Are small government conservatives concerned yet about the secret government snooping? They — and everyone else — should be.
The latest disclosure is that the Bush administration has secretly been tapping into a global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. The program is based on a broad new interpretation of Treasury Department powers, The Washington Post reported, and involves collecting information on international money transfers, including many made by U.S. citizens and residents.
The goal, which everyone can support, is to locate and track suspected terrorists. But the database’s wide net mostly catches the private transactions of Americans and others who have nothing to do with terrorism.
Many conservatives have shrugged off reports of government eavesdropping on international phone calls and snooping on e-mails, and of a massive government database of American’s phone records. And they likely will point to Friday’s indictment of seven terrorist wannabes in Miami as justification for the spying.
But they shouldn’t be so complacent about a loss of civil liberties. At the least, shouldn’t we demand that these programs have some congressional and judicial oversight, as Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, has argued? Or how about putting it this way: Would conservatives still not care if it were President Hillary Clinton who was collecting all this private data and doing all this spying?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
86 Comments
The Bush/Cheney administration has generally considered the constitution as a hindrance to their ability to operate as they please. The very document they swore to uphold, when taking their oath of office, now, according to reported comments by Bush: “Why do you keep throwing that constitution in my face, it’s just a G-D piece of paper. I’m the decider, and whatever I decide is what we’ll do.”
From start to finish, this should help you to understand how we arrived where we are now. Although some of the key essentials have been omitted, the basics of Cheney and Rumsfeld’s rise to power are covered. Notice there is no mention of the “Project for the New American Century” which is Cheney and Rumsfeld’s master plan, starting with Iraq.”Amid revelations about faulty prewar intelligence and a scandal surrounding the indictment of the vice president’s chief of staff and presidential adviser, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, FRONTLINE goes behind the headlines to investigate the internal war that was waged between the intelligence community and Richard Bruce Cheney, the most powerful vice president in the nation’s history.”http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America’s role in the world.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Congressional or judicial oversight is not possible with the current congress being as dysfunctional and derelict, not only with an adolescent attitude problem toward its sworn obligations, but with its near total disregard of law.
That would be the equivalent of putting the Rat in charge of the cheese.
I doubt that this congress would impeach Bush if he left the White House and joined the Taliban.
What you are suggesting is an America governed by the laws of its constitution. And the “Decider” has decided not to do that. And Congress is too busy counting their AIPAC bribe money.
Come November, we need to change all of that.
O. heck, just go here to find out the truth:http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-wh-nsawiretapping,0,1906650.flash
And more of our privacy goes down the drain, all in the name of “the War on Terra”. This administration continues to make a mockery of the Bill of Rights.
First it was our phone calls. Then,they decided they could knock down our doors and enter our homes unanounced. Now, it’s our bank records. What’s next? Considering the facination conservatives have with sex, will they put cameras in our bedrooms? Maybe a political commissar on each city block?
This administration is hell-bent to create a police state.
Welcome to Amerikka.
Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984.And typical for a Republican plot, it is much more disasterous, much more secretive, and has a much more self serving agenda.
BYW, J. M., I liked the editorial link!
Well said, XXX.The last line in Phillip’s remark say everything that is important. If this were President Hillary Clinton (or John Kerry or Al Gore), would they be so casual about the gestapo tactics of this administration?I read an opinion in Saturdays Topeka Capital Journal condemning the democrats for wanting to protect Americans right to privacy, saying this is a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. This is a crock. This administration knew in the summer of 2001,al-queda(sp) wanted to strike inside the US, yet they took no steps to thwart this attack.All they snooping on private citizen in the world does no good when you have an administration that has other motives, and sits on its hands when actually dealing with terrorists.Remember Osama bin forgotten? Who?http://www.cjonline.com/stories/062406/opi_letters.shtml “Dangerous Restraint”
(Cue swelling patriotic music and plant tongue firmly in cheek)
What is the matter with all of you? Why do you hate America? Just what is it you are doing or talking about that you are so afraid for the government to find out about? You are either with us or against us! You should feel proud that failing to find Osama bin Laden anywhere else, the current administration is leaving no stone unturned! Just how long has it been since you actually SAW your great aunt Louise? How do you KNOW she isn’t really a 6 foot 5 arab on a dialysis machine now? You may even be a terrorist yourself and not even know it!
