Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 But how do we know "terrorists" were involved? Do we take his word for it? Richard Nixon had an "enemies list" and had no moral restrictions in unleashing the FBI and IRS on his perceived "enemies". You mean the way clinton's old enemies seemed to alwasy get a visit from the taxman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 What is interesting is how not one person so far has actually analyzed George Will's POV in this thread. I for one always find Will's consistency of applying true conservative principles to be refreshing. The more time that passes, the more I like his viewpoints. Will neglects that conservative normaly are supportive of the presidents war powers. I agree that it is a shame that Bush has to exert his power,rather than following congress's lead in fighting this struggle. However Will's education in politics and philosophy hardly make his opinion on a constitutional powers question very relevant in this case. :2cents: He is very bright and a good writer,but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 AS to the "Why didn't he ask" question OK, it's Newsmax, but it can be backed up in other places. It was just the first Google hit http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/13/202146.shtml Congressional Intelligence Leaks Geoff Metcalf Monday, March 14, 2005 Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'Rourke The inability of certain Congress critters to keep their pie holes shut on security matters creates inevitable consequences. One obvious consequence of leaked secret stuff is that the constitutional responsibility of advice, consent and oversight is undermined big time. Hey, if senators can't be trusted to keep top-secret stuff SECRET, guess what ... there will be natural (and although inappropriate, understandable) reluctance for spooks to fully inform Congress. That's a bad thing. "Loose lips sink ships" was (and is) a military admonition of caution. A few years ago leaks of classified information prompted the president to limit top-secret briefings to just eight House and Senate leaders. Some may argue that's eight too many ... or 92 too few. There ARE consequences to what we do and don't do, and nowhere more so than in the arena of intelligence. If one offends the sensibilities of political correctness, the immediate draconian consequences are axiomatic: Crucify the ****! However, if ‘certain people' outrageously break the law, policy and procedures with intelligence matters, accountability drifts on the wind of partisan proclivities. In December 2004 intelligence types were allegedly seeking a criminal investigation into the outing of a top-secret spy-satellite program by some disagreeable Democrat senators. The Bush administration was major league torqued over leaks about a new covert generation of satellites. The premature, inappropriate congressional brain flatulence was articulated by Senators Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden. Although the petty partisan hacks didn't ID the satellite program or give details, a Washington Post follow-up identified the program for what it is. The details included in the Post make clear that people with intimate knowledge of the program leaked details. "At a minimum, what they did was irresponsible," said an official. It was way more. Once upon a time discussions were under way about whether to ask Senate Republicans to consider removing Rockefeller and Wyden from the committee. That was December. I haven't been able to find ‘Jack' since. Despite the vacuous incompetence of the Senate Ethics Committee (as worthless as mammary glands on a bull), in the interest of maintaining the fiction of credibility, the ‘form' of an investigation should have been imperative. Meanwhile, a criminal grand jury allegedly is still looking into whether former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger should be charged for removal of documents from the National Archives. This is (or should be) a big deal: Berger admitted that he removed as many as 50 top-secret documents from the archives, calling it an "honest mistake." Not even! He also acknowledged that he destroyed some documents, but claimed it was by accident. Accident, my Airborne fourth point of contact! The pilfered documents were classified "Code Word," the highest security classification, above Top Secret. Hellooo!?!?! Meanwhile, Sandy says he made "an honest mistake." BULLFEATHERS! It was neither "honest" NOR a "mistake." That he got caught ... THAT was the mistake. The unaccountability and lack of consequences for egregious (criminal?) ineptitude is, sadly, routine in the 87 square miles surrounded by reality. Senator Pat Leahy was annoyed with the Reagan administration's war on terrorism in the 1980s. At the time he was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Leaky Leahy," allegedly threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn't like. Leahy ‘inadvertently' disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. "The intercept … made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens. …" "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation." In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya's Moammar Gaddhafi. U.S. intelligence officials said Leahy, along with the Republican panel chairman, sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey. Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted. A year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, Leahy had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter. He should have been indicted, tried and sentenced. Leahy's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the Intelligence Committee's 10-year history. But that was before Senator Richard Shelby leaked that we were tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. Bin Laden immediately stopped using it, denying us the opportunity to find and kill the s.o.b. Cicero said: "A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within … for the traitor appears not a traitor. … He rots the soul of a nation … he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 You mean the way clinton's old enemies seemed to alwasy get a visit from the taxman? Always bringing up Clinton. Bush, the administration, the right and everyone else said that they would bring accountability, integrity and moral character to the White House and Congress. They said things would be different. Of course Clinton sent the tax man. It was wrong when he did it and its wrong now. No accountability then and no accountability now. Basically, to use Clinton again, Bush and his administration are no better than Clinton and his. So, to infer Sergeant, the current President is no better than someone getting a piece under the table while sitting in the most powerful office in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Always bringing up Clinton. Bush, the administration, the right and everyone else said that they would bring accountability, integrity and moral character to the White House and Congress. They said things would be different. Of course Clinton sent the tax man. It was wrong when he did it and its wrong now. No accountability then and no accountability now. Basically, to use Clinton again, Bush and his administration are no better than Clinton and his. So, to infer Sergeant, the current President is no better than someone getting a piece under the table while sitting in the most powerful office in the world. I just love moral equivication:rolleyes: When you bust bush for lying under oath, come see me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 The article brings up some interesting points and specifically points out what the Democratics have done. I am sure no Republican in Congress has ever leaked classified information. It is supposed to be about checks and balances. Congressmen should be held accountable for their actions. On a side note, Sandy should still be in jail for what he did. The administration and President, however, should be held accountable for what they do as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 I just love moral equivication:rolleyes:When you bust bush for lying under oath, come see me Please, the Republicans are too smart to get caught. They learned a valuable lession at the expense of Clinton. I never ever justified what Clinton did. I just find it funny that you put Bush and his boys on high moral gound. Looking back, it would have been easier to have impeached Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 The article brings up some interesting points and specifically points out what the Democratics have done. I am sure no Republican in Congress has ever leaked classified information.It is supposed to be about checks and balances. Congressmen should be held accountable for their actions. On a side note, Sandy should still be in jail for what he did. The administration and President, however, should be held accountable for what they do as well. By signing the authorization 30? times and briefing congressmen and women Bush seems to be trying to be accountable...Just not for what SOME accuse him of. Unlike some Dems that are having memory losses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Man oh man, I can't wait until 2008. Democrat or Republican, we have nowhere to go but up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I just love moral equivication:rolleyes:When you bust bush for lying under oath, come see me That's not the point and you know it, as evidenced by your intentional dodging of it. This isn't about Clinton. Just because Clinton did it doesn't make it right in the eyes of liberals. Saying that someone else did it (someone who you don't like, by the way) doesn't justify it. It just makes for a childish non-argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 That's not the point and you know it, as evidenced by your intentional dodging of it. This isn't about Clinton. Just because Clinton did it doesn't make it right in the eyes of liberals. Saying that someone else did it (someone who you don't like, by the way) doesn't justify it. It just makes for a childish non-argument. It's exactly the point. Clinton had a cakewalk 8 years as far as national security goes and decided to break the law by lying about a blowjob to a grand jury. Bush has ******* terrorists living right here in America that he's trying to defeat on your behalf and mine, and he's got people that want to worry about the "rights" of these ****ers being violated. How pathetic can one side in an arguement get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 It's exactly the point. Clinton had a cakewalk 8 years as far as national security goes and decided to break the law by lying about a blowjob to a grand jury. Bush has ******* terrorists living right here in America that he's trying to defeat on your behalf and mine, and he's got people that want to worry about the "rights" of these ****ers being violated. How pathetic can one side in an arguement get? The laws broken are totally different. One involves a guy getting a hummer. The other sets a precedent that could pretty much abolish civil liberties. I could care less about the rights of terrorists, but if you have to set a precedent like that to infiltrate them, then you can't do it. America is first and foremost based on freedom, and if it takes not taking these measures to prevent it, then so be it. Besides, we've yet to see if these drastic measures are working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 You mean the Bush lawyers, like "Torture is a-okay" Gonzales...The one with his training in real estate law... Here's a FAQ on FISA... http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thing is "illegal" to disclose. This wasn't secret, anyway! Who DIDN'T know that the government could spy on a person, with good cause? The program's existence is highly classified. If you willingly disclose classified information which is unauthorized for disclosure other than to those which possess a valid clearance and "need to know", then you are in breach of several laws and confidentiality agreements you are required to sign when granted a clearance and briefed into a program or agency. Unauthorized disclosure of national security information is very serious, and anyone found guilty should be punished to the maximum extent allowed by law. Even a half-wit can figure out why, in this case, such a disclosure severly impacts national security. If the terrorists in question knew that their communications were monitored, or there was a high probabilty that they would be, then why would they continue to communicate in such a manner? Now they can adapt and change their modus operandi. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bush apologists of course automatically assume he was actually wire-tapping "suspected terrorists" and not other people that he might not exactly want to have to fess up to in court, because we ALL KNOW that up until a few days ago Al Qaeda was probably using their phones care-free without a worry in the world....!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bush apologists of course automatically assume he was actually wire-tapping "suspected terrorists" and not other people that he might not exactly want to have to fess up to in court, because we ALL KNOW that up until a few days ago Al Qaeda was probably using their phones care-free without a worry in the world....!?! No, terrorists used their phones freely becasue the knew if they got busted saying something about terrorism on the phone that the ACLU would come to their aid, and that if the info was obtained without a court ordered wire tap that info would get thrown out in court by their ACLU appointed lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No, terrorists used their phones freely becasue the knew if they got busted saying something about terrorism on the phone that the ACLU would come to their aid, and that if the info was obtained without a court ordered wire tap that info would get thrown out in court by their ACLU appointed lawyer. Actually from what I've read about Fisa and the wiretaps: Any unwarranted taps could not be used in the FISA courts or the regular courts as evidence... Though i doubt we were looking for evidence.... it was more of a prevention.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Bush apologists of course automatically assume he was actually wire-tapping "suspected terrorists" and not other people that he might not exactly want to have to fess up to in court, because we ALL KNOW that up until a few days ago Al Qaeda was probably using their phones care-free without a worry in the world....!?! My God, you are out of your mind. Crazy. You must get a ton of junk mail from the ACLU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No, terrorists used their phones freely becasue the knew if they got busted saying something about terrorism on the phone that the ACLU would come to their aid, and that if the info was obtained without a court ordered wire tap that info would get thrown out in court by their ACLU appointed lawyer. Wow, Sarge cheapshots an organization protecting our civil liberties given to us via the bill of rights.......that's odd and so unlike him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Actually from what I've read about Fisa and the wiretaps:Any unwarranted taps could not be used in the FISA courts or the regular courts as evidence... Though i doubt we were looking for evidence.... it was more of a prevention.... Or could have gained info that led to regular court approved tap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 My God, you are out of your mind. Crazy. You must get a ton of junk mail from the ACLU. No it is just that I happened to listen to Bush's speech, and how he used "speed" as the main reason he wasn't going before courts, and that right there is obviously an outright lie as wiretaps can be done beforehand and then you go to the court to get permission. It sounds strangely familiar to the lies Nixon was using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Wow, Sarge cheapshots an organization protecting our civil liberties given to us via the bill of rights.......that's odd and so unlike him.... You know as well as I do that the ACLU would be the first on the scene if one of these terrorists were brought to trial for discussing terroristic activities. Can't violate the rights of terrorist you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 You know as well as I do that the ACLU would be the first on the scene if one of these terrorists were brought to trial for discussing terroristic activities. Can't violate the rights of terrorist you know Well under our administration the word terrorist is thrown around so loosely and conveniently, I wouldn't be suprised if the ACLU did show up. Everything is in the name of terrorism these days. Tommy Chong - We did it for terrorism Quakers protesting the war - Al Qaeda Apologists Medical Marijuana - the drug of choice for the rejectionists Don't want to reform Social Security - Saddamist Not for redefining the tax code - Stop spitting on our Troops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Well under our administration the word terrorist is thrown around so loosely and conveniently, I wouldn't be suprised if the ACLU did show up.Everything is in the name of terrorism these days. Tommy Chong - We did it for terrorism Quakers protesting the war - Al Qaeda Apologists Medical Marijuana - the drug of choice for the rejectionists Don't want to reform Social Security - Saddamist Not for redefining the tax code - Stop spitting on our Troops Good deflection, but you know what I said above is true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 No it is just that I happened to listen to Bush's speech, and how he used "speed" as the main reason he wasn't going before courts, and that right there is obviously an outright lie as wiretaps can be done beforehand and then you go to the court to get permission. It sounds strangely familiar to the lies Nixon was using. You know not what you speak of. While you're at it, why don't you criticize your boy Clinton for doing EXACTLY the same? http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 You know not what you speak of. While you're at it, why don't you criticize your boy Clinton for doing EXACTLY the same? http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm maybe because it's 2005 and Clinton isn't the President? Also, if you have been paying attention the past four or five years, Clinton is not "my boy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.