Risen: “This Was The Most Classic Whistleblower Case I’ve Ever Seen”
Risen: “This Was The Most Classic Whistleblower Case I’ve Ever Seen”
James Risen, the co-author of the New York Times story that broke Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program was interviewed on the Today Show this morning. Watch it:
Transcript:
COURIC: I know that you broke the story, as we mentioned, for the New York Times. Why do you think that people who talked about this secret program came forward and told you about it?
RISEN: Well you know I think this was the most classic whistleblower case I’ve ever seen. Where people – You know, in a lot of stories people have mixed motives for why they talk to reporters, some people in some stories there’s a turf battle and they’re losing out on a turf battle, or whatever. In this case – I’ve been a reporter for about 25 years – this was the purest case of whistleblowers coming forward, people who truly believed there was something wrong going on in the government and they were motivated, I believe, by the purest reasons.
COURIC: But many critics have already alleged that they believe your sources had serious axes to grind. Why are you so convinced otherwise?
RISEN: Because I’ve talked to these people. And many of them were tormented by their knowledge of this. They truly believed that – They were troubled by the fact that they knew that they thought something was wrong … [inaudible] the government and they came forward, I believe, simply to make the public aware of this.
COURIC: What specifically was upsetting to them about this whole policy?
RISEN: Well many of these people had grown up in the environment of knowing that in order to get – to listen in on Americans, you had to get a court order. And they saw that something was happening in which that was not being done. That the courts were being skirted, that Congress – that the laws had not been changed. And they believed that for whatever reason, the Bush administration was skirting the law. Now that’ll be something that we can all debate about whether or not they did skirt the law, but that was the reason that people came forward. They believed something was going wrong.
COURIC: But did they – did they have any sympathy or understanding about this new climate that this country finds itself in and the criticism the Bush administration took prior to 9/11 for not putting the pieces together and figuring out that a terrorist attack was imminent? In other words, did they acknowledge that tough times may call for tough measures?
RISEN: Oh, absolutely. These are people who are involved in that day to day, who have been involved in counterterrorism and who know this kind of issue intimately. But they believe — many of these people at least – they told me they came to us because they thought you have to follow the rules and you have to follow the law.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Bush response: “We need to prosecute those whistleblowers!”
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:33 amI wish TP would start a campaign to document positions by members of congress over being bypassed by the WH. A simple database, for example. TP did it with the Katrina timeline, for example. I think this is as, if not more, important.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:38 amIt’s the “whistleblowers” who give me hope that America can correct it’s current political course.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 am“RISEN: Oh, absolutely. These are people who are involved in that day to day, who have been involved in counterterrorism and who know this kind of issue intimately.”
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:42 am***** These are the same kind of people who waddle through the bureaucracy and designate four year olds and grandmothers for added airline inspection - political correctness gone wild. These are the same people who were handcuffed by the (Frank) Church Commission. The result of that over arching statute was the inability to utilize rotten people to spy on - who knew? - rotten people. I think the left would like to see our entire system ablaze so they might pick up the remnants and build their “utopia”.
Domestic Spying Debate: Did Bush Break the Law?
This is just the kind of crap that keeps me from listening to television news for even a minute. Immediately, it’s framed as a ‘debate’. Like, did chimpy do something illegal?… Tune in at 8 and we’ll have our panel of experts discuss it, and then of course, give you OUR unbiased opinions on the subject.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 amI believe you are right, Jesus.
Great idea, Gus. Doable, Judd?
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:45 amFinally, someone stepping up to pat the whistleblower on the back. The Bush Administration had tried very hard to make whistleblowers out to be the bad guys in recent history. However, it is the whistleblowers who are the real heros of democracy, as they are the ones who step up and say do something when they see a grave injustice being commited with OUR government. Bush is not “King Bush” he is President Bush and his power was given to him by the people and can be taken away by those very same people.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 amMA - why don’t you goose step over to redstate. They are even against warrentless searches over there (many of them at least, more than I had imagined would be).
There you can make a difference by showing your totalitarian loving bent.
Putz.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 amMr. Risen ought to prepare himself to be “Swift Boated.” He looks like he can handle all comers.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 ammighty,
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:54 amI see your point. I also used to think only “Arab-looking” people should be checked at airports. Sometimes I still think this way. But I heard an interesting call in today from a white college student studying the Arabic language who was really worried she might be caught up in being watched.
