness of the program. (It is useful here to note "The Yoo Factor": The domestic spying program was justified by a "classified legal opinion" written by former Justice Department official John Yoo, the same official who wrote a memo arguing that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are "equivalent in intensity to...organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.")
Illegally spying on Americans is chilling--even for this Administration. Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, told the Times, "the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity." Some officials at the NSA agree. According to the Times, "Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation." Others were "worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected President."
It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know, and this Administration and its footsoldiers have used every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function of holding power accountable. But compounding the Administration's double-dealing, the media has been largely complicit in the face of White House mendacity. David Sirota puts it more bluntly in a recent entry from his blog: "We are watching the media being used as a tool of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power and protect American citizens."
Consider this: the New York Times says it "delayed publication" of the NSA spying story for a year. The paper says it acceded to White House arguments that publishing the article "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be-terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
Despite Administration demands though, it was reported in yesterday's Washington Post that the decision by Times editor Bill Keller to withhold the article caused friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the paper's DC bureau had apparently pushed for earlier publication. In an explanatory statement, Keller issued the excuse that, "Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." This from a paper, which as First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus pointed out in a letter to editor "rejected similar arguments when it courageously pub;ished the Pentagon Papers over the government's false objections that it would endanger our foreign policy as well as the lives of individuals." The Times, Garbus went on to argue, "owes its readers more. The Bush Administration's record for truthfulness is not such that one should rely on its often meaningless and vague assertions."
Readers and citizens deserve to know why the New York Times capitulated to the White House's request? It is true that Friday's revelations of this previously unknown, illegal domestic spying program helped stop the Patriot Act reauthorization. But what if the Times had published its story before the election? And what other stories have been held up due to Adminsitration cajoling, pressure, threats and intimidation?
The question of how this Administration threatens the workings of a free press, a cornerstone of democracy, remains a central one. Every week brings new evidence of White House attempts to delegitimize the press's role as a watchdog of government abuse, an effective counter to virtually unchecked executive power.
Last month, for example, the Washington Post published Dana Priest's extraordinary report about the CIA's network of prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. Priest's reporting helped push passage of a ban on the metastasizing use of torture. But, as with the New York Times, the Post acknowledged that it had acceded to government requests to withhold the names of the countries in which the black site prisons exist.
How many other cases are there of news outlets choosing to honor government requests for secrecy over the journalistic duty of informing the public about government abuse and wrongdoing?
Never has the need for an independent press been greater. Never has the need to know what is being done in our name been greater. As Bill Moyers said in an important speech delivered on the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive, a dedicated band of truth-tellers, "...There has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy." Moyers added. "It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption."
Federation of American Scientists secrecy specialist Steven Aftergood bluntly says, "an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, websites and official databases." This practice, Aftergood adds, "also accords neatly with the Bush Administration's preference for unchecked executive authority."
"Information is the oxygen of democracy," Aftergood rightly insists. This Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
What completely astounds me is Bush's assertion that domestic spying is necessary and acceptable to protect us from harm. Civil liberties are just getting in his way, I guess. We also see how the media has been pressured in some way to hold off on a story that would paint a negative picture of the Bush Administration. The NY Times has done it as has 60 Minutes. Maybe the election would have gone the other 1% if any of these stories were published prior to the election. Although I support the need for a more gutsy media, with all of this President's crimes, isn't it time that we, as Americans, focus on getting him out of office?
Posted by Daniel Rubin at 12/18/2005 @ 6:49pm
Silly me, I thought the Republicans were all for less government, smaller government, less intrusive government, trusting citizens, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Did I miss something? Oh, yeah, they now control government, so the rules have changed. Wait a minute, isn't that an example of...wait, it'll come to me...irony? Well, yeah, but...political thuggery? Duh, but that's not...it's not quite...HYPOCRISY! That's what it is! Hypocrisy of the worst kind. Well, at least they're not religious folks because that would be just terrible...what's that you say?
HO HO HO!!!!! Merry Christmas!
Posted by Turk33 at 12/18/2005 @ 8:38pm
It is obvious that Bush has committed a crime - a crime that is punishable with a 10 year prison sentence. There is the specific law passed after Watergate that forbids Federal officials from spying on US citizens and also the Fourth amendment against "unreasonable search". For him to say that Justice Department lawyers said it is all right and he told Congress, is irrelevant. If Bush orders the FBI to rob a bank, both he and the robber are quilty, no matter what his lawyers say or who else knew about the crime. Bush has always been immune to the law that ordinary citizens follow: AWOL from the National Guard; bankrupt businesses that his Dad's friend bailed out; insider stock trading where his Dad's appointed investigator gave him a pass; stealing the election in Florida that his Dad's operatives ... but you get the idea. Just as Helmsley said that paying taxes is for the "Little People". So Bush says obeying the law is for common people, not the Emperor. He and Cheney should both be impeached. I thought I would never see a more corrupt administration in my lifetime than Richard Nixon. Boy was I wrong.
Posted by ABowers at 12/18/2005 @ 8:48pm
Serious screw-up by the New York Times. If these spying-ops were so important to national security, why was it such a problem for the government to get warrants? Because that is what the president wants us to believe: that although these operations were absolutely vital, a judge might not see it that way and that, therefore, abiding by the law and going through the courts was was not an option.
Heck, if the president doesn't trust the American legal system, why should the New York Times trust the president?
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 12/18/2005 @ 8:51pm
It's a symptom of the power of the Conservative Sleeze Media that even the New York Times was compromised when Gee Dubya was making these decisions.
But let's not forget that at that time a gentleman born and raised in Alabama was running the Times.
He is now gone.
Perhaps it's time for our nation to turn it's eyes away from the old south when seeking leadership.
Nothing good comes from it.
Posted by Will C. at 12/18/2005 @ 9:01pm
See this small editorial [cryptome.org] for an explanation of why it's illegal, and how easy it would have been for Bush to do it all legally instead of illegally.
Posted by spicer at 12/18/2005 @ 9:23pm
I know the people, who read The Nation see the great irony in Bush's rhetoric about spreading democracy in Iraq while at the same time acting dictatorial at home.
silent leges inter arma
I hope our nation awakens to the Bush Administration's disregard for the law and for Bush's hauteur in flaunting the fact that he ordered the NSA to spy on Americans thereby violating the nations laws; all in the name of defending Americans against terrorists.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 12/18/2005 @ 9:25pm
Speech was classic gw hit the war stay the course he did admit that the intel used to go to war was "not accurate" thats a first. He did accuse his disenters of being unpatriotic and he forgot to mention is personal spy on americans program. It's time to start the impeachment of this fool and his squad of thugs
Posted by dycel8r at 12/18/2005 @ 9:53pm
Russ Feingold says "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American." Huh? You mean it's just now occurring to people like Feingold that Bush and his henchmen in the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress have been spying on Americans under the guise of investigating terrorism?
According to Bush, most of the so-called congressional leadership knew of these executive edicts that gave him this authority shortly after 9/11. Now, people act outraged. Well, let me say this, it's far too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
We learned last month that the national security letters (NSL) that authorize domestic spying have involved at least 30,000 people. Knowing that, were either the Republicans or the Democrats concerned enough to demand why ordinary citizens got caught up in the enormity of this snoopfest?
We are being told how easily tens of billions of dollars are being ripped off through defense spending legislation that includes goodies called "earmarks" that go to swine and slime like Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his cohort on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, yet all the "earmarks" aka "pork" slides through without accountability due to the "national security" secrecy that prohibits anyone's right to know exactly how much of this taxpayer money ends up in the pockets of Tom "The Hammer" DeLay and the rest of the crooks and swindlers.
This entire mob of congressmen and women long ago relinquished their authority and handed it over to Bush when they allowed the Bush administration wage an illegal war with the same impunity that Bush now claims gives him the power to snoop and spy on anyone, especially those American citizens, like the Quaker group of seniors. Their only "crime" was to dissent against Bush's tyranny.
A pox on both parties. They stink to high heaven and that includes mealy-mouthed Senator Harry Reid, Republican-Lite Joe "what me worry" Lieberman and the clueless, petrified Stepford Democrat, Nancy Pelosi.
Someone once said you get the kind of government you deserve. Well, from what I see of the spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow and borrow some more gluttons in our government no wonder this country is on the verge of economic collapse and evokes nothing but contempt from the rest of the civilized world.
Posted by richard38 at 12/18/2005 @ 10:00pm
"Ah know the intelligence sucked but we're there now, so whaddaya gonna do? America has two choices: believe my bullshit or be a coward who is in despair. And those who don't agree, either get in line or you're obviously a coward who's in despair. For the parents who are proud that their sons/daughters were sacrificed for my enormous...pride, thanks for yer support. And we're winning the war, despite all the first-hand evidence to the contrary. And what about this timetable hoohaw? Timetables are for pansies and for defeatists who are obviously deep in despair. And I can throw all kinds of poll statistics at ya (just not mine, even though I'm prouder than punch that my numbers have crept above 40%) from the elections in Iraq, except for the number of Iraqis who want us to get the hell out of there (someone, I think it was Dick, he's gonna kill me for saying this, said that over 75% of Iraqis want us out). Ungrateful barbarians (they must be in deep despair). But they're hopeful that things are going to get better - well no shit, they cain't get any worse! And like it ways in the carol from Tennesee, well it's in a carol from Texas, so it must be the same, 'God's not dead, he's just'...wait, I think it was 'God's just asleep, but if he was dead'...no, just wait a minute, it'll come to me...ahhh, screw it, this is haaaaard! God bless America (and nobody else, because Jesus told me that I'm his main pardner!"
Posted by Turk33 at 12/18/2005 @ 10:09pm
Pretty stupid move on Bush's part....most requests for domestic eavesdropping are granted with as much or as little evidence as the FBI would have presented in this case.
But....guys...."impeachment"?....Again? We went through that 6 months ago with "Downing St Memos" and it fizzled out before Ms vanden Heuval had written her 3rd article.
The 2006 midterms is going to be incremental, but the only thing that matters for the rest of Bush's term. And even if the Dems take the House (50-50 at best)...they're not going to waste capital on impeachment, but on trying to pay off their 10 drought of constituency IOUs.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2005 @ 10:58pm
Turk America has engaged in two prior "police actions" which is what we now have in Iraq. Korea and Nam were very simular we were pitted against an domestic insurgent force, they have hit and run attack patterns on their side and we are left trying to defend both ourselves and the non combatants. As in Korea and Nam this is a no win situation the only way to win is a stalemate, we cannot expend both the manpower and financing to achive victory. Time is their greatest weapon.
The only way to exit this war realisticly is to turn over power to the "friendlys" in this conflict, the only way we can do this is to step back to the perimiter use our force to blockade the central regions of the country and let the local forces and the civilians deal with the radical insurgentcies. This at least gives us a small chance to contain the supply of incoming weapondry but we don't know how much ordinance is still accessible from Sadam's hordes.
This will open the door to civil war we know that both the Kurds and the Shiites have larger militas than the defence force we are training and if they cut and run we have another Afganistan situation where local Mulas? or war lords will take control.
Although I agree with you in principal our forces have done an exemplary job and it is always better to win. Like Korea and Nam the biggest obstical we have in this war is our own government.
Mask / The way to payoff their 10 drought of constituency IOUs is to impeach the other side.
Posted by dycel8r at 12/18/2005 @ 11:14pm
Thank you Frankgrits, quite sincerely, you said it all in five very brief sentences.
The message from GW on Iraq is always the same shit. Apparently he developed quite a taste for death in his brief, demented stint as Texas Gov., and since becoming pretend U.S. President he loves it all the more. I do not oppose capital punishment, far from it. But I came to the conclusion a long time ago that everyone GW feels is expendible is dealt with an axe/bullet/prisonterm/tourinIraq/mediacrucifixion, etc. sooner or later. He likes it that way. Keeps the survivors on their toes. And to qualify all you need do is disagree with him. Ask Anthony Zinni, Richard Clarke, or a number of other honest but outspoken public servants. Everyone has had to take "the bullet" for the white house asshole. particularly our brave young men and women in Iraq.
To his Machiavellian mind, fear and lies are the most effective educational and motivational tools of all. After all, why should he tell the truth when a big, fuzzy lie will accomplish just as much, or even more? And a nice lie is alot cheaper than the truth, too. Most Americans usually don't seem to notice the difference.
Question: are Bush and Cheney too entrenched and protected to be rooted out and exposed for the many crimes they've committed and the massive damage they've done?
Posted by DownWithW at 12/18/2005 @ 11:20pm
How many straws on the camels back does it take, this camels legs are looking pretty strained now and next year the midterm elections may just flatten this camel.
Posted by dycel8r at 12/18/2005 @ 11:30pm
They just wanted to know what he was thinking. [tinyurl.com]
It's still nice, though, that our government demands freedom of thought in Cuba, isn't it?
Posted by fromredbird at 12/18/2005 @ 11:48pm
Bush speech was a home run, excellent, just got off line with some buddies in the sandbox, they agree, good speech.
But Bush NEEDS to keep hitting back and not simply ignore those critics who spew baseless attacks on the War. Bush owes it to those who have spilled their blood, to hammer those people into submission. Keep it going and good hunting, let that tide slowly but surely turn.
Posted by CPT at 12/18/2005 @ 11:48pm
CPT, could you explain for everyone why this is something that all Americans should be proud of?
Posted by fromredbird at 12/18/2005 @ 11:51pm
Why let little things like Constituional Rights get in the way of this president?
I seriously doubt he ever read that document let alone understand it. Sadly, both the news media and American Congress has been asleep at the wheel. I recommend readers tune in to German news media or China's where more accurate news is being shown of world events. The silly monkey Bush criticizes other countries when some of the most serious human rights violations violations are committed right now under his administration.
Posted by rigoletto6 at 12/18/2005 @ 11:57pm
FROMREDBIRD
Ah yes, the "wedding party" in the middle of the desert, where we took fire from and found satellite radios and weapons from Syria;
all in the home of a suspected terrorist. Those poor people right? They were just there for the wedding, right? who would never ever ever lie or distort the truth to do-gooder left leaning reporters.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:03am
FROMREDBIRD
Ah yes, the "wedding party" in the middle of the desert, where we took fire from and found satellite radios and weapons from Syria;
all in the home of a suspected terrorist. Those poor people right? They were just there for the wedding, right? who would never ever ever lie or distort the truth to do-gooder left leaning reporters.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:03am
You and George Bush and the Pentagon and Republicans in general are so full of shit you'd make a 250 lb. bag of steer manure jealous.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 12:07am
FROMREDBIRD
I am sorry I didnt answer your question, what to be proud of? Well we took a satellite radio and weapons out of the fight, which probably would have been used to kill innocnet iraqis or American Soldiers..thats something to be proud of
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:09am
FROMREDBIRD
Before I hit the sack, how exactly does a 250lb bag of steer manue, get jealous?