I’m thankful that the government is doing all it can to find terrorists and enemies of America anywhere they can!
I’m going to change my mind about leaving Iraq immediately and offer a “timetable.”
Pull 1/2 the troops next Wednesday and the other 1/2 next Friday.
A Timetable it is, tough choice, but one must learn to be flexible.
You’re doing a heckuva job Brownleee.
Ah yes…
Here we have those great words used to make these programs look worse than they really are Phillip:
Your title:
“Government isn’t just listening to phone calls”
As if the NSA program was “listening” to phone calls.
“eavesdropping”…”snooping”…”massive government database”
Phillip,
I know at the meetup you claimed that you guys just try to post some stuff to get a conversation going, but seriously, it is so obvious the kind of spin you guys will put with it when you do.
JR
As soon as I get my ninja costume out of the washing-machine, I plan to mow-down the yard.
There are 10 black SUV’s with dark-tinted windows parked across the street. Is that a bad sign?
Yeah phillip, dont you know anything about context?
Arent you making a hasty generalization?
You are either with Herr Bush or you are against him. Why do you support the terrorists?
Why do you hate america?
Gee, who could have predicted the gist of THOSE comments.
And where are the other rightie tighties?
Heheh. It is all a matter of semantics. THAT is the real problem. If instead of this:
eavesdropping”…”snooping”…”massive government database”
You had said “it’s HARD WORK combing through all the potential terrorist calls you citizens make to your accountants. The IRS NEEDS to know what you all are talking about”.
“We dont snoop. We are being bewwy bewwy quiet. We are hunting wabbits here.” While Ossama runs free and afghanistan is handed over AGAIN to the taliban since bush moved all the little soldier pieces to iraq.
And that massive “government database” was acknowledged and embraced by sec. john snow. Why can he say that and phillip cant?
Besides, that “Massive Government Database” is for banking records. If you dont have any money, dont worry about it.
And besides, the RNC would REALLY like to know what checks you write to support political campaigns, since you might be shorting THEIR candidates.
Heheh. Sounds like the sopranos making sure you pay extortion. How else can they keep track of who you support politically? By asking to see your CHURCH’s records? I look for that next, since this is a religious jihad.
First the muslim records, then the jewish records, and then? How about progressive liberal churches? They have already infiltrated those damn pacifist quaker meetings? Why not the UU’s next?
If you dont go to terry and joe’s churches, you could be a terrorist supporter.
Why do you support terrorists by keeping your money in the bank? By making phone calls to your family inside the us? Why do you email your college roommate? Damn terrorist loves who do these things.
heheheheheh
KFG, You just gonna let the Amish off?
This isn’t a new story. I remember hearing a show in 2002 about setting up monitoring of international money transfers to figure out who was supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Great idea.
Invading email and phone call databases to find terrorists. Another great idea.
Using pretexting to get information about terrorists from private sources. Another great idea.
But here is another even greater idea: using data mining for secret-agenda purposes. Fer instance, finding out who in the CIA is leaking embarrasing information to journalists, so the leaks can be eliminated. Finding out about a political opponent who is frequently calling and emailing somebody of the opposite sex who is half his age, and he’s not married to, so he can be brought to “cooperate”. Finding out about some “conservative” who has campaigned and won office on “moral issues”, but has all these communications with gay people and groups. Finding out about private-equity firms like Blackstone that wire money overseas, and it looks like they’re investing in foreign corporations A, B, and C. Oh, Boeing is wiring $600 million to a Chinese aerospace company, but SEC filings don’t show this. “Aha, let’s put our money there.”