Then there’s me. I hate Islam. I hate terrorists. I don’t think we should have ANY soldier on ANY Arab soil. I’m talking REAL “with us or against us” attitude. And I’m anti war and I write my congress and senate and I tell them. And if I’m being watched, so are my Republican friends. And they’re catching on that this is BULLSH*T spying. Hands down.
The truth has Risen!
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 amLet me see if I get this. The NYTimes knew about this over a year ago. Bush and company called the editors on the carpet to ask that the story not be made public. If finding the “leakers” was of such importance, why didn’t Bushiva impanel a special prosecutor or investigatory body to find the “leakers” then?
Probably because Bush is eavesdropping in on the communications of the one special prosecutor (Fitzgerald)who’s been trying to indict “Bush’s brain” (Rove). How else does one explain Rove’s turnaround on a dime, (if the timetable with that reporter who talked to Lutz was found to be off by months), and his sudden “finding of the e-mail” to avoid perjuring himself?
Also, why didn’t the NYTimes come forward with crucial info that would definitely have changed the outcome of the ‘04 elections?
hmmmm….
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 amCIA Ignored Info Iraq Had No WMD — This makes your country mass murderer you all have blood on your hands think about it ??
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am#5 Agree there… there’s not a serious legal scholar in the land who questions whether Chimp broke the law… the only question is what to do now.
And there’s real bipartisan momentum behind putting an end to this fascism… except for the hopeless Bushbots who somehow can’t bring themselves to understand that it is the warrantless dimension to these searches which is what has caused all the anger… my hunch is when Congress starts digging, John Bolton gets it. So very likely to be implicated, and such an easy fall-guy.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 pmJesus, please disable the tinfoil eunuchs from the right.
So let us get this straight MA, since your party controls every branch of government these “rotten people” leakers are liberal moles implanted deep within the gov’ment to set “our entire system ablaze” because of “political correctness” and a deep seated obsession to “build their “utopia—? Sound correct?
Look MA, you need the 30% aluminum tinfoil to make the “protection device” 100% effective. And for God’s sake do not forget to seal the windows and doors with duck tape to keep out the “liberal vapors”!
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:08 pm#13 No it was not the CIA. The CIA told Bush and criminals that there was very little to no evidence to support WMD. Bush and criminals said that there were, not the inteligence department.
I have been telling people for years now that 9/11 was a planned and very well executed operation by the government. However, when I tell someone this rather than listen to the evidence I get “I can’t believe that!” This is exactly why Bush has been able to get this far. Even people who hate Bush are saying this, so if even these people are saying this how can someone get the truth out?
It’s like JFK. Yes there was more than ONE shooter. Just look at the bulistics. It has been proven over and over again that the bullet will enter the body with a small hole and leave the body in a big hole. So, JFK had a little hole in his forehead and a BIG hole in the back of his head. I would say that bulistics (Science) is without a doubt sound here that there was a 2nd shooter, and this shooter was in the front area of JFK.
Now look at the WTC. No evidence left, and ALL of the eye witnesses have been gagged. The NTSB was not allowed to do it’s job and either was the local ME, who all have priority over the FBI. Yet in both cases the government took over the cases. WHY? Because they did not want evidence to be discovered.
I could go on, but before you present a statement that is not factual, perhaps you should do a little research first. The CIA did not ignore it, Bush and criminals did.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 pmRisen should ask his sources if any of the “Americans” listened in on were democrats or other political opposition members?
That would be an interesting conversation as I will be that is the real reason the whistle blowers came forward. Lets face it if only legitimate suspects were monitored do you think these whistle blowers would have any real objections, and if only legitimate suspects were monitored why not just follow the law? The hassle factor and risk of the monitoring would have nil doing so.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pmIf the moron in chief could not read a briefing paper that said “bin Laden determined to attack . . . ” and act on it, he wouldn’t be smart enough to act on any illegally intercepted conversations between terrorists. He would have us believe that the eavesdropping is necessary so that he can “hunt down the terrorists”. Why, so he can allow them to escape like bin Laden and then go off on another unrelated crusade in Iran, Syria, or who knows where?