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:10am
500 lb. bag.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 12:11am
FROMREDBIRD
Before I hit the sack, how exactly does a 250lb bag of steer manue, get jealous?
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:10am
When you open your mouth.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 12:12am
Before I hit the sack, how exactly does a 250lb bag of steer manue, get jealous?
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:10am
when you put on a few more pounds, you can tell us yourself.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 12:15am
Redbird
After CPT hits the sack we should be proud that with one shot CPT took that mean old nasty sack out of the fight so that it can't hit any innocent Iraqis or Americans.
My hero
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 12:25am
Redbird
After CPT hits the sack we should be proud that with one shot CPT took that mean old nasty sack out of the fight so that it can't hit any innocent Iraqis or Americans.
My hero
Posted by WILL C. 12/19/2005 @ 12:25am
Actually, I don't think his hitting that sack of steer manure has anything to do with protecting anyone but himself- by taking out a competitor.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 12:32am
CPT, if you haven't already "hit the sack": what is the source of your information regarding this wedding party fiasco? What reputable media source is claiming that this was anything more than a wedding in the desert?? And just what is the importance of this event anyway??
Posted by DownWithW at 12/19/2005 @ 12:35am
DOWNWITHW
I think he was quoting his buddies in the sandbox.
I wonder if it's past their bedtimes too?
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 12:38am
Rio Bravo, it's not the Democrats who are now questioning who-voted-for-what back in the Spring of 2003 when it came to a war vote on Iraq. Bush is now raising this particular issue in (once again) another effort to throw the media and the public off track. He has done this successfully time-and-time-again. THE ISSUE here is: Bush essentially lied when he made a case for attacking Iraq. And no, members of Congress did not have the same information he had (which was zero credible intel). This last fact about Congress has been laid out in articles in reputable publications. Members of Congress did not have an accurate NIE statement with which to guide their voting back in March, 2003. They were provided, last minute, with pro-war "talking points" which made little or no reference to the credibility of the intelligence they chose to use to build their flimsy case.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/19/2005 @ 01:05am
ALL
The way I hea it is that all the folks (senators, etc) were told by Dubya was "he had the NSA onto something" or "doing something" for the most part. The few he did tell were sworn to secrecy (high crimes kinda stuff if mentioned.) So if you tell them you do an illegal act and then tell them it is a crime to talk about it...whaddya do?
Plus, if Dumb-B-ya does get impeached (which at this point seems fair-to-middlin') Hell, with Bill Clinton it only took a blow-job and a ci-gar. Now we got Dubya sodomizing the whole damned country! Anyways....we got Dubya doing illegal wiretapping, Rove under investigation, Libby out of his ass, Delay facing charges, Abramoff, Frist...Geez is there a Republican around the White House who ISN'T in trouble? Eventually the Cheney "War for Oil Energy Meetings" will be public and maybe we can clean house...
But for now if Dubya gets impeached it leaves us with Cheney and Hastert....that's like the antichrist and a luantic together. Can't say it'd be much of an improvement!
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 01:41am
Of course, Bush had to get up and crow 9/11, WMDs (4 times in the first 2 mins.), terrorists...and of course he had to get Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11 in the same sentence. It worked during the 04 campaign. What the hell, let's try it again!
Funny...the name bin Laden never got mentioned with 9/11...wonder why not? You'd think all the talk about finghting the roots of terrorism might lead to the one who actually did attack us?
So to all the wingnuts who thought this speech-ifying was a grand slam: Bywah-ha-ha-ha-ha....whoo-ee and ohhh shit You gotta be fucking kidding me.....You'd think after all this time the same old shit would get Kool-Aid flying out of Republican noses.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 01:49am
Rio Bravo, it does not matter if we're talking about lying/spying or the Iraq War vote of 2003. The end result is the same: the demos. did NOT have the same intelligence in March 2003 as Bush did. THIS IS A fACT, not my opinion. That faulty intel not only lead to the illegal Iraq War of 2003, it indirectly lead to passage of the overzealous "Patroit Act" which is ostensibly GWB's "constitutional" authority to conduct unprecedented and unauthorized wire tapping/spying on Americans in the U.S. and overseas. Don't you see: we are, in essence, talking about one criminal act (an illegal war) having spawned the other criminal act (illegal spying/wiretapping)? That is typical of the way this nefarious administration has always conducted it's business.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/19/2005 @ 02:37am
Mask / The way to payoff their 10 drought of constituency IOUs is to impeach the other side.
Posted by DYCEL8R 12/18/2005 @ 11:14pm
Yeah, because you know the MAIN thing on the minds of the average voter isn't health care costs...or the kid's education...or losing their job to China...or even the mortgage rates...
It's seeing Bush in jail, Cheney President until he gets impeached, and then whatever other lurid Hard Left fantasy scenario that can be dreamed up.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 07:03am
But for now if Dubya gets impeached it leaves us with Cheney and Hastert....that's like the antichrist and a luantic together. Can't say it'd be much of an improvement!
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 12/19/2005 @ 01:41am |
Actually LEFTOF...an even WORSE scenario for Democrats can be imagined....Vice-President Condi.
Say the "fantasy" gets played out and Bush is impeached...and due to time constraints the Congress (which by the wy would have to be led by Speaker PELOSI....Hastert could keep the impeachment dogs at bay if Bush did anything LESS than ax-murder Laura and the Twins on the Portico)....and Cheney becomes President (if for a few months while HIS trial gets up and running).
And he appoints Condi Rice as Veep.....still locked in their racial/gender politics, the Democrats in the House (where Veep approval is required) would NEVER vote against the "first black and woman Vice-President", even if they loathe her and her politics.
So....then they go after Cheney (maybe get him) and BOOM....President Condaleeza!
Then 2008 rolls around and you have an incumbent President who's black and a woman and the ONLY candidate that could stop her is ANOTHER WOMAN (our hawkish Hillary). "Impeach Rice too"? Maybe...but again the Dems are nothing if now cowed by their constituencies, and the "civil rights coalition" (despite their hatred of Republicans) would see a Rice Presidency as "too important" to "racial progress" to go after and the feminists the same.
So...after all is said and done...Bush returns to Crawford in shame (sorry, no jail time even in the "best" of the fantasies), but young enough to recover his rep if he tries...Cheney merely cashes in his Halliburton stock and starts his "re-building" tour (think Nixon with MILLIONS to spend on public relations)...and either 4 more years (or more) of Ms Rice as President OR Ms Clinton.....
Oh, and the end of ANY bipartisanship, since "pay-backs" for this scenario will engender enough animosity to keep ANY Presidency from actually accomplishing anything for 20 years! (which may not be a bad thing!)
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 07:14am
Israel's Vice Prime Minister is blogging over on Huff Post...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ehud-olmert/moving-israel-forward-wit_b_12 486.html#comments
Let him know how you feel...I did!
Speaking of wire taps and espionage…
"American intelligence officials have repeatedly expressed great concern in meeting with our people that the Israeli government, through a company called Amdocs, was able to conduct surveillance of all telephone communications within the United States. It was categorically stated that this Israeli-based firm was given the American contract with 25 of the largest American telephone companies. This contract was granted over the objections and concerns of the American intelligence community.
The official reason given for this extraordinary arrangement that permitted Israeli agencies to observe all highly confidential investigative telephone calls was that the United States has a "special relationship" with the State of Israel and they had requested this."
Dear Mr Olmert:
Well, I think this whole blogging experiment is going pretty well for you, don't you agree? Desparate times call for desparate measures, and clearly, as the truth of the Neocon Cabal inside the White House and the AIPAC spy scandal shine the white hot spotlight on Israel's control of US policy, the Likud's needed to come up with a PR offensive to try to counter the rising tide of reality-based thought. Was this a Mossad initiative - designed to collect the names of the most rabid reality based thinkers among us, or did the CIA come up with this one?
KatrinaVanderShovel and other defenders of Israeli policy point to the fact that some of the links that we use to illustrate the significant problems that Israel has brought upon itself appear to be to less than credible sources. Surely if all that we accuse Israel of were treu, such news stories would be available at main stream media outlets, and not just on second and third tear sites prone to feature CONSPIRACY information...right?
I mean, the story about the "White Van" that was stopped on 9/11 and contained Israeli Mossad Agents, explosives residue, $4,000 in cash, box-cutters and a video camera featuring footage of the 9/11 attacks as they occurred...if such a story were actually true, it would be featured on a mainstream news outlet, like for example...ABC News or FOX, right?
Well as you know perfectly well, these in depth investigative reports (which should have won awards for Investigative Journalism) actually WERE featured on both ABC's 20/20 and FOX News, but were subsequently SPIKED - removed from their web sites. And you personally know why that happened, don't you? Was it you who made the calls to those networks and demanded it, or did you have one of your US surrogates do that?
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm
The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it's a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush's main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Reports of the spying were first made public in December broadcasts by Fox News reporter Carl Cameron. It isn't clear whether he had the 60-page document or was only told its contents. A French online news service has obtained the report, and Le Monde in Paris has advanced the story. However, in the United States, the media ignored the original Fox broadcast, and only a handful of publications. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution hasn't reported the story although another Cox-owned paper, The Palm Beach Post has.
The absence of reporting hasn't gone unnoticed. The authoritative British intelligence and military analysis service, Jane's Information Group, on March 13 chided: "It is rather strange that the U.S. media ... seem to be ignoring what may well prove to be the most explosive story since the 11 September attack, the alleged breakup of a major Israeli espionage operation in the United States which aimed to infiltrate both the Justice and Defense departments and which may also have been tracking al-Qaida terrorists before the aircraft hijackings took place."
But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit?
We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is "By way of deception, thou shalt do war" – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.
Why is it that American citizens can only learn of these stories on sites which have archived these stories, and not on the mainstream media sites that originally created them? Is there a conspiracy to prevent us from learning the truth about Israel's spring activities within the United States? Who CONTROLS the US Mainstream media?
Here is a copy of the full DEA Report on the 200 Israeli Art Students caught spying within the United States:
http://cryptome.org/dea-il-spy.htm
If we send you billions of dollars every year, shouldn't that at the very least leave us in a position where the last spies we should need to worry about within our borders are yours? Or is that perhaps somehow tied to the reason why our elected officials are compelled to send all of our treasure to you? What is it that your spies are doing here in the US? Did you blackmail us into fighting a war for you?
If you don't want to hear us accuse you of such things, get your damn spies out of our country. Otherwise, when the next major event occurs, as has been predicted/promised by your surrogates (who just happen to be running our country), we will once again look to see how many Mossad Agents just coincidentally happened to be in-country at the time.
You have to admit, the story of the "Dancing Israelis" represent one of the best examples of undercover operatives blowing their cover that your Mossad has ever experienced. High-fiving on camera with the Twin Towers collapsing in the background? What could be more incriminating? How many agents do you have in the US right now?
http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/nuclearfalseflagmail.htm
http://www.news4jax.com/news4georgia/3344771/detail.html
"Marc Raimondi, spokesman at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Washington, told AFP that both Sason and Levy will be deported. Raimondi said ICE had taken custody of the two individuals and checked them out through immigration and known criminal databases. Their only offense, Raimondi said, was that they had worked illegally on visitor visas.
"Perhaps the conspiracy theory has merit," Raimondi said when asked why Israeli agents involved in criminal activities were being deported on visa violations. Raimondi was unable to answer when asked if DHS was concerned about the network of Israeli-owned moving companies in the United States, some with proven ties to Israeli intelligence.
AS LONG AS THE ONLY PENALTY FOR SPYING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES REMAINS DEPORTATION BACK TO ISRAEL – WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ISRAEL STOP ITS SPYING AGAINST US?
5 MEN WERE CAUGHT RED HANDED ON 9/11, HELD FOR MONTHS IN SOLITARY, FAILED 7 LIE DETECTOR TESTS, AND THE ONLY PUNISHMENT THEY RECEIVED IS TO HAVE OUR NOW DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY SEND THEM HOME?
WTF?
HOW MANY MORE MOSSAD AGENTS POSING AS MOVING COMPANY EMPLOYEES DO WE NEED TO DEPORT BEFORE CONGRESS TAKES ACTION AGAINST YOUR COUNTRY FOR ITS ESPIONAGE?
The Moving Vans of Zion by Learn To Fly Wednesday May 12, 2004 at 01:40 AM
Once the men were apprehended, officers also found a "Learn to Fly" brochure in the truck, leading Harris and others to express concern about security at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Erwin.
"...the 'learn to fly in Florida' business card is that of Nissan Giat, also an Israeli military veteran, he said, as well as a free-lance flight instructor in the Miami area, working out of the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport."
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/69669.php
On May 7th, 2002, two Israeli "movers" were arrested for speeding after midnight near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and Oak Harbor, Washington. The Jerusalem Post gives the cover story:
FBI clears Israelis suspected of carrying explosives
Jerusalem Post; 5/15/2002; MELISSA RADLER
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49488
On May 7th, 2002, two Israeli "movers" were arrested for speeding after midnight near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station and Oak Harbor, Washington. The Jerusalem Post gives the cover story:
FBI clears Israelis suspected of carrying explosives
Jerusalem Post; 5/15/2002; MELISSA RADLER
October 3, 2001
WASHINGTON -- As the nation stands on high alert, the FBI is searching for six men stopped by police in the Midwest last weekend but released -- even though they possessed photos and descriptions of a nuclear power plant in Florida and the Trans- Alaska pipeline, a senior law enforcement official said Tuesday.
Monday, December 19, 2005 Holocaust II and the neocon conspiracy
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 07:30am
Virtually EVERYONE posting messages here has an FBI file. How does that make you feel? They know EVERYTHING about you. But who are "THEY?"
Your file includes the following phrase, and will remain open until the day you die...
a "person of interest" who has "written and promoted opinions that are contrary to the government of the United States of America."
So, who exactly is "the government of the United States of America?"
Isn't it "We The People?"
If I only write things that are in opposition to the present GOP Administration and the government of Israel, am I writing opinions that are contrary to "the government of the United States of America?"
Were those who spoke out against and ultimately impeached Richard Nixon speaking out for or against "the government of the United States of America?"
Who decides? George W. Bush? The party in power? What is the standard? Isn't that one hell of a subjective statement?
"The government of the United States of America" is US!
Self-criticism is an AMERICAN ideal.
Dissent is PATRIOTIC...and within our RIGHTS!
"WE THE PEOPLE WANT OUR GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT BACK!"
And I want a copy of my file.
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 07:42am
RIO BRAVO
More than likely the wedding party fiasco was staged, its not uncommon. Some locals are looking for compensation payments and some will do anything to get it. Yes they have con-men in Iraq as well, guess its a universal trait found in most societies. And they do it for the purpose of painting US Forces in a bad light.
WILL C./FROMREDBIRD and the rest of the usual suspects pick it up and run with it as truth.