Absent political machinations, and profit-driven machinations, data-mining, conducted at taxpayers’ expense is fine. But this is naive. It doesn’t affect most Americans, right away. But ultimately it does. You pay for this data-interception and analysis, but you never get to see it. What you don’t know CAN HURT YOU.
Exactly, heartlander.
Humans being humans, it’s as sure as sunrise that this data mining will be abused, too (probably in just the ways you listed, plus more).
It happened in the previous administration, and why anybody would believe the Bush administration is any less human is beyond me.
———————————–
Dole raps White House over FBI files controversy
June 22, 1996Web posted at: 1:50 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) — GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole Saturday sharply criticized the Clinton administration’s handling of the FBI files controversy, saying “America deserves better.” (357K AIFF or WAV sound)
“We have learned that the privacy of literally hundreds of Americans was trampled on,” said Dole during the weekly Republican radio address. “The Clinton administration came in to office vowing to set a new ethical standard. Unfortunately, the standard they have set cannot be defended.” (238K AIFF or WAV sound)
Clinton has admitted that the White House requested background files on more than 400 former employees of the White House, many of them prominent Republicans. He has apologized and called the incident an innocent mistake.
http://www-cgi.cnn.com/US/9606/22/gop.radio/index.html
Okay, flike, that’s one. I’ll give you that. I won’t even offer excuses. But I will ask if this exonerates the current administration.
“Billy did it!” Georgie cried, when he was caught peeking in the neighbor’s window.
Dickie stomps his foot and sticks out his lower lip. “But, Ma, everybody else has done it!”
When Bush ran for president he asked us to judge him by the content of his character, not by whom he knew. He presented himself as a moral alternative to Washington politicians. He wouldn’t lie, he said. He stood for truth, religion and family values. When he persuaded the public to support the war in Iraq, he asked us to trust his moral clarity.
So how’s that working for the country?
heheh RD, I love your posts!!
It is working for this country about as well as shrub’s promise to be a “uniter not a divider” and his “compassionate conservative” programs. heheh.
I see the “white is black and up is down” meme was in play even back then. He has been one of the most divisive presnits in history, and the rovester continues to successfully use his “divide and conquer” techniques.
And dont even get me started on how compassionate his conservatism is. I guess the up is down meme came into play with his promises for “responsible budgets and government spending” and with his “big government is bad” sabre rattleing.
Looks like whatever he says, we should look for the opposite. It is their only consistant pattern.
Other than asking “why do you hate america” of course.
…and tanker todd follows along blindly.
RD, I think I wrote my post so poorly that you may have missed its meaning.
I was trying to provide some credible evidence that data mining by humans if susceptible to human fallibility, including using it for the clearly illegal reasons listed by heartlander.
Under President Clinton such an abuse *did* happen – it is a data point – but it was not in any way an attempt to say Bush is exonerated. Unless he’s got a tail that we don’t know about then no exoneration of his human condition exists (hmmmm, remember that lumpy thing beneath his jacket, on his shoulder, during the 2004 debates?).
My point is that President Bush, like President Clinton, is human and these data mining fishing expeditions *will be* abused. Sooner or later, but they will be abused.
“including using it for the clearly illegal reasons listed by heartlander.”
clearly illegal activities (not reasons).
“Or how about putting it this way: Would conservatives still not care if it were President Hillary Clinton who was collecting all this private data and doing all this spying?”
And STILL no republicans willing to answer phillip’s question?
heheh. where is ruby.sts.rightangle.gertie. et al?
KFG,
To answer that question I would have to presume that someone like Hilary could actually be President first.
I don’t accept that premise so I find the question pointless.
Ya know, I was gonna say, the next response would be “hillary will NEVER be president”.
Yeah nathan. That is what we used to say about nixon.
Cant wait. It may not be hillary, but there will be another preznit besides bush someday. Then release the hounds and see what whiners like nathan will cry about.
Maybe I can come over here and make Nathan mad.
Oh Naaaaaathan?
bush will NOT always be President. (Actually as he was not elected the first time a significant number of people will NEVER regard him as President. I sure don’t)
Someday you may have to live under an administration that wants to use these new executive powers to better understand just where those church dollars go!