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pmEveryone who is willing to face the truth knows why he circumvented FISA - because he didn’t want anyone to know who he was really eavesdropping on. Obviously, he is not smart enough to come up with these ideas himself - Cheney and Rove are pulling the strings, but it is still Bush’s authorization. If the American people cannot detect a serious pattern of corruption, lying, manipulation, secrecy and total disregard for the democratic process and the Constitution since 2000 by this administration, then the US is surely doomed. Remove this corrupt gang of criminals NOW! We should be demanding investigation and impeachment!
The Shrub administration is run by the same identical crooks and liars that ran the Nixon administration - Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name the more obvious 2. There needs to be more media and press outcry about this power play by the Bushiveks, to create more and louder public outcry. It doesn’t seem to be happening though. It’s nice this guy is giving the Whistleblowers credit, and maybe this will get people to wake up, but I have my doubts.
It’s natural to ask, how did we allow the media and press to become such a bunch of stooges to these dirt clods? Jim Hightower answered/said it best in a column he wrote a couple weeks ago; “As I wrote when Bush first began to run for president in 1999, “George W is an absolute corporate wet dream” and an ardent “practitioner of crony capitalism.” Throughout their careers, BushCheney&Company have always been loyal corporate servants and always will be. That’s why they were put there.†The corporations that own and operate the media, are no exception to that statement.
Until this idiot of a president is caught in bed with one of his daughters, or maybe boning Paris Hilton, you know, news that would REALLY be worth reporting, we’re going to be the ones continually getting screwed.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pmThere are still plenty of good, honest, true american patriots in public service. The government has a job to do. The NSA and CIA have jobs to do. They are still governed by laws and they have to do their jobs within the constraints of the law. If the law needs changing then that is what Congress is for.
Interesting how he talks in plural and in a way that makes it sound (to me at least) like a fairly large plural.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm“Citizen” - Save a tinfoil and re-cycle!! Do a little homework and you’ll see when the Church Commission tried to undo the intelligence community. Does the name - Jimmy “Peanut” Carter mean anything to you?? That man couldn’t govern an outhouse effectively, let alone a country attacked by barbarians. Your moronic pecking is evidence of ignoring the facts or consequences.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmWith FISA in place since Jimmy Carter, there was no legitimate governmental reason for Bush the Stupid to bypass law. Afterall, if who he was after were really potential criminals, he and his henchmen had up to 72 hours after the fact to secure a special warrant.
What this leaves us is this simple fact: Bush didn’t want anyone to know who he was monitoring.
Does this sound like a free country? Does this sound like a well functioning democracy? Or does this sound more like East Germany 1953? Or perhaps Russian, 1964? Or worse yet, Germany 1939???
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pmThe president is not the supreme ruler of the US. There are 3 separate branches of government so that ONE branch does not usurp too much power. Until the Constitution is ripped up and thrown out our government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Bush needs to be reminded of that. Even those who voted for this imbecile out of fear are waking up to the fact that they have just as much to fear from the Bush administration.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:42 pmHey Mighty,
Are you arguing for feudalism, or just anarchy?
Laws are sooo restrictive on the good guys. Thank God Republicans have finally come out against them. Way to defend the Constitution.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 pmmighty,
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pmWe spy on ourselves because the Arabs have something we want. I say screw that. Leave innocent Americans alone and obliterate the Arabs. It is the lesser of the 2 crimes.
So, Mighty Aphrodite,
You think that people who blow the whistle on corruption and
sinister dealings in institutions of corporate or political significance deserve to be outed and prosecuted? I guess that means the people who blew the whistle on Enron should be placed in jail.
Excuse me, but isn’t it the right of someone who finds out what’s unethical to mention this problem in public? If the place you work at had a boss who lied about the company losing money and yet take money out of it to spend it on
yachts, two homes and a party that had a budget of a million dollars.
Wouldn’t you want to take this issue to public?
Think about it.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pmIf I could pick this old lock on my rusty chastity belt, I would give gladly give “firsts” to my lord and master George up at the castle, then let my troll husband under the bridge deal with sloppy seconds.
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 pmThe Shrub administration is run by the same identical crooks and liars that ran the Nixon administration - Cheney and Rumsfeld, to name the more obvious 2. There needs to be more media and press outcry about this power play by the Bushiveks, to create more and louder public outcry. It doesn’t seem to be happening though.
Comment by buzzbike
buzzbike #19
Who owns the media?