To them its simple, if we are ALLEGED to have done bad things, they are ready to convict without a second thought. When a terrorist group does the same? You must have a 100% beyond ANY doubt proof.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 07:55am
PLUNGER
Good, It makes me feel safer, because SOME of you guys who post here are fruit loops.
God Bless the FBI if they have files on everyone here, good, tells me they are doing their job. Cataloguing nutbags is there job!
DISSENT is PATRIOTIC!!!!!!! Give me break
If you advocate violent overthrow of the govt, they have the right to know who you are!!!!!! Called self-presevation
You really ought to READ the WHOLE Constitution, because its more than JUST the Bill of Rights. It outlines a whole hosts of things the GOVT can do, one of which is to preserve itself from radical fringe.
If you feel this is you, then you might want to re-think you position.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 08:03am
Mask
Much as Condi would like it there are two in front of her: Hastert & (Two Bridges to Nowhere) Stevens.
In Line [infoplease.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 08:06am
"If you advocate violent overthrow of the govt, they have the right to know who you are!!!!!! Called self-presevation"
CPT:
How in the world did you come up with that statement? Of course that's true. What does it have to do with what I posted? "THEY" are US! That was my point. Why did you add such and absurd context to your response?
Dramatic effect?
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 08:16am
CPT siad:
"You really ought to READ the WHOLE Constitution, because its more than JUST the Bill of Rights. It outlines a whole hosts of things the GOVT can do, one of which is to preserve itself from radical fringe."
The radical fringe? you mean like a small group of well-placed crazies? Like this group for example:
Signatories to PNAC Mission Statement, 1997:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
http://tvnewslies.org/html/ pnac_...on_artists.html
Or This Group?
The nine members of WHIG # Karl Rove # Lewis Libby # Andrew Card # Condoleezza Rice # Mary Matalin # Karen Hughes # Stephen Hadley # James R. Wilkinson # Nicholas E. Calio
These people should be on trial.
http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/11...hig_resolution/
Or perhaps these guys?
The Libby Indictment:
http://www.franklingate.com/ libb..._indictment.htm
A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.
One of the organization's documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's "war cabinet."
Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.
A subsequent PNAC plan entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," reveals that the current members of Bush's cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
"Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."
A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC.
The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.
"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for "a new Pearl Harbor."
"They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event" neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
http:// www.americanfreepress.net...l_harbored.html
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 08:21am
To them its simple, if we are ALLEGED to have done bad things, they are ready to convict without a second thought. When a terrorist group does the same? You must have a 100% beyond ANY doubt proof.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 07:55am
Didn't get enough sleepy time, eh CPT. Lets' define a couple terms. The insurgents, what you fellas like to call terrorists, are simply doing what you wouldn't do, defend your country against a foreign invader/occupier.
As far as the radio and weapons go. Don't expect me to get all lathered up because in a country that is essentially an armed camp, somebody happened to find a radio and some weapons.
Syria? You mean the place were Saddam hide all his WMD? That place? Because after all, they are the only other place in the Middle East that has radios and guns, it must have been them. I mean hell man the instructions were written in Arabic.
And it's Ok if we screw the pooch every now and again. I've done some work with FLIR and it's tough to tell what those little white blobs are wearing. You can't tell the groom from the bride. And, we've been lied to by this administration so many times. It's just difficult to believe their denials anymore.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 08:34am
"If you advocate violent overthrow of the govt, they have the right to know who you are!!!!!! Called self-presevation"
CPT:
How in the world did you come up with that statement? Of course that's true. What does it have to do with what I posted? "THEY" are US! That was my point. Why did you add such and absurd context to your response?
Dramatic effect?
Posted by PLUNGER 12/19/2005 @ 08:16am
You've caught the very strange thing that has happened with the spy-on-them v. spy-on-us strategy. Bush laid out the very thoughtful idea years ago that either you are "with us or with the terrorists." This was a warning to the countries of the world. Obviously he hasn't wanted to admit that most countries have chosen to be defined by W as "with the terrorists," given these silly options.
Now he has turned this onto us/them who are US citizens. "Us" are those who have demonstrated in a variety of ways that they need not be suspected of nefarious deeds or thoughts. "Them" are the rest: those who have not yet demonstrated the proper goosestep march or reflexive straight-armed salute. He's clearly lost his mind.
CPT wonders about the definition of patriotic. I wonder if it includes violating the law to find out if fellow citizens might be plotting against him/the country/us. Hearing the mantra "Must protect Me/The Country/Us" repeat endlessly in his head certainly explains his schizophrenic paranoia.
But...in his defense,
look at all the attacks I/The Country/We has/have had to endure. Killer pretzels and strategically placed coffee tables. Dick Cheney in one of my/the country's/our ears and Don Rumsfeld in the other. Booby-trapped bicycles. Flight suits just a little tight in the little man area. Telemonitors that flash incoherent thoughts and nonsensical words. Hell, if I/The Country/We can experience this and still be on two feet and process our daily allotment of Texas beef in a clean and regular fashion, I/The Country/We should be given a pat on the back and the opportunity for a third term.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 09:33am
The Presidential Archives at the Carter Library have de-classified files from the Ford Administration and these shed light on Carter's Executive Order 12036 and his efforts to reign in the intelligence community. In December 1974, after four months in office, President Ford received an unprecedented letter in which his Director of Central Intelligence William Colby confirmed a story published by Seymour Hersh in the New York Times. "I have already briefed the chairman of the Armed Services Committee" CIA Director Colby states, "some CIA employees . . . misinterpreted" orders and engaged in "unauthorized entry of the premises, breaking and entering, electronic surveillance . . . telephone taps of two newspaper reporters in 1963 and physical surveillance of five reporters in 1971 and 1972." The Seymour Hersh New York Times articles immediately served as the final catalyst for Senate Majority Leader Mansfield to force through a Senate Select Committee, and both Frist and Johnson point to January 1975 as the turning point from the institutional to the investigatory oversight model. This Christmas Eve letter was a bombshell for the un-elected President, and it was followed on Christmas Day by a sensitive, now declassified, memo from National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger to Gerald Ford in which Kissinger briefs the President on the issue: {{{quote}}} A program to identify possible foreign links with American dissident elements was established within the CIA's office of Counterintelligence in August 1967 . . . to determine whether U.S. dissidents were receiving support from outside the U.S. Later in 1967 the CIA's activity was integrated into an interagency program. In December 1970 an Interagency Evaluation Committee was established under the coordination of John Dean. . . . CIA continued its counter intelligence interests in possible foreign links with American dissidents . . . I have discussed these activities with him [DCI Colby] and must tell you that some few of them clearly were illegal, while others – though not technically illegal – raise profound moral questions. A number, while neither illegal nor morally unsound, demonstrated very poor judgment.
The response to the Hersh article and other investigative journalism, and to the Colby and Kissinger admissions, and to the pressure from the Senate and House was all co-ordinated in the Ford White House by the Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter's two related Executive Orders both have their roots in this policy option memorandum. It is dated September 18, 1975 and signed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Phil Buchen and James Lynn, Ford's inner circle of West Wing advisors: {{quote}} Background: One of the most serious consequences of Watergate was that the intelligence community became a topic for Congressional investigations, as well as public and press debate. Starting with CIA links to Watergate, the issues have expanded to: CIA involvement in domestic spying and foreign assassination plots - FBI violations of civil liberties, - NSA monitoring of the telephone conversations of American citizens . . . insufficient control by Congress of the intelligence community purse strings and insufficient knowledge of its operations . . . poor management and control of intelligence community activities and resources, and poor performance of the community in specific instances. [Ford was presented with policy options:] Where in the Executive Branch should responsibility for oversight of the propriety of intelligence activities be placed? Should you issue an Executive Order restricting the activities of the CIA or the intelligence community as a whole . . . or a more comprehensive Executive Order which also incorporates a full statement of positive duties and responsibilities for the agencies . . . what actions are appropriate at this time to improve your supervision and control of the intelligence community? . . . Option 1. Extend the role of the PFIAB [President's Foreign Intelligence and Advisory Board] to include oversight, (or) approve Option One but rename PFIAB, . . . retain PFIAB and create a new body solely for oversight . . . Second [option], issue an Executive Order restricting the collection of information on American citizens . . . [to restrict the CIA, all agencies, or all agencies except the FBI in a] comprehensive Executive Order . . . What actions are appropriate at this time to improve your supervision and control of the Intelligence community? Option – give formal authorization of the NSC Intelligence Committee to evaluate the programs and product of the intelligence community.
The importance of this 12-page policy paper to Jimmy Carter's efforts cannot be underestimated. Walter Mondale, Zbigniew Brezhinski and Carter's top staff arrived at nearly identical conclusions in 1977 before issuing Executive Order 12036, imposing much more stringent controls on the agencies than Ford had done in Executive Order 11905. Carter would have trouble in the three years following the issuance of Executive Order 12036. Although the Order carried the force of law, the parallel legislation concerning Congressional oversight of intelligence and a new CIA Charter would bog down into a sustained deadlock. Although Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 and the Intelligence Oversight law in 1980, Carter Staff Counsel Lloyd Cutler's boxes, marked "CIA Charter" show a loss of momentum in their dedication to further reforms. Most notably, Defense Secretary Harold Brown, Admiral Turner at CIA and Admiral Inman at NSA combined to sustain the status quo in overall Defense/CIA/NSA relations. Controlled by a moderate Republican untainted by recent assassinations, Watergate or Vietnam scandals, the Rockefeller Commission moved parallel to the Church Senate Committee to establish controls on the runaway intelligence agency. The Rockefeller Commission's report caused Henry Kissinger to add his voice to those urging sweeping reforms on Ford. Kissinger states: {{quote}}
The Rockefeller Commission was charged with investigating and making recommendations with respect to allegations that the CIA engaged in illegal spying on American citizens . . . [I] propose revisions in the National Security Act which would clarify CIA's authority by explicitly limiting it to foreign intelligence matters – this could also be accomplished by Executive Order . . . to prohibit improper domestic activities of CIA concerning US citizens, legislation to strengthen CIA's internal organization and management structure including establishing a second Deputy Director position [and] stronger penalties for violations by present or former CIA employees . . . chang[ing] Executive Branch procedures on oversight of intelligence community and white House contact with CIA and a stronger role for the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Ford promulgated Executive Order 11905 in the spring of 1976, and he took steps in these directions, but Carter's election signaled that more sweeping intelligence controls were coming. David Aaron, Mondale's staff adviser on foreign affairs and former counsel to the Church Committee organized the Carter White House reform efforts, which culminated in Executive Order 12036. (Mr. Aaron's papers have not yet been declassified, but Carter's revamping of the intelligence community is traceable in the Carter Library's papers from National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezhinski and Staff Counsel Lloyd Cutler's desks). Although the Carter Administration would never reach consensus with the Democratic Congress on Congressional investigational oversight of the intelligence agencies or develop a new charter for the fifteen intelligence agencies, on Tuesday, January 24, the White House did issue Executive Order 12036, which placed explicit controls and limits on the intelligence community and re-organized the lines of responsibility. On Friday, January 20th, 1978 President Carter received a large package in his in-box from his National Security Advisor ‘stage-managing' the signing of the Executive Order. This memo is a briefing for the signing ceremony for E.O. 12036. Brezhinski tells Carter:{{quote}} This executive order is the product of the most extensive and highest-level review of our foreign intelligence activities ever conducted through the NSC system and an unprecedented dialogue with Congress. It builds on the experience under President Ford's Executive Order 11905 and is intended to provide a foundation for the drafting and enactment by Congress of statutory charters. The Order ensures that U.S. government foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities are conducted in full compliance with our laws and are consistent with broader national security policies. . . [it will] establish effective oversight of the direction, management and conduct of foreign intelligence activities . . . clarify the authority and responsibility of the DCI and the several departments and agencies that have foreign intelligence and counterintelligence responsibilities . . .the Senate Select Committee is proud of its significant contribution and its recently formed counterpart, the House Select Committee, while not as much involved, wants to publicly associate itself with the new Executive Order . . . Emphasize the unprecedented degree of constructive dialogue with the Congressional oversight committees. Stress the fact that in this very sensitive area the Administration and Congress are working in harmony – provide the Congressional leaders with an opportunity to make remarks for the record. (underlining in the original)
The President's address is included in this file, and here he announces the basic changes brought by Executive Order 12036 in four parts. In part one, Carter announced that the Policy Review Committee and the Special Coordination Committee, standing committees of the National Security Council, "will, short of the President, provide the highest level review and guidance for the policies and practices of the Intelligence Community."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t2557.html
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 09:39am
Sorry, PLUNGER....keep up the 3000 word Cut & Pastes, and I'll have to add you to my Ignore list.
But, if you can answer a direct question or two...maybe I won't?
I assume you're one of the "an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon" believers...yes?
If so....where is Barbara Olson now?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 09:45am
LEFTOFCENTER
Sorry didn't make myself clear....I wasn't referring to the "Presidential Line of Succession" when I spoke of a "Condi Veep spot".
I was referring to Cheney becoming President and NOMINATING Rice as Veep from her present position...which would be his perogative as President and NECESSARY to insure the PLOS. She would then have to be confirmed by the House of Reps (which as I stated, even under Dems, she probably would since they'd be scared to death of voting against the "first black and first woman Vice-President"...and blowing their "diversity" claims out of the water).
Even if the wackiest fantasy about Bush/Cheney impeachment comes true....there are WAYS for the Republicans to "win" on it and the key example of this was the STUPID Clinton Impeachment, which was masterfully (and truthfully) spun into "trying to overturn the 1996 election"....and it cost the GOP seats in the '98 midterms.
Most sane Democrats (which fortunately make up a majority still) know this as well....the way to "hurt the Republicans" in 2008 is to keep Bush in the White House and start him vetoing Dem Congressional bills aimed at "helping the poor and working families".
Most hard-core lefties don't think too strategic (or tactically) and fail to see that their fantasies would turn into NIGHTMARES.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 09:51am
From The Nation - America's Longest Running Weekly Magazine.
Volume: 227 • Issue #: 0010 • Date: September 30, 1978
The Capacity to Spy on Us All
by Burnham, David
Open the article in The Nation Digital Archive
Abstract:
Comments on the proposal by U.S. President Jimmy Carter to increase the federal government's control over individual citizens through intelligence agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. Threats to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association; Development of a computerized information system for agencies; Proposed legislation that would immunize federal officials from civil suits involving wiretapping and investigation activities; Approval on the use of hidden surveillance cameras and other electronic surveillance systems; Provisions of the Official Secrets Act and its implications; Cases of imprisonment for espionage and theft of government information; Risks relating to the invasion of privacy.