Alot of us would like to know more about that!
JR,
You don’t make me mad, I pity someone of your small miserable cowardly stature.
It is always interesting to follow the posters on the left side of the screen. I see nathan chasing and trolling JR, following him all over the blog, and I see STS chasing me and following me all over the blog. Some days it is ruby who follows me, but just on the threads about governor leadership.
Heheh. They must really hate us JR if they have to stalk us and counter our posts. Let’s see where else we can take them.
hee hee hee
KFG,
If it makes you feel better thinking I care that much then go ahead. I wouldn’t want to deny you something which raises your self esteem above that of being a hateful old woman.
If you actually look at the thread you might notice I posted here to Phillip first and it was actually you who responded to me.
Nathan, real slow here. ACROSS THE BLOG. Check the timings of the posts. It is clear what you all are doing, and that you hate being busted for it.
Hateful old woman. I kinda like that. Maybe I will change my nic……
Damn lol
I can’t type fast enough!
Now on TWO threads I am a “miserable coward”! and kfg is a “mean old woman”
Yes nathan, I saw you using the “blame the media” meme and I did call you on it. If only the media would use different words, we would be winning and not losing.” heheh meme altert.
KFG, proudly busting right wing meme’s since 2006…. heheh.
See JR, that’s what I mean. They just look to the left to see where we are posting, and then troll us. Nothing too obvious here. Blatent memes, trolling the libs, personal attacks, etc.
Up is down and black is white on the personal attacks and redirecting the thread. Now why would nathan wannd redirect THIS thread?
heheh
Yeah kfg. Notice how he never answers a question?
Let us try again.
Nathan would you be in favor on new such executive powers to track the financial records of churches?
“To answer that question I would have to presume that someone like Hilary could actually be President first.”
Can’t think out of the box? Just follow along like a good little Na– oops, sorry. Soldier.
flike, thanks for the explanation. In the current world, defensive is sometimes the only posture. Very sad.
That is the end of my little experiment into nic switching.
Also sorta the feeling I get from being trolled all over the blog.
The accumulation of executive power is inherently a bad thing. No matter what party the president in power happens to belong to.
Great post, Phil. I just came across your blog and David and I will be checking in regularly from San Diego!
Just remember that the Clinton Administration was able to catch, try and convict terrorists (WTC 93), without warrantless eavesdropping, data mining etc.
I would have never imagined in the late 90s that we would be debating issues such as this so soon in the next decade. Oh how I wish for those good ol days again.
Gary
Excellent point, Gary. Note that Clinton didn’t even plunge us into 2 wars. How did we ever survive such incompetence, lol.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Bush administration devises new ways to strip away our rights. A little bit here, a little bit there. No big deal till some late night when the authorities kick down your door because you aer suspected of being at the same baseball game as a guy named Ahmed.
“My point is that President Bush, like President Clinton, is human and these data mining fishing expeditions *will be* abused. Sooner or later, but they will be abused.”
flike, will be?
To quote KFG, “hehehe.”
What would it take to for the conservatives to pull their heads out of their asses and see what is going on? What would it take to finally convince them that bush and company are traitors? My only answer is that somehow these mental midgets believe they will be included in the top circles of corruption. They believe they will be welcome with open arms as a reward for their blind faith in and allegiance to the administration of lies and world terror. I truely hope that sometime soon they wake up.
K, it’s not about the power, it’s about hate. Conservatives are people who hate. They hate foriegners, they hate anybody who’s not of their religion, they hate anybody who’s not the same color, they hate people who dissagree with their politics, and they don’t understand change, so they hate that, too. They feel threatened. For decades, they’ve had to bottle up that hate. Now, they can let it out.
I think the linked article states the case about all the governmental abuse of privacy in America:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0624-29.htm
Phillip: Are you asking question or trying to make a point? I suppose that you are implying that conservatives would be just as paranoid about privacy issues as liberals are now if a liberal was in charge government anti-terrorist efforts. If that’s what you think, you’d be wrong.