We the people have been “behind” at every twist and turn of zionist, right wing, neocon consolidation of power- that includes the media. When Ted Turner was ousted by Time Warner Inc., and Clear Channel became a major monolith of the airwaves, consolidation of the media became complete.
The airwaves belong to the people yet are controlled by the elite, and the most efficacious way to take back the government is through those airwaves, (remember what they did to Howard Dean?). Why else do you think the Bushites have seized control of the board room at PBS?
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pmI think that MA has absoultely no problem with unfettered presidential power. Let’s see if that attitude stays the same if a Dem takes the White House. SHe apparently has no problem with Spying on politcal enemies either, afterall isn’t that one of the uglier sides of Watergate out of which grew the “church commission” People like her for some reason absolutely hate America, American Values, our constitution, and all the people who have served to protect those and have died protecting them. Defiantely the Bush cult of personality’s way of acting these days.
Prediction: Bush is such a stickler for loyalty that it is his main reason for hiring and firing. I say that if Push comes to shove and Bush is going to be criminally tried, he will either a) roll over and sing or b) seize power for life based on his being a “war president (insert smirk).
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pmLeave innocent Americans alone and obliterate the Arabs. It is the lesser of the 2 crimes.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
“No guts” #25,
Spoken like a truly maniacal, mass murdering, psychopathic, viral, staphylococchal, yeast infection.
You are the enemy!
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:03 pmAccording to the latest UNICEF report (2005), in 2004 the under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 in Occupied Iraq, 359,000 in Occupied Afghanistan and 1,000 in the occupying country Australia (noting that in 2004 the populations of these countries were 28.1 million, 28.6 million and 19.9 million, respectively)(http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html).’ target=’_blank’>http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html).
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 pmMA/I-R-I/NED as usual, tries the “but a Democrat did this and that!” argument - I’m not buying it.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:08 pmI still don’t understand how Keller and Sultz. Jr. can show up at the White House, blatantly obtaining classified material and no one was read their rights, hello you are under arrest. So for a whole year Echelon, is it, was known by Mr. Risen and who else?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 pmDoes the NY Times and everyone involved have security clearances? In whos’ best interest is it for The NY Times to know and RETAIN this information? So basically if you reveal national secrets that were given to you there is no law broken?
I notice Couric sounds like she is already making appologies for the Bush folks. So much for liberal media bias.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pmJimBob - To compare whistleblowers on Enron and the whistle blowers of the NSA leak in the same sentence is intellectually dishonest - no surprise you would employ such an ignorant “debate” tactic. (FYI: There is no comparison….shhhhh…)
And for all of you TERRORIST APOLOGISTS: when barbarians and their allies were discovered in upstate New York, Portland, OR, Lodi, CA, Seattle, San Diego, Chicago, El Paso, Miami, etc. I’m sure you were terribly upset that they had been found out.
Dear JC of War, you remark about Germany in 1939 - but you forgot to mention the civil laws discriminating against Jews were enacted much earlier. The US on the other hand, has worked very hard to concentrate their efforts on radical Islamists - much to the dismay of the Anti-America Civil Liberties Union. I only wish more mainstream Muslim Americans were more vociferous in their condemnation of those who betray their name and culture.
Until later….
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:13 pmThe real story is here…
http://news.yahoo.com/ s/ ap/ 20060103/ ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ cia_iraq;_ylt=Ape23Wue_ukIxVRRC.onIsGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA–
The CIA sent an Iraqi American anestheolisist to Iraq to speak with her brother who was an associate of Saddam Husseins about Iraq’s nuclear program.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 pmOf course there wasn’t one and when this was reported to Bubble boy, he didn’t want to hear it. He chose to instead lie to the American People.
Bushes excuse for this Sh_t hes done in this world will be “I was doing the best for my country” and most of you all feel sorry for him and selfishly agree ”
Nows lets say i go out and sell drugs to support my family as an excuse it wont stand.