Selections from Full Text: ...Truong, a Vietnamese graduate student... ...or perhaps for other reasons, Bell's statement is incorrect... ...To make the government's case, FBI agents opened sealed envelopes and used hidden surveillance cameras, methods that had been personally approved by Mr... ...The Office of Management and Budget, the Domestic Council's Committee on Privacy and several Democratic members of Congress also opposed the plan... ...First, if the conviction of the two men is upheld, it will be the first time that the'federal government has won approval from the Supreme Court for the use of evidence gained from warrantless electronic surveillances in the criminal prosecution of a national security case... ...The Carter administration has prosecuted two men in a case which, if upheld by .the Supreme Court, could result in an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act... ...In 1974 John Eger, acting director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy under President Ford, wrote a letter to thenAtty... ...On the same day that Mr... ...Is it possible that Big Brother could be a sincere peanut farmer from Georgia... ...One year ago, the Justice Department drafted legislation to amend the Federal Tort Claims Act... ...Richard Nixon made secret tapes of all his official conversations... ...The company lost the ease in the Federal District Court, but the U.S... ...Espionage is defined as giving an enemy national defense secrets with the intent to damage the United States... ...The investigation was supervised by Atty... ...Congress has not yet resolved this matter... ...Martin Luther King... ...Woodrow Wilson, the .Princeton' professor 'who . dreamed of world peace, was in the White House when the government launched a ferocious attack on political dissenters at the beginning of World War ,1... ...Humphrey and Mr... ...During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the FBI made hundreds of hours of illegal secret recordings of the private conversations of Dr...
http://www.nationarchive.com/Summaries/v227i0010_07.htm
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 09:59am
"Sorry, PLUNGER....keep up the 3000 word Cut & Pastes, and I'll have to add you to my Ignore list.
But, if you can answer a direct question or two...maybe I won't?"
Mask, oh no, I might lose you as one of my "readers?" Whatever.
I have no idea what the hell flew into the Pentagon, but on thing is damn certain, Rumsfeld and Cheney know, and have seen the video. Do you actually believe that there is no video of this incident? the most highly secured building in the world...and no video?
Puuuuleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!
Why are you not entitled to view it?
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 10:02am
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
Just THREE WEEKS after 9/11:
Sharon to Peres: "We Control America" Congressional Pandering to Israel proves him Right
by Mohamed Khodr
On October 3, 2001, I.A.P. News reported that according to Israel Radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael an acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres. Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us. "Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we the Jewish people control America."
http://www.mediamonitors.net/khodr49.html
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 10:18am
Eavesdropping On the Electromagnetic Emanations of Digital Equipment: The Laws of Canada, England and the United States
Christopher J. Seline
This document is a rough draft. The Legal Sections are overviews. They will be significantly expanded in the next version.
We in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than choice -- the watchmen on the walls of freedom.[1] - President John F. Kennedy
In the novel 1984, George Orwell foretold a future where individuals had no expectation of privacy because the state monopolized the technology of spying. The government watched the actions of its subjects from birth to death. No one could protect himself because surveillance and counter-surveillance technology was controlled by the government. This note explores the legal status of a surveillance technology ruefully known as TEMPEST.
Using TEMPEST technology the information in any digital device may be intercepted and reconstructed into useful intelligence without the operative ever having to come near his target. The technology is especially useful in the interception of information stored in digital computers or displayed on computer terminals.
The use of TEMPEST is not illegal under the laws of the United States, or England. Canada has specific laws criminalizing TEMPEST eavesdropping but the laws do more to hinder surveillance countermeasures than to prevent TEMPEST surveillance.
In the United States it is illegal for an individual to take effective countermeasures against TEMPEST surveillance. This leads to the conundrum that it is legal for individuals and the government to invade the privacy of others but illegal for individuals to take steps to protect their privacy.
http://cryptome.org/tempest-law.htm
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 10:24am
Bush now says that the leaking of the spy program was a "shameful act": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/
Posted by thejman at 12/19/2005 @ 11:35am
...and vows to continue spying on Americans & when asked if the Justice Dept would be investigating who leaked the program he said he presumed the process had started.
Posted by thejman at 12/19/2005 @ 11:38am
Mask
Point taken....much as the left dislikes Dubya, all the other options that would arise are much, much worse
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 11:43am
You really ought to READ the WHOLE Constitution, because its more than JUST the Bill of Rights. It outlines a whole hosts of things the GOVT can do, one of which is to preserve itself from radical fringe.
If you feel this is you, then you might want to re-think you position.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 08:03am
You need to face the fact that you have never contributed anything even remotely intelligent to any conversation here. The percentage of your statements that are pure horse manure approaches the mid-90's.
This Republican War is pure idiocy. They send Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Iraq to bomb weddings and they send their Republican Robots to discussion groups to shoot blanks.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 11:56am
From MSNBC:
Bush said Saturday that after the Sept. 11 attacks, he had authorized the National Security Agency "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."
So, we are to presume that our crack Intelligence agencies can identify those who have "known" links to al-Aqaida. If one has a link to the most dangerous organization on the planet, why is one not locked up as an enemy combatant? Are we supposed to believe that we are so on top of the these terrorists that we can allow them to operate in public, because we are listening to their phone calls? Right.
Such a flexible war on terrorism we are conducting. Either we kill with impugnity or...we just let things slide. Osama lives. 30,000 Iraqi civilians die with a presidential shrug. Some enemy combatants are detained indefinitely without legal recourse. Some get to live their lives in the US with the only kink being that someone is listening to their conversations.
Who are they trying to kid? If these people were genuine threats, they would be locked up. Have we heard of any domestic rings being caught in a sting operation, a raid on a person or a group that has been forwarding or receiving dangerous information by phone, plots being foiled because of information passed through voice mail? And what is the issue with this method of waging the war on terrorism being made public other than that it is an attack on our own civil liberties? Are domestic terrorists so stupid as to contact Zarqawi or Osama by land line?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 12:27pm
FROMREDBIRD
You mean you are not impressed with my mental agility? Oh darn!
It wasnt JUST a wedding party, fine points you love to gloss over
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:32pm
TJB
Are domestic terrorists so stupid as to contact Zarqawi or Osama by land line?
In a word YES they are, some like to talk in code.
"Who are they trying to kid? If these people were genuine threats, they would be locked up."
Well, no, you see its not just about that guy, its about who hw is talking to and finding out all the links of his network. That only happens if he keeps talking, the more he talks the more we can learn. You see how that works. Think man! Do you want to get just the one fish, or the whole barrel.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:38pm
TJB
And they say you guys want to help terrorists! Bwaaahh
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 12:40pm
It's obvious that it is the Republicans who hate America and the freedoms our country once boasted, as they are the ones attacking and diminishing the civil liberties of the populace while using their double speak to blame all the hating on the Dems. They'll use 9-11 for the next 20 years in order to justify confiscating books when checking your luggage, spying on emails and phone calls, recording movements by placing transimitors in all passports beginning next year, credit card use, web surfing, ect. They always claim they want to limit government and allow people to manage their own affairs. Meanwhile, they are becoming a Bigger Brother every day lurking in the shadows wherever you go, both in the real and virtual world. Any protest to these actions will of course be labeled "unAmerican" or "unpatriotic" and as always, conflated with aiding the enemy and putting the country in danger. You're supposed to do what they say and never question it. Work hard, keep your mouth shut, wave your flag and hail our bullets and bombs wherever they may land, play the lottery, watch sports, drink beer and go to the mall. And remember, this is all part of God's plan as carried out by your flawless leaders...
Posted by chimichenga at 12/19/2005 @ 12:43pm
Katrina, you sound outraged, again! And these comments from your followers are so emotional, one has to wonder. How much more can you all take? The President is just killing all you lefties and I can't help but be concerned. He is so far into your heads it is effecting your commentary. Your actually thinking "what if" this or that revelation had come out before the election. And using words like "chilling" to describe the President's way of thinking. Come on Katrina, get yourself together, girl. We need you to be strong and sensible (not too sensible or you might start sounding like a conservative ...you know, like Hillary C.). Anyway, try to remember you are one of the leaders of the left wing and we need you to keep that group grounded so as not to start thinking and sounding like the village idiots (kinda like some of these posted comments). Otherwise Katrina, you are doing a good job and I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Posted by ccarrillo22 at 12/19/2005 @ 12:44pm
PLUNGER
Posted by PLUNGER 12/19/2005 @ 10:02am ....it was a simple question...I'll try again.
What DID fly into the Pentagon on 9/11....was it American Airlines Flight 77....or not?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 12:45pm
LEFTOF
No biggie....I just think that many on the Left are so blinded by their Bush hatred (as the Hard Right was with their Clinton hatred) that they don't think too clearly. (not necessarily you).
As many "Nation'ers" would probably agree...it would have been MUCH more advantageous to the Republicans to keep Clinton humming along (no pun intended...ok, maybe a little) with his "triangulation", which basically stole conservative ideas and made them his, and screwed over the liberals.
By impeaching him, the GOP made him a martyr....and let Gore take the nomination easily in 2000 and run "semi-populist", instead of what WOULD have happened....a SPLIT in the Dems, with DLC'ers going for Gore and "real progressives" going for Bradley.
Again...dumb move by Repubs.....so, why do liberal Democrats want to repeat it?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 12:48pm
CPT
Can you say with a straight face that the Authorization to Use Force....a document clearly intended to deal with enemies outside of our borders...can or should be twisted as a de facto rationale for illegal wiretapping? (Illegal in that there is already a defined method for doing this, that he chose to run around for no specific reason other thn to "flex"?)
...and please...none of the tired "its a new type of enemy, a new type of war" crap-ola. We already have laws for these situations and if the President chooses to ignore them and /or misuse them should he not be held accountable? Or does he to make this shit up as he goes along just because he's POTUS?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 12:49pm
CHIMI....?
They always claim they want to limit government and allow people to manage their own affairs. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/19/2005 @ 12:43am
So....I guess SOMEBODY was claiming the opposite??? Who was that?
Here's a fun thought experiment for those on the Left now sounding like libertarians....
What would have happened if those "Big Brother" Republicans who now run the Congress and White House.....had Federal control over health care, like YOU guys wanted a little over 10 years ago?
Seems it would make that "pro-life" stance of theirs (not just abortion, but Schiavo as well)....REAL easy to enforce, since you'd have given them the power to run the hospitals and regulate the doctors?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 12:55pm
CPT,
Please, spare me. Four years they've been doing this. As fast as Ashcroft was to announce his farcical victories in the war on terror and as incapable as we have shown ourselves to be in "uncoding" the plans of the enemy, you are the one who should "think, man".
If you want to delude yourself into thinking that our enemy is incompetent enough to rely on phone calls to or from the US to conduct their mad business, then you are among those who are putting this country at risk. This is why there is no substance to the President's remark that we should be ashamed that this policy was revealed. It has less to do with the war on terror than it has with this administration's maniacal need to control communication. And this is nothing specifically against Bush: such b.s. has been done over and over in Dem as well as Rep administrations. Paranoia comes with the office, or the office is only attractive to the paranoid.
But if you believe that such tactics are effective in making us safe from terrorists, uh, gosh, then I just don't know what to say.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 1:08pm
MASK,
I'm not a democrat and I do not reside in the US. I could care less if the place was invaded and annexed by communist Martian evildoers tomorrow. The reality of the US is both comic and frightening, it is slowly sinking, and even the most uneducated peasants in America's basement see this. The US has no credibility, and is no longer the power it was 20-30 years ago, which is why more and more people here are seeking alternatives to all of Washington's failed prescriptions.
The sad thing is, so many people in the undeveloped world (majority of humanity) would rather see the US sink before their own countries rise. What is frightening about this is, the US doesn't care about this reality either, and would prefer to be a nuclear pariah than a civilized and sympathetic neighbor. The US hasn't cared at all for countries like those in Latin America (just punishing, exploiting and profiting off them), which even Stevie Wonder can see, which is why people return the gesture by not giving a crap about the US and it's dim future given it's insane world view. I, like the people here, want nothing to do with it. Only a retard would say the world is a better place since greatness was thrown on the US in 1945 (thrown on an immature and unprepared nation). Most Americans are ignorant and don't know the first thing about self-reliance, which is why they have no mind of their own and know nothing but to follow the other sheep to slaughter. Which is why there will be less freedom there in the future, not more. Though I'm sure the wolves will come up with creative names for all the police state surveillance and spy programs. You Repubs are sick, but good at what you do.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/19/2005 @ 1:10pm
LEFTOCENTER
I dont know enough about the paticulars to comment authortativly; but it would appear as if Bush followed the law.
Who did he wiretap? People with known AQ ties, who were talking to AQ operatives.
When did he wire tap them? In 2002-03, in the direct post-911 era, so there would seem a legitmate reason to do it.
Whom did the POTUS inform? A bipartiasn select group of Congressmen, so they knew what he was doing and why he was doing it.
So I dont know yet, when more info comes out, i would be able to say, but as if now.
It seems that the wiretaps were properly done and IAW with the law, some dont agree, but others and there are alot of others, do agree that is within his authority.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 1:13pm
MASK,
The wonderful thing about political issues is the strange bedfellows that are made. I have Libertarian friends with whom I agree without reservations on issues like religion, abortion, drug laws, gay rights, etc. Similarly on civil liberties issues I find myself agreeing often with Bob Barr and Pat Buchanan. We are all consistent within our own minds, so such intersections seem bizarre when they happen. Those of us on the Left will, however, be quite consistent and probably in agreement with you on many issues dealing with civil liberties. Just enjoy the confluence before we head back into issues dealing with taxation and social programs.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 1:20pm
FROMREDBIRD: You need to face the fact that you have never contributed anything even remotely intelligent to any conversation here. The percentage of your statements that are pure horse manure approaches the mid-90's.
This Republican War is pure idiocy. They send Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to Iraq to bomb weddings and they send their Republican Robots to discussion groups to shoot blanks.
Your observation is absolutely 100% dead-on accurate. The Republican argument on the Iraq War or any other Bush-created mess is never one of substance since no Bushie can answer for his massive/catastrophic blunders. No sane person possibly could. Bush is flat-out in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, period (Patroit Act notwithstanding). He is a law unto himself, and he's unable to get a life ever since 9/11 tossed him into a political pasture he's been grazing in, and getting fat in, ever since. Bush is irrisponsible, and completely undefendable. The rest of us have been trying to make sense of his actions, but none of it really make any sense. The only consistent thread is his arrogance, stubbornness, and willingness to kill more and accept more American deaths. Hence, his kamikazi-like "defenders" resort to antics, name calling, and smoke/mirrors to mask the truth.
Fortunately, GW's days are numbered. He may not, in the end, leave office, but his power will/should greatly diminish. I hope to God this does happen.
Posted by DownWithW at 12/19/2005 @ 1:23pm
CHIMICH
Then why do people from those countries continue to try and come to this country? I mean they hate us so much right?
Self-Reliance? Yes Latin America is a model in that concept, right?
Blame the USA for what they did to us 50 yrs ago. Because we damn sure arent going to take the blame for our own problems, what would be the point in that?