In all candor, I think that Republican politicians would probably find something to criticize if it involved the opposition. You know, what the Democrats do now, but hopefully not to the same ridiculous extent. But they are politicians and that’s what politicians do.
But if you ask rank and file conservatives, you would get a different answer. Because advocating for a strong national defense is a hallmark of conservatives. Conservatives, if they err, would err on the side of defending our country, even if it means supporting the actions of the loyal opposition.
You have to have an element of trust in your government in this day and age. Not that there should not be controls. I think that what Senator Brownback proposes is pretty common sense. I will let the experts make that call.
The world is changing. We cannot tie the hands of those whose job it is to protect us. But the New York Times and the Washington Post, with their disclosure to terrorists of our intelligence capabilites, are making it more difficult to defend our country.
AAAAAAFFLLLLLAAAAAAACKKK~~~~~~~
Hey Outie,
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security……..you know the rest.
Hey go ahead and accumulate power to the executive. Some day soon the executive will no longer be a neocon flack. We liberals have great plans for the powerful executive when it is OUR turn!I want deep knowledge into where churches are getting their money and how they spend it. Other liberals might like things like a national registry of firearms. Those nasty states enacting bothering theft of rights amendments and laws are also troublesome. A powerful progressive minded executive could address that too.
Republicans would be Torries, anything for God & King, and if they be the same, so much the better!
“The world is changing. We cannot tie the hands of those whose job it is to protect us. But the New York Times and the Washington Post, with their disclosure to terrorists of our intelligence capabilites, are making it more difficult to defend our country.”
Spoken like a true expatriate of the reality based community. You should get extra ditto head points for that drivel.
Nice attempt at liberal ’spinning’, Brown. Clinton new about Al-Qaeda while he was in office before 2001, and had he been servicing the country instead of interns, I would have no problem with him listening in on calls to known terrorist in our country. Loss of civil liberties? Give me a break!!! Can you smell Red Herring?
“had he been servicing the country instead of interns, I would have no problem with him listening in on calls to known terrorist in our country. Loss of civil liberties? Give me a break!!! Can you smell Red Herring?”
You mean the red herring wherein you imply that to qualify as supreme dictator of the U.S., the president only needs to not be screwing plump interns (or, not messing up their dresses, at least)? Interesting . . . a little on the delusional side, but interesting none-the-less.
But the New York Times and the Washington Post, with their disclosure to terrorists of our intelligence capabilites, are making it more difficult to defend our country.” – Outlander
Spoken like a true expatriate of the reality based community. You should get extra ditto head points for that drivel. -DD
Well DD, I would like to hear your defense of the New York Times action in informing terrorists of our secret intelligence programs. They have unilaterally decided that their agenda is more important than the nation’s security. I think it is totally arrogant and irresponsible of them.
outlander…….that pesky US Constitution just keeps getting in the way doesn’t it?
Amendment I – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did you catch the part about “abridging the freedom of speech”?
Apophis: I didn’t say it was illegal conduct. I said they were irresponsible and arrogant. Are you implying that press is always right no matter what they print?
I think that pesky first amendment gives them the right to print whatever.
Outlander, mimicking the Prez.
“WASHINGTON – President Bush said Monday it was “disgraceful” that the news media had disclosed a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects. The White House accused The New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets.”
So let’s take a step back into the past.
” -Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.”
Why aren’t the banks crying foul now?
Yeah, ID, you’re right. Clinton didn’t do a damned thing about Al Qaeda and terrorist. Poor us. *sigh*
And because I think I posted this before… One more time for those who missed it:
Clinton Admin’s Record on Terrorism
Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
Clinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-Clinton Administration sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
-Clinton Administration increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
-Clinton Administration tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism
-Clinton Administration detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-Clinton Administration created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-Of Clinton Administration’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”
-Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
-Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Clinton Administration left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”
Outlander, mimicking the Prez…
RD: Actually the president may have been following my lead since I first posted on the subject a day before he spoke!