Yeah Chimich, only a retard would say the world is NOT a better place with USA in it.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 1:24pm
TJB
Thanks for proving my point.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 1:30pm
CPT (hero of the stupid)
When has Latin America ever been given a chance to be self-reliant? When we took over where Spain left off? When declaring the Monroe Doctrine? When starting war with Spain and stealing Puerto Rico and Cuba? When invading Cuba and Nicaragua, instead of just letting this apparently inefficient models fail on thier own? When threatening Venezuela or Boliva? When assassinating the democratically elected Salvador Allende and putting Pinochet in power? When invading Guatemala and ousting their first democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, in 1954 so Standard Fruit could continue running the country? You're such a jackass, with no concept of history, like most of your paisanos. Your memory goes back to yesterday's newscast, nothing more. The US has fostered and financed the worst dictators in the hemisphere, what the hell do you think the School of the Americas did for Latin America? Every effort to map their own path to development was squashed by the US, which is why US aid is only given to these countries when "our guys" get elected. Hell, I was in Honduras when the took aid away just because Ricardo Maduro took his 300 troops out of Iraq, as his wife is a Spaniard and strongly opposed the war, as do most people in his country. It's democracy when they do as we want, communism when they disobey. Can't get much more retarded than that.
And wheter or not the world is a better place with the US in it is something often debated in China. Either way, surely this site is better without your moronic drivel. Why don't you go play with the plastic vagina they gave you in bootcamp, soldier boy?
Posted by chimichenga at 12/19/2005 @ 1:38pm
CPT,
My point was that you are delusional. If you think this somehow proves YOUR point, then I suppose I have to consider my own point as QED.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 1:43pm
DEAR MR. CPT: You really need to buy a new thinking cap since the one you now have on is really messed up.
I don't think anyone truly doubts that the U.S.A. is a great country: few would ever question this. And we certainly don't need you to tell us that either. Progressive thinking, I believe, is presently questioning the wisdom of GWB's actions and speech insofar as it related to infringements on civil liberties, Iraq War, and other issues. The American people - each one of us - have an OBLIGATION to look at the guys in power be they crooked Republicans or crooked Democrates or skewed Libertarians or half-baked Martians or whoever and take issue with these problems. Therefore ISSUES, ISSUES, man, are the focus of our responsibilities as citizens!! Let the damn politicians and their political parties take care of themselves.
Take some down time from your partisan spewing and reflect on all of this. Slow down, boy!
Posted by DownWithW at 12/19/2005 @ 1:44pm
CPT,
One more thing Ace - the people in the South continue migrating north because one, American's keep offering jobs and couldn't be quicker to payroll illegal immigrants over domestic schmucks who demand at least minimum wage and two, it couldn't be much easier to cross the 1900 mile border between Mexico and the US. Your economy depends on the 40+ million Hispanics working in the services industry. Or is it gringos who do all the shit you don't want to?
Posted by chimichenga at 12/19/2005 @ 1:46pm
PLUNGER
Posted by PLUNGER 12/19/2005 @ 10:02am ....it was a simple question...I'll try again.
What DID fly into the Pentagon on 9/11....was it American Airlines Flight 77....or not?
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 12:45am
Mask:
Why do you insist on asking me a question which I can neither prove nor disprove, as I am not privvy to the evidence (unlike George Bush). If the government wanted to end the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, they could simply open the books on the evidence and let Us, their employers, see what the evidence reveals. Is their desire to conceal evidence from our view, evidence in and of itself? Why are you and I not allowed to see the existing video tapes of whatever it was that caused the destruction at the Pentagon? Is the truth to harmful to us?
You actions with respect to this question are an attempt to dodge the subject about which I had originally posted. that subject was Israel's spying activities in the United States, and specifically, on the morning of 9/11.
Do you have ANY explanation for this factual mainstream media account?
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm
Or this?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Do you care about America's National Security?
What about this?
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/lemonde1.html
I made no claims or assertions whatsoever with respect to the attack on the Pentagon, so your challenging me on it is a red herring.
Tell us about the Dancing Israelis captured on 9/11, and subesquently released by your hero, George Bush, without any charges being filed (despite having failed 7 lie detector tests).
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 1:59pm
CPT
re: "who he told" per interviews with some of those on TV, some say he only told them he had NSA doing some internal "stuff (not exact words, but close enought) while others who were given details were sworn to secrecy. Not exactly an open process?
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/19/2005 @ 2:06pm
I hear and read from a lot from people who claim not to mind a loss of privacy, if it means they can feel safer. "What the heck, I've got nothing to hide." is a common response.
To those people I ask, do you really feel safer? From whom? How does it make you feel to know that while your government could be spying on you, every possible shred of the president's (and his family's) personal information is hidden from your view? Cocaine use, drunk driving arrests, shady business deals, questionable financial practices, interactions with lobbyists, extremists, criminals, and agents of foreign governments. All locked away in the family library where they cannot compete with the spin machine.
Any alarm bells yet?
Posted by drhammer at 12/19/2005 @ 2:48pm
CHIMICH
Of course, it all the USA fault, typical answer for the hopelessly lost. Not willing to take a serious look at the internal problems needed by Latin America to fix itself. Its easier to blame America. When has the Latin America had a chance? When? Are you serious? When was the last time the US interfered in Latin America? The 70s in chile? before that? as you said its HISTORY, moron, Latin Americas need to START taking RESPONSIBILTY for the state of their own countries, stop blaming someone else. I know you dont want to hear it. But its good for you.
Hey Che why arent you starting a revolution like Morales, there is a winner, he is going to legalize cocaine and give the country back to the drug dealing cartels, what a guy. You picked a winner their.
By the way, they never issued out plastic vaginas, we were too busy building the medical clinics, wells, and schools in the areas that your NGO were too scared to go.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 3:01pm
TJB
My good man, my point is to merely say that hey some people still have not learned the lesson of 911.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 3:04pm
DRHAMMER
How are you those two prospects you outline related? one doesnt match the other? If they are using the wiretaps for those purposes you outlined, then there would be a problem, but they are not.
The persons they tapped were talking to AQ operatives, you dont want the govt to tap that?
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 3:08pm
Most Americans are ignorant and don't know the first thing about self-reliance, which is why they have no mind of their own and know nothing but to follow the other sheep to slaughter.
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/19/2005 @ 1:10pm
"Self-reliance"??? Sorry, but do you KNOW the ideology of "The Nation", its writers and supporters? It's not about "self-reliance".
Odd also, as little as you care about, or believe in the United States, you make it such a point to post on its policies, which you don't think are going to change (since they haven't since 1945)?!?!??
Why are you HERE then?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 3:18pm
PLUNGER
If the government wanted to end the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, they could simply open the books on the evidence and let Us, their employers, see what the evidence reveals.
Posted by PLUNGER 12/19/2005 @ 1:59pm
See, THAT part sound VERY familiar....used to read it a lot on the "Roswell Crash" sites. They claimed that since the Government wouldn't let "honest observers" onto the base....that "obviously they are still covering up what alien technology they have there".
My point on American Airlines Flight 77 is....that most of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists I've seen (notably RESE here), ALSO believe that "no airliner hit the Pentagon" and yet cannot explain where the passengers and crew of AA-77 are, especially celebrity Barbara Olson.
I have a feeling, given your ambigiuous answer, that you probably think that too, but know the dead-end logically it leads to.
Sorry....again, your 3000 word C&Ps from "www.antichristconspiracy.com" are enough to show me that you need to be put in the "black hole" of Ignore with RESE. Adios.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 3:25pm
CPT
Of course we only have the President's word that only AQ people are being spied on, and of course he wouldn't lie, would he? Let's look at the track record of people alledgely tied to al-Qaida. Padilla, who the govt said was tied to a "dirty bomb", is facing charges that have nothing to do with dirty bombs. There was the professor in Florida who was acquitted on half the counts and got a deadlock on the other half. As for legality, the same people who are saying that have also given a pass on torture (Gonzales, Yoo) so I think their credibility is at least a wide open questions.
Posted by brunowe at 12/19/2005 @ 3:44pm
The persons they tapped were talking to AQ operatives, you dont want the govt to tap that?
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 3:08pm
We're probably not yet approaching Ken Starr territory here, but just how long is this wiretapping of "AQ operatives" going to continue before we, say, arrest somebody or find something out. As I mentioned before, this is not exactly an administration of tooting its own horn. So if they've dug something up through this form of investigation, I suspect we would have heard something by now. I know it's cool to think that we're tying togethere a really complex web of international kooks that have developed indetectable boxcutters or shoebombs that really work or an army of old white ladies that have killer crochet needles, but the administration better demonstrate at least a hint of something they've accomplished in the last four years of domestic spying or they should put their headphones down and try to catch the REAL bad guys. These would be found in either a cave in South Asia or walking around in broad daylight in the middle of Iraq.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 3:45pm
CPT
How you evince your ignorance time and time again. Nothing post-1973 Chile, huh? Ever hear of Nicaragua and the Contras? Guatemala and Rios Montt? Panama and Noriega? El Salvador and the death squads we trained and financed until 1992? The fascists in Argentina and Paraguay? Plan Colombia which pits the US on the side of narcoterrorists and death squads? The attempt at ousting Chavez in 2002? The threats against Bolivia right now? The threats against Nicaragua and the Sandinistas right now? Why don't you get off your high horse and actually study something besides the transcripts to the O'Reilly factor, fuckpuppet. Your comment about Bolivia is the absolute worst, you know nothing about the history or culture there, and surely you don't know it's the most indigenous nation in the hemisphere. Oh my God, they voted for one of their own! And as far as decriminalizing coca, what the fuck has the drug war accomplished? American's still love to narcotize themselves (consuming more than half of the world's illicit drugs), so this is good news for the millions there seeking chemical consolation. The mentality here is, as long as there is a demand, we'll provide the supply. It's called a market economy. And I'll start the revolution so long as I know you're the one they send to combat me.
Mask, just like to fuck with you nuts. Not too many gringos down here to play with, as they're all too scared to leave their country, much less their home. (Only 14% of US citizens have passports.) Hence the outrageous and ignorant claims by so many bubble boys living in their pseudoenvironments.
Posted by chimichenga at 12/19/2005 @ 3:46pm
TJB
Ok, lets hear how you would go about finding these guys? this ought to be good.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 3:58pm
What DID fly into the Pentagon on 9/11....was it American Airlines Flight 77....or not?
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 12:45am
Mask:
Why do you insist on asking me a question which I can neither prove nor disprove, as I am not privvy to the evidence (unlike George Bush).
Posted by PLUNGER 12/19/2005 @ 1:59pm
My point on American Airlines Flight 77 is....that most of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists I've seen (notably RESE here), ALSO believe that "no airliner hit the Pentagon" and yet cannot explain where the passengers and crew of AA-77 are, especially celebrity Barbara Olson.
I have a feeling, given your ambigiuous answer, that you probably think that too, but know the dead-end logically it leads to.
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 3:25pm
AMBIGUOUS?
If you don't know the answer to the question, and you say that you don't know, how can that be deemed ambiguous?
As for attributing your "feeling" that I have probably have come to some conclusion...that statement speaks for itself.
The only reason the ABC News 20/20 story you mention is featured on a site called antichristconspiracy.com is that the story has been purged from the ABC site and every other site that used to feature the 20/20 story, which did in fact air. The broader question that is relevant to what I had posted earlier is why these mainstream media stories have been spiked, and by whom...at whose insistence?
Adios.
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 4:01pm
Chimich
Of course, how silly of me to forget Panama and the contras, I guess we have to count Grenada too, since its techincally part of Latin America, the other instances your cite are more dubious.
But to the heart of the matter, I love your rationalization of Morales and his plan to give Boliva over to the drug dealers, he is going to trade one landed gentry for another, only this type of landowner is not going to share his profits they way Morales might want him to. Morales is probably living on burrowed time, not from a threat from the US, but elements in his own country who see the train wreck thats coming when this avowed socialists emplaces his own version of the "dictatorship of the proleteriat."
Not even the Nation is singing his praises, though you never know they might. Dont worry Che, we will be ready, remember we read your book.
PS Its not the School of the Americas anymore, its the Western Hemisphere Insitute for Mutual Security Co-operation. And in 1999 when I was young student there, I volunteered to assist the MPs with crowd control, for the once a year protesters would come by, thought I might have seen there, it was great fun.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 4:14pm
It was Oswald.
Posted by audiojoebob at 12/19/2005 @ 4:15pm
CPT,
Did I indicate that I'm involved in Intelligence or the Military? A plan for finding bin Laden or Zarqawi is not mine to concoct. Unfortunately, I am no further from concocting one than our ever vigilant leaders. You might remember W's little video making fun of himself and his inability to find the WMD. I confess I don't know where to find WMD either, but is this also supposed to be a major flaw on my part?
The point is that our leaders don't know where to set their sights. Tapping phone lines of those who are either "known" or "whom we have reason to believe are" members of al Qaida seems akin to peeking in kids' lockers for pot or looking in on a slumber party hoping to scope some skin. Didn't we used to have the capability of something more complex, or have we managed to out any spies that might have been working on such things?
And, again, if the President is aware of instances in which we have foiled terrorist plots based on information garnered through these taps, let him please share just a hint of something that might give us faith in this sketchy use of his powers.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 4:21pm
This was posted on HuffPo...I can't find a link yet to verify it, so view it cautiously.
Anyone have a link?
A poll of 113,448 responders to an AOL poll
How would you characterize any domestic spying without a warrant?
NEVER ACCEPTABLE 62% A NECESSITY 31% I'M NOT SURE 7%
Do you think such eavesdropping should be legal? NO 63% YES 31% I don't know 6%
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 4:30pm
some people still have not learned the lesson of 911.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 3:04pm
What is the lesson? Am I supposed to think that some shadowy organization wants to kill me because they hate freedom? They are apparently free to fly airplanes into buildings (if that's true - that particular story has had minimal investigation).
Strategically, terrorist groups can have absolutely no impact on the U.S. Empire. Given the actual level of threat, the response is way over the top. Of course, the response is in rhetoric only, as the recent report on our current level of security delineated.
The only real threat is losing the supply of oil. Then our way of life (profligate use of the earth's resources) would indeed be in danger.
Posted by tmag at 12/19/2005 @ 4:47pm
TMAG
Would love further explanation of this line--
"They are apparently free to fly airplanes into buildings (if that's true - that particular story has had minimal investigation)"
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2005 @ 5:01pm
Alll Righty Then....so the wiretaps were legal because Bush said so. Next question HAS to be: WHO was wiretapped? Any political enemies? Kerry? Edwards? Wiretaps started before the elections. Does anybody trust this man and his cowboy mafia not to wiretap his political opponents? Find Out!!