Funny thing, on Hardball, tweety is saying that the terrorists found out about it before the press, and in fact, “sources” told the press they had stopped using electronic transfers shortly after 9/11.
Tweety and his guests are saying this cheney and bush whining about the press is, once again, you guessed it, all for the benefit of the base.
Catch it on the replay at six if you dont believe me.
And I see it is working on the “thirty percenters” like outie and id.
HOW (funny eh?) you too would be of the opinion of the delusional right if you only got your news from Fox and rush. They make the news very easy for the right wing to understand by telling them what to think.
Bush is crying about how in this time of perpetual war, newspapers shouldn’t be telling what dirty tricks the government is pulling. Soon they’ll propose a Govt. clearing house for all major publication articles concerning the govt. All in the name of ‘National Security’.
You can bet it won’t be long before Patsy Roberts joins in with the choir!
“Well DD, I would like to hear your defense of the New York Times action in informing terrorists of our secret intelligence programs.”
Would you mind going first and giving us your take on Congress’s oversight of our unitary executive?
Will elaborate more, but there is a thing known as freedom of the press. A second question, does the free press have any function in democracy that contains checks and balances? I know those quaint terms don’t apply to your president, right?
A third question, do you really believe that the Times story tipped off any terrorist to anything that they did not already know? The U.S. is looking at international banking records; Osama must have been shocked, shocked – I say, at that one!
DD: If you can’t defend their iresponsible conduct, just say so. Don’t try to cover it up by answering a question with a question(s).
From the article itself:
“While the banking program is a closely held secret, administration officials have held classified briefings for some members of Congress and the Sept. 11 commission, the officials said. More lawmakers were briefed in recent weeks, after the administration learned The Times was making inquiries for this article.”
What you call reprehensible conduct, I call the NY Times doing its job. As the above would suggest, The administration became intrested in advising members of the Congress on the program, when it learned of the Times story. An example of the press helping this administration cooperate and work with other branches of government. I laud the Times for their efforts.
If you can, convince any thinking person that the terrorists (you know those folks who throw away a satellite phone after using it once) did not have a clue their financial actions were being monitored.
The only reason the Bush administration is throwing a fit now is that the story made it difficult for them to operate with little oversight. I feel so sorry for them. But, sorrier for you, given your insistence upon defending their criminal actions. Very sad indeed.
While sad, I want you to keep encouraging these representatives of yours to keep doing what they are doing. There will come a time when they have to answer for what they have done and are doing. It will not be pretty.
I know that you don’t agree with any of the above. That is okay with me. Your disagreement helps me see that I am on the right track.
I’m worried about un-ringing the bells the Head Ding-A-Ling rang.
And Outie,Even though you don’t like questions – defending this administration I can understand that, for sure.
But, don’t you think it is interesting that for the Bush administartion some leaks are OK – like the leaked story about the planned withdrawal from Iraq, but other leaks – NSA wiretapping – this story are bad and are criminal? Interesting, Yes?
SD: I hate to have to start with “keeping secrets 101″, but it’s pretty basic that if you have a classified program the fewer people that know about it, the better chance it has to remain secret. You can’t tell everyone in the government. (HELLO.. MCFLY!)
And this isn’t the first instance of the Times compromising national security. Now the difference between a leak related to a secret program and opposed to one that is not is too obvious to even comment on.
JD (no courage, huh),
The state’s secret thing is what you’d better stick with. Fewer people knowing about it, right…
GW Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever. Unfortunately for you, posts on the internet will be studied by future generations. Your defending him will be studied by 8th graders in 20 years from now.
The essay question for that history class in 2026 will be:
Did JD/Outlander require a glass navel to see where he was going? Support your answers with citations of his posts? (Class, this is the easy question)…
You are too much my partisan hack “friend”. Keep posting, please, I won’t ever have to subscribe to cable, because I can read your nonsense for the Fox News spin. Appreciate you saving me money.