Posted by ncben at 12/19/2005 @ 5:06pm
Ok, lets hear how you would go about finding these guys? this ought to be good.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 3:58pm
Take your suspicions to a FISA Court and get a warrent all legal like.
only a loser or a conservative couldn't figure that one out.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 5:15pm
It wasn't JUST a wedding party, fine points you love to gloss over
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:32am
Right it was a wedding party with armed escort to protect our two lovebirds from factional violence.
Unless you are now suggesting that Iraq is a safe place to get married in.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 5:22pm
Is PLUNGER the same as RESE? I can't recall why I've "ignored" both of them. Am I missing out on anything?
Posted by Fishbite at 12/19/2005 @ 6:00pm
WILL C
Well he didnt take it to the FISA court, he just briefed key members of congress, including, Jay Rockerfellar and Comarade Pelosi. They didnt seem to have a problem with its legality then.
But only an idioit or a conservative would see that.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:03pm
WILL C
Dont forget the Satellite radios found there as well, but I guess all wedding parties have that as well, maybe they wanted to tune in some Frank Sinatra. And lets not forget the RPGs, in case. those terrorists tanks came to harrass that wedding party. Its possible
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:07pm
CPT,
Bush could've asked a whole host of heroes or villains for advice on this issue. But that doesn't relate much to the argument of whether it was either legitimate or effective. It's not about "seeing". It's about being mature enough not to point fingers at others when the blame is all yours.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 6:12pm
But only an idioit or a conservative would see that.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:03pm
Yes only an idiot or a conservative would see that as being relevent when the FISA statute doesn't allow for that particular option.
Not might be a good time to consult your CC website to search yourself up a clue.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 6:15pm
TJB
Well correct me if I am wrong, did Bush not say that today, he said in essence I did it and I will keep doing it to protect this country from attack. He made that clear yesterday as well.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:16pm
WILL C
And when was FISA enacted and for what purpose? garner a clue on that brother
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:19pm
WILL C.
It will all be settled soon enough, the court will rule in favor of a Bush. National Security and War Powers Act trumps alot of things.
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:21pm
But again only if he uses it wisely, like he apparently was
Posted by CPT at 12/19/2005 @ 6:22pm
Dont forget the Satellite radios found there as well, but I guess all wedding parties have that as well, maybe they wanted to tune in some Frank Sinatra. And lets not forget the RPGs, in case. those terrorists tanks came to harrass that wedding party. Its possible
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:07pm
Yes, it is possible. Except the terrorists don't have tanks. But then an RPG is a good weapon for taking out a light vehicle, taking out a room full of fighters in a building. It's a very versatile weapon and that explains why it's still one of the most popular Soviet era weapons still on the battlefield. I figured you would know that.
And, I don't think anyone is broadcasting Frank on a two way satellite radio. But, perhaps your Intel sources tell you something different
If it were me I'd have a SAT phone for calling backup in case there was trouble or just for sending out the good news to friends and family. If the power doesn't work and the water doesn't work and the sewers don't work, then it's probably safe to assume that the phone system doesn't work all that well either.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 6:27pm
And when was FISA enacted and for what purpose? garner a clue on that brother
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:19pm
Ah, the old "It was pasted in 1978" defense. I heard that on fox just last night. And you said you got all your stuff from your CC website.
I find it interesting that the rule of law crowd is now arguing that a functional law currently on the books, that doesn't have a built in sunset, has one anyway.
Perhaps that is the reasoning behind the Conservative trashing of the US Constitution. I'm mean hell, that was passed in 1788.
Way to old for our purposes.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 6:34pm
Well correct me if I am wrong, did Bush not say that today, he said in essence I did it and I will keep doing it to protect this country from attack. He made that clear yesterday as well.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:16pm
Yeah. And then you decided to point fingers at Democrats ("correct me if I'm wrong").
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 6:35pm
It will all be settled soon enough, the court will rule in favor of a Bush. National Security and War Powers Act trumps alot of things.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:21pm
Except the US Constitution. Me personally, I'd use a third amendment argument in front of SCOTUS.
Posted by Will C. at 12/19/2005 @ 6:37pm
CPT and Rio Bravo - I caught up on your various remarks about the "wedding party" attack. If I understand this correctly, you're using this as evidence of some kind of complicity of US media with the bad guys, or at least as a failed opportunity to show up the other side's (Al Jazeera's) blatant use of lying propaganda.
Do you guys really have shit for brains? Are you completely unable to distinguish truth from falsehood? Because a military commander, Brigadier Mark Kimmitt, then deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, said it was a valid military exercise, then we've got to believe him? Which is easier to believe, that the US military fucked up and used air and ground assets to clobber a wedding party? Or that it really WAS a nest of terrorists and that there was a concerted, incredibly elaborate hoax to hoodwink the world into believing it was really a wedding party? Have you seen the extensive correlation between images from the video of the wedding party and photos of corpses at burial? Extensive eye-witness testimony from survivors of the attack, from personnel at local hospitals, from video shot on the scene after the attack, etc.?
When you read the remarks made by Kimmit and others, you've just got to question the validity of the attack. These remarks include:
- the area was so remote and inaccessible, the folks had to be up to no good [in fact, while certainly a small settlement, the place had been inhabited for over 100 years]
- comments about the presence of weapons [weapons, including automatic weapons, are common in rural areas]
- no children killed in attack, perhaps some women were "caught up" in the action [press confirmed deaths of several children with injuries consistent with accounts of attack]
- there was no wedding [Kimmit admitted that there was maybe a celebration, but no wedding!! Even bad guys have celebrations he said. A famous Iraqi musician hired to perform at the wedding and all the members of his band were killed - he was buried later in Bagdad. Post attack video showed debris of stuff used at desert weddings. The wedding had a fair amount of local buzz because it marked a first-time alliance between two large families, one of which lost 27 family members in the attack.]
Mistakes happen in war, that's one reasons why we should try so hard to avoid getting into wars. What makes it worse is when we lie about our own mistakes, refuse to admit them and apologize for them, thus cementing the locals' bad opinions of us.
Posted by Fishbite at 12/19/2005 @ 6:39pm
Plus,
Bush says he needs this authority to keep us "fast on our feet" when it comes to waging the war on terrorism. Now, much of this war is fought in secrecy from wiretapping and strategy to death tolls and defense contract expenditures. Meanwhile, we have seen just how fast on his feet Bush can be when faced with more direct threats to the well-being of this country. How quick he was to race to New Orleans! How immediate and decisive has been his response to the overwelming numbers of Mexicans crossing the border and Cubans crossing the Gulf! How stunning has his leadership been as gas prices went up so dramatically to take this country into the next (first) generation of hybrid and electric vehicles! How dramatic his decisions have been to stem the growing tide of minimum wage jobs that are wiping out better paying manufacturing and white collar jobs!
So, you guys are, like, so right on this, you know? Like for sure Bush is doing totally awesome things 'cause he's just so awesome! The com-com's say so, dudes and dudettes, so let the good times roll!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/19/2005 @ 6:55pm
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.
At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.
These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.
Senator Rockefeller, much like Congresswoman Pelosi, expressed serious concerns about the domestic spy program; he even did so in a hand-written letter to the Vice President the very day he learned of it.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/senator_rockefe.php
Posted by plunger at 12/19/2005 @ 8:19pm
Katrina, you sound outraged, again! And these comments from your followers are so emotional, one has to wonder. How much more can you all take? The President is just killing all you lefties and I can't help but be concerned. He is so far into your heads it is effecting your commentary. Your actually thinking "what if" this or that revelation had come out before the election. And using words like "chilling" to describe the President's way of thinking. Come on Katrina, get yourself together, girl. We need you to be strong and sensible (not too sensible or you might start sounding like a conservative ...you know, like Hillary C.). Anyway, try to remember you are one of the leaders of the left wing and we need you to keep that group grounded so as not to start thinking and sounding like the village idiots (kinda like some of these posted comments). Otherwise Katrina, you are doing a good job and I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.
Posted by CCARRILLO22 12/19/2005 @ 12:44am
Gee whiz, we're all so jealous of you. Oh, why, oh, why can't we have a representative of our worldview like you that 2/3rd's of Americans think is an A-hole? We could be so proud. Like you.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 9:35pm
Are domestic terrorists so stupid as to contact Zarqawi or Osama by land line?
In a word YES they are, some like to talk in code.
"Who are they trying to kid? If these people were genuine threats, they would be locked up."
Well, no, you see its not just about that guy, its about who hw is talking to and finding out all the links of his network. That only happens if he keeps talking, the more he talks the more we can learn. You see how that works. Think man! Do you want to get just the one fish, or the whole barrel.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 12:38am
I'm with you, Colonel Klink. Let's get all 30,000 of them that we're wiretapping. . . sometime this century, maybe. It's kind of weird, though . . . if Iraq is the central battleground in the war against "terror" why are there twice as many "terrorists" here as in Iraq? And who are these 80,000 "terrorists" on the no-fly lists? You'd think with that many "terrorists" in America they'd have to hold meetings at convention centers.
Theoretically speaking, how would you like it if you had a brother-in-law who disliked you and worked for the NSA?
Most likely scenario: after violating the civil rights of hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans Al-Qaeda will strike again in the US. Because our government is violating the civil rights of hundreds of tousands of Americans instead of concentrating on real terrorists. Kind of like diverting resources from the hunt for Bin Laden to invade Iraq.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 10:04pm
I dont know enough about the paticulars to comment authortativly; but it would appear as if Bush followed the law.
Who did he wiretap? People with known AQ ties, who were talking to AQ operatives.
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 1:13pm
How do you like that? 30,000 Americans are talking to Al-Qaeda operatives. Doesn't Bush keep saying that al-Qaeda has been largely hobbled? Jeezus! How many Americans were talking to Al-Qaeda operatives prior to that? 300,000? 3,000,000? And where are all the convicted terrorists? Look around. Zippo, zippo, zippo. Oh, wait . . . maybe they've been torturing them for the last 3 years. The only thing that has produced, however, is a made-to-order tall tale about chemical weapons training given to Al-Qaeda by the Iraqi government.
Ha, ha, ha! What a flim flam.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 10:18pm
Of course, it all the USA fault, typical answer for the hopelessly lost.
When was the last time the US interfered in Latin America? The 70s in chile? before that? as you said its HISTORY, moron,
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 3:01pm
In the last 18 months: Venezuela, and Haiti, and Columbia, and Peru, and . . . . what's the point? You weren't kidding when you said you only read companycommander.com.
This is a serious question: has the Republican Party sent you a tinfoil hat yet? I know a few Republicans that got theirs a long time ago. If you haven't gotten one yet you should demand to know why.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 10:30pm
"Self-reliance"??? Sorry, but do you KNOW the ideology of "The Nation", its writers and supporters? It's not about "self-reliance".
Odd also, as little as you care about, or believe in the United States, you make it such a point to post on its policies, which you don't think are going to change (since they haven't since 1945)?!?!??
Why are you HERE then?
Posted by MASK 12/19/2005 @ 3:18pm
Self-reliance is refusing to rob someone else's natural resources by means of violence. Self-reliance is helping your neighbors.
You seem to be having a problem with both of those, MASK. I've been wondering why you're here, coincidentally, since your main problem appears to be with The Nation's expressed belief in self-reliance and this discussion forum is owned by them. Or do you think it's owned by the US Government since all you apologizers and mediators for the Republican Fourth Reich think the US Government has a right to everything "since 9/11".
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 10:40pm
WILL C
Dont forget the Satellite radios found there as well, but I guess all wedding parties have that as well, maybe they wanted to tune in some Frank Sinatra. And lets not forget the RPGs, in case. those terrorists tanks came to harrass that wedding party. Its possible
Posted by CPT 12/19/2005 @ 6:07pm
So those are your rules of engagement- shoot every Iraqi that has a telephone? That's an incredibly senseless statement. With the Shiite death squads the Pentagon has set up roaming around at will an Iraqi would have to be a fool to not have arms available. Iraqis are, by the way, allowed to have weapons in their houses. The puppet government we installed backed off from outlawing that. So those statements are 100% horse manure. Again. Even if what you're saying about the telephone and weapons are true. The only support you have for that statement is another statement from the people that bombed the wedding [tinyurl.com].
Get off it- they bombed the wedding because they saw a gathering of people. They had no idea what it was and didn't care. They did it because there was a remote chance that it might turn out to be members of the Iraqi resistance and because they're God in Iraq, and it isn't a Christian God, not by any stretch of the imagination. What a shame for America and you're lying to rationalize it. Just like your rationalization that we have no choice but to hose down any Iraqi car that gets within 300 feet of an American.
There is a choice- get the hell out of a country in which we have no business or right to be.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 11:01pm
CPT and Rio Bravo - I caught up on your various remarks about the "wedding party" attack. If I understand this correctly, you're using this as evidence of some kind of complicity of US media with the bad guys, or at least as a failed opportunity to show up the other side's (Al Jazeera's) blatant use of lying propaganda.
Do you guys really have shit for brains? Are you completely unable to distinguish truth from falsehood? Because a military commander, Brigadier Mark Kimmitt, then deputy director of operations for the US military in Iraq, said it was a valid military exercise, then we've got to believe him? Which is easier to believe, that the US military fucked up and used air and ground assets to clobber a wedding party? Or that it really WAS a nest of terrorists and that there was a concerted, incredibly elaborate hoax to hoodwink the world into believing it was really a wedding party? Have you seen the extensive correlation between images from the video of the wedding party and photos of corpses at burial? Extensive eye-witness testimony from survivors of the attack, from personnel at local hospitals, from video shot on the scene after the attack, etc.?
When you read the remarks made by Kimmit and others, you've just got to question the validity of the attack. These remarks include:
- the area was so remote and inaccessible, the folks had to be up to no good [in fact, while certainly a small settlement, the place had been inhabited for over 100 years]
- comments about the presence of weapons [weapons, including automatic weapons, are common in rural areas]
- no children killed in attack, perhaps some women were "caught up" in the action [press confirmed deaths of several children with injuries consistent with accounts of attack]
- there was no wedding [Kimmit admitted that there was maybe a celebration, but no wedding!! Even bad guys have celebrations he said. A famous Iraqi musician hired to perform at the wedding and all the members of his band were killed - he was buried later in Bagdad. Post attack video showed debris of stuff used at desert weddings. The wedding had a fair amount of local buzz because it marked a first-time alliance between two large families, one of which lost 27 family members in the attack.]
Mistakes happen in war, that's one reasons why we should try so hard to avoid getting into wars. What makes it worse is when we lie about our own mistakes, refuse to admit them and apologize for them, thus cementing the locals' bad opinions of us.
Posted by FISHBITE 12/19/2005 @ 6:39pm
Someone read what these Robotic Republicans are saying about this bombing and tell me that they're worth having a conversation with.