“I hate to have to start with “keeping secrets 101″, but it’s pretty basic that if you have a classified program the fewer people that know about it, the better chance it has to remain secret. You can’t tell everyone in the government.” outlander
Well perhaps the first people they cut out of the loop so they can keep their secrets should be the president and vice president.
Just how many freedoms are you prepared to lose Outlander you silly bastard to keep you safe from angry arabs 7000 miles away?
We have you on record now as in favor of forfeiting freedoms related to privacy, communication, reading and finances. Just how much are you conservatives prepared to sell out?
Tell ya what Outlander, change your nic to sellOut. or maybe scaredOut.
Or hey, keep allowing accumuation of executive power. Someday soon the Executive will be a secular progressive. Then folks like you will have a REAL need to be afraid!
“RD: Actually the president may have been following my lead since I first posted on the subject a day before he spoke!”
You know, outie, you’re probably right. I doubt GW has ever had an original thought.
k asked:”What would it take to for the conservatives to pull their heads out of their asses and see what is going on?”
1 of us answered that it’s about the hate, not the power.
I’ll go one step farther and say it will happen when it affects them, personally. Not Aunt Sue, not their mother-in-law, maybe not even their children (we’ve seen how they don’t really care if their kids and grandkids will be paying off the Bush Legend Debt), but when their door is busted down in the middle of the night because their name just happened to be the same as someone else’s who might be somewhat suspicious. Or they aren’t allowed to make a purchase because something might be suspect about their banking (of course it’s nothing, but…). Compassion for others is not something they understand. I’m beginning to think every one of them is of the ME generation. (Was that the 70’s? And who was president then? HMMMMM)
It will happen when they realize their freedoms and rights have been taken away. For instance, listen to the scream and cry about “liberals want to take our guns waaaaaaaaa.” But that’s personal to them.
As I said on another thread, it’s all about perspective. ;)
JR, DD: Can liberals discuss anything rationally? Probably not if experience is a guide. But folks, lets try to keep focused here.
The subject we have been posting about is the irresponsible actions of the New York Times in undermining national defense. Anything beyond that, you are just making up my positions because I haven’t commented.
DD, I still haven’t heard a cogent defense of the Times from you. It is moronic to think that you can have a completely transparent government when it comes to issues of national defense.
And since you brought it up, JR, you tell me what freedoms you have had taken away? No, I mean really taken away, not some bedwetting fear that you have. I have advocated for the oversight that Senator Brownback suggested. What is it that you would like to see?
And what is this “conservative hate” BS? The latest talking point? Jeesh.
No wonder this country is so divided.
Well outie it seems you would like the press to be denied the freedom to tell me what YOUR government is doing.
Well Outie I fish.
Now with no affiliation proven to any terrorist group,you would think I could fish the dam and outlet at Cheney lake as I used to before 911. Oh but I can’t. And no one else can. Also, as a boater, I wanted to check out the bottom of Cheney lake by consulting topograhical maps of the pre lake region. Now I CAN do that. But only if I sign my name to a list that makes me a target for investigation as a potential terrorist.
So Yeah Outie, I have lost some freedom while you sell yours and mine out becuase you are scared of angry arabs 7000 miles away that give you and yours excuse to take away freedoms and public access in the interest of fear mongering “securty”.
JR: When I fly, I have to submit to personal searches, take my computer out of it’s bag, take off my shoes etc.. But you can’t blame the government for security measures. Most folks just put up with it, knowing that it is unfortunately just something that must be done in this day and age.
I would say the same thing about your fishing inconvenience at Cheney, which happens to be a major source of drinking water for Wichita.
I know where you are coming from in regard to privacy issues. But I also get the impression that a lot of this hell raising I see on the left is just politics.
I don’t have any revenue for private transaction, so I must not be a terrorist!
Whew, that was a close one!I was worried about me for a minute, until I remembered I was broke.
“Can liberals discuss anything rationally?”Posted by: outlander | June 27, 2006 at 01:13 AM
I really don’t have time to discuss this right now, but I think this is a really great question.