Please face it, FISHBITE- there was no mistake. The policy is to bomb a large gathering just on the off chance that they'll get some of the enemy. No attempt at moving in a force to block them and ascertain what's actually going on. Just bomb the living hell out of them and try to figure out what you got by listening to Al-Jazeera. And these dopes say we have a mission to accomplish in Iraq. What a laugh! The Republicans are so desperate for anything that can be remotely called a victory that they'll do anything, absolutely anything. Morals, Americanism, what the hell is that to them? There's an election to win.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/19/2005 @ 11:39pm
Regardless of whether Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States, the media (Andrea Mitchell, Matthews, Blitzer, Scarborough etc.) they will continue to prop up this two bit cowboy. He and his feckless administration will continue to get away with this constant mendacity. So get use to it and stop kvetching! And Katrina darlin wants a watch dog group? That's a laugh! You could have a yard full of pitbulls it doesn't matter! Our bellicose usurper & chief will continue on like he's done since he was selected.
And just wait and see what this facist PNAC pimp does for a final act! Can anyone say "Martial Law"? Sure ya can. Just watch, you'll see.
Posted by Munich at 12/19/2005 @ 11:48pm
Listen people, Bush was fair. Did he infringe upon your own personal, day-to-day rights? What I mean is, do YOU personally feel that the administration broke your own sense of privacy? Do you feel that someone was violating your personal space all day, every day? No, how can you. This whole thing was setup to prevent another terrorist attack on our own soil. Only the GUILTY have something to hide. I don't care if someone bugs my phone or watches me walk down the street. It's for my own good, and your's too. Try to remember that.
Posted by MONJU at 12/20/2005 @ 12:36am
Munich
Admittedly it is all looking a bit too "Hitler-esque" for my taste. "Patriot Act"...so if I don't agree, suddenly I'm not patriotic? If I order the wrong book fromthe library the DHS comes-a-callin'. (Wonder if they're gonna do khaki shirts and armbands yet...) Read your email, listen in on random phone calls, detain people without charges for extended periods of time.
Home of the free? Hmmmmm.
"...law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/20/2005 @ 12:36am
You liberal weenies faulted Bush for "not connecting the dots" prior to 9/11. Since then, he's been determined to connect the dots. You all need to take a breath, relax and enjoy it!
Posted by pbsssmith at 12/20/2005 @ 01:43am
Listen people, Bush was fair. Did he infringe upon your own personal, day-to-day rights? What I mean is, do YOU personally feel that the administration broke your own sense of privacy? Do you feel that someone was violating your personal space all day, every day? No, how can you. This whole thing was setup to prevent another terrorist attack on our own soil. Only the GUILTY have something to hide. I don't care if someone bugs my phone or watches me walk down the street. It's for my own good, and your's too. Try to remember that.
Posted by MONJU 12/20/2005 @ 12:36am
They could easily employ legal means to prevent terrorism. They don't want to because their objective is not to prevent terrorism but to destroy America's liberties as a free people.
And, bejeezus . . . what a rabbit you are. It's enough to make a man's skin crawl.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 02:51am
You liberal weenies faulted Bush for "not connecting the dots" prior to 9/11. Since then, he's been determined to connect the dots. You all need to take a breath, relax and enjoy it!
Posted by PBSSSMITH 12/20/2005 @ 01:43am
The only dots that the Republicans are connecting are the tiny ones that represent the brain size of their shrinking coterie of emotionally deprived adulators.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 02:55am
I wake to learn that the real issue is not conventional wiretapping, but vast fishing nets of unknown technology.
We are meeting Big Brother - nameless, faceless, soulless. Electronic decisions that can sweep you away between breaths.
No one knows what happens to you. No one will speak your name, because it would target them.
Take cover, friends.
Posted by tmag at 12/20/2005 @ 06:52am
"They could easily employ legal means to prevent terrorism."
Not just legal. A virtual rubber stamp from a secret court that since its inception has rejected 4 or 5 requests out of over 19000. It is impossible for me not to ask myself why the administration felt compelled to sidestep FISA.
Posted by drhammer at 12/20/2005 @ 07:16am
(Sorry for the tortured pre-coffee syntax...)
Posted by drhammer at 12/20/2005 @ 07:19am
Self-reliance is refusing to rob someone else's natural resources by means of violence. Self-reliance is helping your neighbors.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/19/2005 @ 10:40pm |
Is THAT the definition of "self-reliance"???
Take the first part....so I guess you support us drilling for oil in our OWN country?...like ANWR?
as to the second...."Self-reliance is helping your neighbors."???
How EXACTLY is it "self-reliant" to get others to rely on us?!?!??
or do words just mean anything you want them to mean?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 07:29am
PBS
re: "dots"
You really think it counts that he "connects the dots" because he draws them in as he needs? Guess you both share the same box of crayons...
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/20/2005 @ 08:48am
monju:"Only the GUILTY have something to hide."
this is a most Stalinist point of view.the cold war ended with america assuming the role of the soviets, and all you are doing is applauding
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 09:42am
Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.
I find that interesting, don't you?
In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it.
For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone's communications, several officials said.
Now, what do you suppose these "concerns" were all about?
Here's a hint:
Those involved in the program also said that the N.S.A.'s eavesdroppers might need to start monitoring large batches of numbers all at once, and that it would be impractical to seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court first, according to the officials.
I would guess that these large batches of numbers were very large indeed. So large that it would be "inefficient" go to the FISA court and seek permission after the fact.
I would further guess that these large batches of numbers include a whole shitload of Americans who have nothing to do with al Qaeda. And since they had to suspend some areas of the program in 2004, I would suspect that those numbers include some people who are of interest to the administration for reasons other than terrorism.
If I were one of those "shift supervisors" (especially if I was one who had worried about John Kerry becoming president) I'd get myself a lawyer.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_12_18_digbysblog_archive.html#113503 496104807390
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 10:15am
Diebold thrown out of Florida by hacker
Finished in Florida
By Nick Farrell: Tuesday 20 December 2005, 06:01 A FINNISH security expert has proved to the supervisor of elections in Leon County Florida that it is a doddle to hack Diebold voting machines.
Harri Hursti took part in a fake election in Leon County using what Diebold calls unhackable technology.
At the beginning of the test election the memory card programmed by Harri Hursti was inserted into an Optical Scan Diebold voting machine. Hursti had pre-loaded the memory card with plus and minus votes.
The eight ballots were run through the optical scan machine. Correct results should have been: Yes:2 ; No:6 However, just as Hursti had planned, the results tape read: Yes:7 ; No:1
http://theinquirer.net/?article=28450
George W. Bush's Impeachable Offenses December 19, 2005
All of these actions are part of President Bush's attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime--as if the imperial presidency hadn't been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president's war making power under the Constitution as "plenary"--meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs--in blood and treasure--on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: "The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.' Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don't. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country."
http://independent.org/newsroom/...cle.asp? id=1639
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 11:50am
where are all the self proclaimed libertarians in this fight. the so called president cavalierly excusing illegal domestic spying, all in the name of national security.look for him to ignore term limits, abrogate freedom of the press, freedom of assembly etc let's just toss the entire constitution, it is interfering with the president's plenary powers, unlimited in wartime, and since the war on terror is open ended, read forever, there will never again be limits on presidential powers.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 12:56pm
Hey Johannes,
Coming to NYC tomorrow. Really looking forward to the subway rides and solo taxi rides. That, and the toasty weather.
I think MASK is our resident libertarian but he is a little busy now unravelling the details of our arguments rather than the substance of them. For instance, the war in Iraq or over illegal wiretapping becomes, for example, "Well, Murtha's experience in Vietnam is being used by the far left as a demonstration of the righteousness of their opinion even though they were just as self-righteous when following a coward like Clinton." It's a fun game and he's good at pointing out the inconsistencies of certain left arguments. I am sure he can do the same on the right, thereby placing him at the center, the very apex of correct political thought. Nice place to imagine oneself being. That MASK, he's a dreamboat all right.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/20/2005 @ 1:05pm
http://leftintheheartland.blogspot.com/
I was initially reluctant to join the Impeach Bush movement. I believe and continue to believe that the best way to handle issues is through the ballot box. The US has a tradition of Regime Change through voting and peaceful elections. Unfortunately, this administration appears to neither value or respect the essential role that dissent plays in devising government "of the people, for the people and by the people." Mr. Bush took an oath on his appointment (by the Supreme Court in 2000) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States on January 20, 2001. Due to his choice to willingly violate the law not once but over three dozen times arguably rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President of the US is not above the law and arguably should be held to an even higher standard due to his role as the leader of the free world. Leading the US into war over false pretenses was bad enough but to order spying on American citizens without probable cause or legal justification is an assault on the very constitution and its guarantees of civil liberties that he has sworn to protect.
As progressives we need to achieve regime change by winning back the Congress next fall through the ballot box. Then the process of removal from office of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be intiated. Hopefully, they will have the decency to resign rather than initiate a national crisis through their willful disregard of the rule of law.
Posted by pwestre at 12/20/2005 @ 1:16pm
To all the Bush lovers:
Seriously, at what point will you say the president has gone too far in asserting his unlimited power in the "War on Terror"?
And to Monju: "I don't care if someone bugs my phone or watches me walk down the street. It's for my own good, and your's too. Try to remember that."
Right on comrade..
Posted by rain man at 12/20/2005 @ 2:05pm
PWESTRE
As I noted to another "impeachment" poster...and as some other saner liberals have noted...that way lies a NIGHTMARE for the Democrats.
Impeachment trials would involve a few things-
1. It would mean the TOTAL stoppage of any Democratic agenda in Congress (not a bad thing in itself I guess)...remember 1997?
2. It would mean the Dems waste their political capital from a 2006 midterm win...on appealing to the singular, but small "Hate Bush and Cheney" base, and have no time left to try to win over the MAJORITY of the country who don't want Dick and George hauled away in leg-irons....again, remember 1997?
3. Simultaneous trials would be rendered unconstitutional...and thus if you "got Bush", Cheney would become President (if for a short time) and get to appoint his own Veep....probably Condi Rice, to insure a MASSIVE electoral swing in 2008....in the OPPOSITE direction for what Democrats hoped. Then, if you went after "President Dick"...that leaves the first black AND woman President being....a Republican (and that's LOUSY P.R. for Democrats as well).
and 4.....Do you REALLY think Democrats want to risk even ONE of those trials....before Bush-appointed Chief Justice (and Russ Feingold friend)...John Roberts?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 3:23pm
http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/12/18/afx2400383.html
This Forbes article quoting Cheney is interesting:
'It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11,' Cheney said in an interview with ABC's 'Nightline' program."
Mr. Cheney and Mr. Forbes have something in common...
Now ask yourself what interest Mr. Forbes might have in providing cover for the Administration...give up?
Let's take a look at the list of signatories to the PNAC, shall we?
Steve Forbes actively participated in the following events:
September 2000: PNAC Report Recommends Policies That Need New Pearl Harbor for Quick Implementation:
PNAC drafts a strategy document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," for George W. Bush's team before the 2000 Presidential election. The document was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (Bush's brother), and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. [Sources: Rebuilding America's Defenses]
The document outlines a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."
PNAC states further: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
PNAC calls for the control of space through a new "US Space Forces," the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates "regime change" in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.
It also mentions that "advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
However, PNAC complains that thes changes are likely to take a long time, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/03] Notably, while Cheney commissioned this plan (along with other future key leaders of the Bush administration), he defends Bush's position of maintaining Clinton's policy not to attack Iraq during an NBC interview in the midst of the 2000 presidential campaign, asserting that the US should not act as though "we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." [Washington Post, 1/12/02] A British member of Parliament will later say of the report: "This is a blueprint for US world domination--a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world." [Sunday Herald, 9/7/02] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).
People and organizations involved: Aaron Friedberg, Steve Forbes, Elliott Abrams, Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podhoretz, Henry S. Rowen, Vin Weber, Eliot A. Cohen, Hasam Amin, William J. Bennett, Midge Decter, George Weigel, John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush, Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Project for the New American Century, Paula J. Dobriansky, Frank Gaffney, Donald Kagan, Steve Rosen, Saddam Hussein, Peter Rodman, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, Dan Quayle, Syria, China, United States, Lybia, North Korea, Iraq, Fred C. Ikle
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2624
Well lookie there!
Mr. Cheney and Mr. Forbes BOTH signed the strategic document which, when implemented, enabled the largest build up in the history of defense contracting, while simultaneously implementing the Energy Strategy plan that was secretly developed in the company of none other than Ken Lay.
And what a coincidence that ABC News is playing its part in helping to push the Cheney agenda. Actually, it didn't even require wiretapping to catch some of the coconspirators with foreknowledge of 9/11, an ABC News' crack 20/20 investigative team knew the entire story - and Michael Chertoff deported them - after 7 failed lie detector tests, without filing any charges:
http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/HTML%20Pages/ABCNEWS_com_Were_Israel is_Detained_Sept_11_Spies.htm
Oh look! We've come full-circle to the DANCING ISRAELIS!
Any coincidence theorists on the board?
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 4:48pm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20040420- 2.html
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act
Kleinshans Music Hall Buffalo, New York
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
But a roving wiretap means -- it was primarily used for drug lords. A guy, a pretty intelligence drug lord would have a phone, and in old days they could just get a tap on that phone. So guess what he'd do? He'd get him another phone, particularly with the advent of the cell phones. And so he'd start changing cell phones, which made it hard for our DEA types to listen, to run down these guys polluting our streets. And that changed, the law changed on -- roving wiretaps were available for chasing down drug lords. They weren't available for chasing down terrorists, see? And that didn't make any sense in the post-9/11 era. If we couldn't use a tool that we're using against mobsters on terrorists, something needed to happen.
The Patriot Act changed that. So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.
Thirdly, to give you an example of what we're talking about, there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law.
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 4:49pm
"Oh, but wait...be very afraid!!! there were some explosives stolen from an ATF facility in New Mexico!!!"
NOT!
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 4:50pm
hello TJ, welcome to the big apple, sorry about no subways and busses.
I'm thinking of downtown things for you. Joe's Pub is nice for a musical show and drinks and food, it's on Lafayette st. just below 8th street. McSorley's Ale House is around the corner on 7th street.
have you heard of Blue Man Group? I'm sure you've seen them on commercials, they are also down there on Lafayette street, across the street from Joe's Pub, which is in the Public Theatre building, should you wish to see an off broadway play.
if you want to see the sidewalks teeming with young, hip people, go further downtown, below Houston, on the east side, Ludlow st, Orchard st, and maybe a hot pastrami sandwich at Katz's Deli on Houston,(pronounced how-sten not you-ston)
there is also the former meatpacking district, 14th st west of ninth ave, with several Belgian Brasseries such as Markt. keep checking this thread, in case I think of something else, Oh I just did, buy a publication called "Time Out, for listings of events and places this week. Enjoy
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 5:07pm
hey Monju, how about searching your bags when you walk down the street, bother you?
or preventive detentions? only the guilty have anything to fear, if you're innocent you will be released, any problem with that?
or how about being shot by the police, like that poor London guy? Oh, yes we were told he had been under surveillance for being a terrorist, false, we were told that he was wearing bulky clothes in summer, false, that he jumped turnstile and refused to stop, false, all lies. you cool with that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 5:13pm
Spying and Lying eh. No, not George!
Here's what bush said April 2004 at a town hall meeting in Buffalo:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Here's what our honorable prez said Saturday:
"The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups." "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
I think I would call that a LIE.
Posted by doumer at 12/20/2005 @ 5:27pm
I think I would call that a LIE.
Posted by DOUMER 12/20/2005 @ 5:27pm
Yup, a lie she is.
Posted by Will C. at 12/20/2005 @ 5:32pm
but the real question is...
Was there sex involved?
Posted by Will C. at 12/20/2005 @ 5:33pm
The NY Times had it within their power to decide the outcome of the elections...and they USED IT.
They knew they were going to be busted for sitting on the story, and were left with no choice but to print it.
Assume that agents operating on Fitzgerald's behalf were conducting interviews within the offices of the Times to gather information relevant to the Judith Miller testimony. Clearly, they came across an article - which had been spiked by the Bush Whitehouse - concealing evidence of a Federal Crime - illegal wiretapping of US citizens - authorized by the President himself.
Fitzgerald learned of it, and threatened to charge the paper's management with conspiring to throw the Presidential election and conspiracy to obstruct justice. As the Crucial Patriot Act vote was imminent, they were faced with two bad choices.
Either hold the story until after the vote, be charged by Fitzgerald on an additional count, and be accused of throwing both the Presidential election AND the Patriot Act vote OR publish it on the eve of the vote and appear to be balanced (provided no one learns of the details of why you held it back).
Bush tried EVERYTHING "beyond" his power to prevent them from running with the story, but the FBI had the Times Ownership between Iraq and a hard place...with little choice but to run it.
That's my WAG
Posted by plunger at 12/20/2005 @ 5:43pm
READING BETWEEN THE LINES
"I see some of the political leaders who are here, and I presume you've invited me to uphold the scholars' end." (This sure beats holdin' up the end of my horse's member.)
"In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.." (Gee, that word front makes it sound like I'm hiding something.)
"And as millions of Iraqis prepare to cast their ballots..." (Many more soldiers will prepare to be put into casts.).
"I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot - and will not - leave Iraq until victory is achieved." (Just don't ask me what is meant by victory.)
"We are living through a watershed moment in the story of freedom." (And many thousands have 'drowned'.)
"We saw the destruction terrorists could cause with airplanes loaded with jet fuel - and we imagined the destruction they could cause with even more powerful weapons." (And our imagination was like an LSD trip...and we saw what we needed to see!)
"He [Saddam Hussein] had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists." (And the United States provided the materials for making those weapons, just as the U.S. sponsored and supported Saddam in his war against Iran.)
"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place." (Along with American military bases and Halliburton.)
"The enemy of freedom in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists and Saddamists and terrorists." (Not just rejects and Sodomists.)
"History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations." (Uhhh...was Germany a free nation? A peaceful nation? Has America's history been peaceful?)
"As we advance the cause of freedom in Iraq, our nation can proceed with confidence because we have done this kind of work before." (In the Phillipines...Nicaragua...Iran...Chile...etc)
"The people of Iraq are now seeing some of the tangible benefits of their new democracy. They see that as freedom advances, their lives are improving." (But water and electricity are not. Reconstruction money is either lost or used to pay for security.)
"And they see that freedom is bringing opportunity and a better life." (Plus more bombs and radiation from Depleted Uranium weapons.)
"As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when victory is achieved, our troops will then come home, with the honor they have earned." (After about 100 years.)
"Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy, but some have launched irresponsible charges. They say that we act because of oil, that we act in Iraq because of Israel, or because we misled the American people." (And they're right...huh...huh.)
"These charges are pure politics." (Pure politics? This is an oxymoron!)
"They hurt the morale of our troops." (And highlight the poor morals of our policies.)
"Before this victory comes, we still have a lot of difficult work ahead." (Rome was not built in a day and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.)
"So we can expect violence to continue." (War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.)
"We may not know for certain who's won the elections until the early part of January - and that's important for our citizens to understand. It's going to take a while." (Remember my first election.)
"The work ahead will also require continued sacrifice." (Remember the Aztecs.)
Posted by Mad Plato at 12/20/2005 @ 6:16pm
BUSH ABSOLUTELY HAS OUR NUMBER
"The NSA has been spying on Americans for decades and Echelon has had the capability to track every communication in real time for at least ten years."
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson, 12/20/05, prisonplanet.com
Mad Plato has just learned that Homeland Security's TIA (or Terrorist Information Awareness) has been monitoring some recent phone calls made by Mad Plato. Words that are inside of TIA's computer database, which indicate some type of potential terrorist activity, will trigger the computers to cherry-pick such words out of the air from telephone conversations, and then store them inside of TIA computers for review and analysis. Here are some pieces of conversations that have been intercepted by TIA:
"Hi Mad Plato. Boy, the party at Sharon's last week was a real bomb!"
"By the way, Bill, were you planning to fire any rockets this Fourth of July?"
"Yes, Bill, I'll be heading with Aziz, Mark, and Robin to the retreat next week."
"Wow! I bet you had a blast in Spain last weekend."
So, citizens, be careful what you say on the telephone. Homeland Security is listening to you. What you say may reward you with a visit by an agent of Homeland Security. Wait, I hear a knock at my door right now...and the phone is ringing. I must go. Goodbye.
Posted by Mad Plato at 12/20/2005 @ 6:19pm
Self-reliance is refusing to rob someone else's natural resources by means of violence. Self-reliance is helping your neighbors.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/19/2005 @ 10:40pm |
Is THAT the definition of "self-reliance"???
Take the first part....so I guess you support us drilling for oil in our OWN country?...like ANWR?
as to the second...."Self-reliance is helping your neighbors."???
How EXACTLY is it "self-reliant" to get others to rely on us?!?!??
or do words just mean anything you want them to mean?
Posted by MASK 12/20/2005 @ 07:29am
They just mean what you don't want them to. That's your problem, not mine. Whether or not we drill in ANWR has nothing to do with attempting to steal the natural resources of others. Another of your change-the-subject maneuvers. You're really dreaming if you think anyone's dumb enough to expect a helping hand from you.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 6:24pm
where are all the self proclaimed libertarians in this fight. the so called president cavalierly excusing illegal domestic spying, all in the name of national security.look for him to ignore term limits, abrogate freedom of the press, freedom of assembly etc let's just toss the entire constitution, it is interfering with the president's plenary powers, unlimited in wartime, and since the war on terror is open ended, read forever, there will never again be limits on presidential powers.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/20/2005 @ 12:56am
There aren't any libertarians here. Libertarians wouldn't be carrying water for the Republican Fourth Reich.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 6:39pm
here's a raspberry to those who pontificated about socialism's demise all over the world, are you listening Maasch and Freiheit, when in actuality left wing regimes have flourished in Latin america, see Bolivian elections.
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/20/2005 @ 7:02pm
WillC
re: sex...sure....Clinton was porking an intern, but Dubya is fucking all of us!
Posted by leftofcenter at 12/20/2005 @ 7:22pm
Johannes,
If you pop up again, you can meet us at the Newark airport tomorrow around 1:30-2:00. We'll have a sign that says "JOHANNESROLF" and we'll let you take us to the hotel.
Thanks so much for your advice! If we head to Joe's Pub, I'll take that sign just in case you stop in while we're there.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/20/2005 @ 10:15pm
FROMRED
Far from changing the subject....I'm merely trying to discover how YOU seem to define "self reliance", which seems to mean a LOT more (but excluding) being reliant upon one's self.
I'm also interested in how much support of the "regular kind" of self reliance, you'll find among the Left here on "The Nation"?
Posted by Mask at 12/20/2005 @ 10:30pm
here's a raspberry to those who pontificated about socialism's demise all over the world, are you listening Maasch and Freiheit, when in actuality left wing regimes have flourished in Latin america, see Bolivian elections.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/20/2005 @ 7:02pm
Here's the one that looks to be the most interesting, with possibly a tight runoff in January- first woman President, a single mother, and an avowed agnostic . . . in Catholic, male-oriented Chile.
If elected Bachelet, a separated mother of three who was tortured during Chile's 1973-1990 dictatorship, would extend the 15-year rule of a centre-left coalition that has cut poverty by half and overseen the country's transformation into the region's star economy.
Bachelet, a medical doctor and former defence minister, has pledged to overhaul Chile's private pension system and continue the liberal social programs and free-market economic policies of her mentor, popular President Ricardo Lagos.
Support for an agnostic, independent woman like Bachelet shows a dramatic shift in values in this traditionally conservative, Roman Catholic country of 16 million people where divorce was legalised only last year and where "machismo" or male chauvinism is strong.(edit)
If she wins, Bachelet will continue the moderate socialism of Lagos, as leftist momentum builds in Latin America. Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela all have leftist leaders, and Bolivia, Mexico and Peru could follow in coming elections.(edit)
Many voters said they supported Bachelet because of her opposition to the dictatorship when she was a medical student.
She and her mother were arrested in the mid 1970s and taken to a political prison run by Pinochet's secret police. They escaped the most severe tortures used at the time, but were beaten, blindfolded and starved before being set free. Both went into exile.(edit)
Pinochet, 90, did not vote because he is under house arrest on charges of human rights abuses during his rule. In elections six years ago he was being held in London on a Spanish arrest warrant, also on accusations of human rights abuses.
http://tinyurl.com/97htv
Red Dawn, indeed, MASK, LOVE LIBERTY, et. al. The main sin of the socialists is, of course, that they reduced poverty by half. No wonder the Busheviks hate them- to them, life isn't worth living if there isn't a poor, desperate, miserable lower class to despise.
Ready for orders to go down there and waste them all, CPT? You'll have to switch from the "spreading democracy" party line to the "spreading the New World Order, democracy or no democracy" party line. Shouldn't be a problem. After all, "the Constitution gives the President the authority to destroy anything he wants to and send America on a hellbound train if he chooses". Is that paraphrase relatively accurate?
And, my, my . . . how the worm has turned for a former maximum leader who mistook a monumental temptation for a defining moment.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 11:10pm
I'm also interested in how much support of the "regular kind" of self reliance, you'll find among the Left here on "The Nation"?
Posted by MASK 12/20/2005 @ 10:30pm
I refuse to rob someone else's natural resources by means of violence.
And, I help my neighbors.
I guess that makes my behavior consistent with Redbirds definition.
Posted by Will C. at 12/20/2005 @ 11:12pm
FROMRED
Far from changing the subject....I'm merely trying to discover how YOU seem to define "self reliance", which seems to mean a LOT more (but excluding) being reliant upon one's self.
I'm also interested in how much support of the "regular kind" of self reliance, you'll find among the Left here on "The Nation"?
Posted by MASK 12/20/2005 @ 10:30pm
Wha' wrong? You don't like the two definitions I already gave you but you're asking for more? No way. You gotta accept the first two before you get any more. That's called the FRB World Order. You're either with it or you're against it.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 11:17pm
The DOMINO THEORY must be taking on a frightening new dimension with the rightys here. They probably try to go to sleep counting sheep but it keeps turning into socialist Presidentes jumping the fence.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 11:30pm
it keeps turning into socialist Presidentes jumping the fence.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/20/2005 @ 11:30pm
Or indicted former lobbyists
Posted by Will C. at 12/20/2005 @ 11:34pm
it keeps turning into socialist Presidentes jumping the fence.
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/20/2005 @ 11:30pm
Or indicted former lobbyists
Posted by WILL C. 12/20/2005 @ 11:34pm
It's turning into a stampede. Oh well, I'm calling it a night. I'm going to count Republicans jumping in a lake.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/20/2005 @ 11:54pm
WILLC and FROMRED
Do you also believe in the definition of "self reliance" that means...an individual relies on themselves...and not society or the State?
Most people include THAT one as well. "Not robbing your neighbor" is GREAT...how about we include TAXING our neighbor?
Posted by Mask at 12/21/2005 @ 07:31am
TJ, very funny, how would I get to Newark, or to Joe's pub for that matter, I own no car, I spend all of my money on video equipment and computers, however were you go to the Cloisters with that sign, and let me know when, I might be able to foot it up there with little trouble. enjoy your visit
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2005 @ 09:11am
Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 07:31am
Foolish question. We all rely on each other. The employer relies on the customer to buy his wares and the employee to sell them. The customer relies on the employer to have wares to sell and employees to assist in the purchase. The employee relies on the customer to put money into the till and the employer to pay wages from that money.
The private sector relies on the government to provide a stable currency, enforceable trade laws, physical security and functional infrastructure.
The government relies on the private sector to drive the money stream, provide jobs and generate tax dollars.
We all interconnected. We all rely on each other. There is no escaping it.
Redbirds definition of self reliance fits quite well with this model.
Your definition is a fantasy. It exists only in your own mind.
Posted by Will C. at 12/21/2005 @ 10:06am
Thanks again, Will C. This mania, this obsession with taxes as some sort of terrible oppression! It makes no sense. At the end of the day, the so-called libertarian concept of liberty is only "I own, therefore I am". Therefore, it's perfectly acceptable for people to be debt slaves to credit card companies and mortgages and automotive loans. The debt service economy- which is where an unregulated capital always ends up- where it isn't actively practicing fascism- is the libertarian idea of economic growth, otherwise why would so many of them continue to buy into this government and its program?
Posted by Legba at 12/21/2005 @ 12:40pm
Do you also believe in the definition of "self reliance" that means...an individual relies on themselves...and not society or the State?
Most people include THAT one as well. "Not robbing your neighbor" is GREAT...how about we include TAXING our neighbor?
Posted by MASK 12/21/2005 @ 07:31am
That's your basic problem. You equate a Republican President engaged in a campaign of foreign rapine that is contrary to the interests of almost all Americans with social spending that benefits all Americans, including yourself. Your conceptions are, at bottom, irrational.
Do you want me to go boo, hoo, hoo over a tax system that leaves a poor slob that makes $30,650 a year with $26,432, barely enough to survive on, while someone making $336,550 is left with $237,907? And that's before the mortgage interest deduction for the house that the first guy can't even dream about owning and all the other deductions that an expensive CPA can cook up.
The people your heart bleeds for live like Pharaoh and they're running rampant like Pharaoh.
Posted by fromredbird at 12/21/2005 @ 2:10pm
birdy, the deduction is not just for the house but also for a second house.
the situation now is like the banqet of the rich man, groaning under the weight of every sort of foods, the rich man throws a crumb or two to the poor man, but before leaving, he sticks the check for this feast in the pocket of the poor man
Posted by johannesrolf at 12/21/2005 @ 7:11pm