I think I do see that most of the sillier things liberals say here usually have to do with foreign policy, traditionally a weakness if not a total freaking blind spot for the Democrats. For the GOP, developing and especially maintaining a position on foreign policy is a cornerstone.
I am not on the president’s side in probably 75+% of the time, but imho most liberals on this site act as if they’ve never actually had to debate conservatives honestly, straight up (without the name-calling and smearing).
It’s probably still a good rule of thumb to remember that, in any internet discussion, the writer that first calls the other silly names is the loser. (unless the contest is to see who’s more childish)
And I see that not one… NOT ONE of the conservatives here has answered the question rhonda asked in her post. How will you feel with Hillary (or Feingold, or Kerry, or Gore, or even… HOWARD DEAN) is president?
Saying it will never happen is not an answer. Never was an answer and never will be an answer. And the fact that they dont answer? Tells me the real answer. They’d be whining like little girls (sorry to little girls).
Oh, wait. They are already whining like little girls. And they havent even answered the question. Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
“…Or how about putting it this way: Would conservatives still not care if it were President Hillary Clinton who was collecting all this private data and doing all this spying?”–OP
“I suppose that you are implying that conservatives would be just as paranoid about privacy issues as liberals are now if a liberal was in charge government anti-terrorist efforts. If that’s what you think, you’d be wrong.
In all candor, I think that Republican politicians would probably find something to criticize if it involved the opposition. You know, what the Democrats do now, but hopefully not to the same ridiculous extent. But they are politicians and that’s what politicians do.
But if you ask rank and file conservatives, you would get a different answer. Because advocating for a strong national defense is a hallmark of conservatives. Conservatives, if they err, would err on the side of defending our country, even if it means supporting the actions of the loyal opposition…”Posted by: outlander | June 25, 2006 at 09:15 PM
“…NOT ONE of the conservatives here has answered the question rhonda asked in her post.”Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | June 27, 2006 at 09:07 AM
We know you can read, so it must be math that’s your weakness, kfg.
Flike says:”It’s probably still a good rule of thumb to remember that, in any internet discussion, the writer that first calls the other silly names is the loser. (unless the contest is to see who’s more childish”
and then he says:
“We know you can read, so it must be math that’s your weakness, kfg.”
Maybe you should follow your own advise dude. You have not been attacked by me unless you are posting under more than one name. Dont like what I say to someone else? Why not say that?
Does this mean you lose? heheheheh
Sorry I missed one two day old post. You sure are cranky today. Makes me wonder if it is really you posting or if someone hijacked your nic.
KFG,
I find it kind of useless to ask the cons the type of question you did. After all, we have past experience as an answer. They whined and cried and stomped their feet for 8 frigging years while Clinton was president.
Along with Ken Starr, they dug into anything and everything they possibly could about the man’s life.
And for a portion of that time, they had gained control of Congress.
So of course they would do the same. They already did, National Frigging Security included.
Ok, skewered by my own rule. I loose.
———————————–
Friend of mine who served as a gunnery officer aboard a US destroyer in Vietnam had the best story about the meaning of a misapplied “loose.”
Seems there was a poor guy deep in the bowels of the ship whose job meant he rarely even saw daylight. My friend said he had other issues as well, issues that would lead a normal person to conclude that this guy’d probably never really rise higher in the US Navy than bowell dweller.
My friend considered his tattoo the clincher, though. On his right bicep, “Born to Loose.”
Great story (when Tim tells it, anyway; not so Reader’s Digest-y).
———————————–
By the way, I voted “Get your ass back here, we want to hear what you have to say”.
OL,”DD, I still haven’t heard a cogent defense of the Times from you. It is moronic to think that you can have a completely transparent government when it comes to issues of national defense.”
Don’t believe I ever said anything about “completely transparent government”.
Disappointed by your straw-man attempts here.
Go see the updated threads (today’s) for my and others refutation of your points here. Not that you will be satisfied with them, which I would point out to you does not, in itself, make them invalid — even though you seem to want that to be the case. By this I mean that you can only dictate your own reality and no one else’s. Another thing I am grateful for today.