So why should Bush be let of for mass murder, torture, chemimal weapons use against civillians, letting 911 happen,destroying the atmoshere by Not helping Kyoto aggreement, the list goes on and on and on
The world is boycotting your goods right now your budget deficit is going up and up ….as you spend American money on war , Russia has overtaken you in the arms race …
I really feel sorry for the poor in America and the middle class ….BUSH has destroyed America and you all know it …
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 pmWhy isn’t this “debate” being framed properly? If he is indeed listening in on “terrorists”, why can’t he get a warrant? And more importantly, none of these warrantless conversations can be used in a court of law, so Bush is effectively LETTING THE TERRORISTS GO FREE. And what is the “threat” to national security? Do the terrorists not know that we’re listening in on them? Do they care whether there is a warrant or not? Enough of this “liberal media” bs.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 pm#29 - Mark - In the last 15 years, the majority of Dems couldn’t AND wouldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag so please stop wrapping yourself up in the brave patriotism so many of you belittle. My support for Clinton in Bosnia did not waver - unlike Harry Reid, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, etc. ad nauseum.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:18 pmLater….
Get over yourself, “big papa”. I talk to mighty in absolutes.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm#28 The main reason that these criminals have seized control is because the people let them. After Nixon was forced to resign and the Vietnam war ended, people became complacent. Almost everyone was so enamored with the ‘actor president’ in the 80’s that no one wanted to speak evil of such a nice guy. He got away with his part in Iran-Contra and the people kept silent. He was able to get away with having his nutcase wife make his decisions using astrology and still there was no outcry from the people. And now we have the current mess: 2 stolen elections, a war based on lies, paid propaganda at every turn and spying on private citizens in direct violations of the Constitution and STILL there is not much of an outcry. The war was not being vigorously questioned until Cindy Sheehan went to Crawford last summer. (And for the most part there is still no major antiwar movement.) The problem is the people who say “it can’t happen here” and flinch and whine when you mention the example of Nazi Germany. The problem is the people who stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes and say remain willfully ignorant of what is going on! Wake Up America, it can happen here and it alread is happening here!
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pmIf a federal employee truly wants to be a “whistleblower”, they have an official course of action through the US Office of the Inspector General. Once recognized as a whistleblower OIG protects the employee from retaliatory employment actions, and begins an investigation of the charges made by the whistleblower.
It’s not enough to simply declare oneself a whistleblower … it’s not enough to “have the nations best interest” in mind … what’s more, whistleblower disclosures are NEVER allowed to be leaked to outside agents, including (especially) the Press.
Everyone (here) is jumping up and down about Bush’s failure to follow FISA procedure with the wiretaps … given that, will those same individuals continue their chorus and decry the leak? I bet not. If you thought Valerie Plame was a leak (even though the special investigator has yet to say as much) you certainly should feel the same about this (another “leak”, done outside of the aforementioned procedural rules)
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmIf he is indeed listening in on “terroristsâ€, why can’t he get a warrant? And more importantly, none of these warrantless conversations can be used in a court of law, so Bush is effectively LETTING THE TERRORISTS GO FREE.
My take on your comment is this … suppose they were engaging in listening prior to 9/11 … suppose they, instead, were obtaining warrants … take one 9/11 terrorist for example … is there enough probable cause on Mahammed Atta (or whatever his name was) to obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on him? I’m thinking no … was he dangerous … seems to have been.
The only thing Atta had done prior to 9/11 was over stay his visa … hardly the thing warrants are born from (which is why the trail didn’t lead our intelligence agencies to the larger conclusion pre-9/11).
Terrorists aren’t terrorists until the actually do something “terroristic” … trying to apply the rules of law enforcement to these cases may miss the mark …
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:37 pmGiacomo, remember when Archie Bunker used to pretend to tie the rope around his neck and hang himself while “Dingbat” was spouting nonsense?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 pmGiacomo,
Or how about this. Instead of seeing dollar signs why don’t Airliner Simulator owners question why ANYONE would want to learn how to fly and not land an F*CKING Jumbo Jet?!
Americans were grape-eating prissy pots who thought they were untouchable. They know better now. And they ARE NOT FOOLS. The spying will end. The criminals will pay.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:45 pmWire tapping has not caught the so called mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Proof that Bubble boy is a failure even when he breaks the law to get things done.
Where’s Osama Bin Laden?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:47 pm17- That is the money question: who was being monitored?
29- Notice how the term “imperial presidency” only gets rolled out when a Republican holds the office? Let’s see, I think this may be the word I’m looking for:
hy·poc·ri·sy [ hi pókrəssee ] (plural hy·poc·ri·sies)
noun
Definitions:
1. feigned high principles: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
It would be sheer hypocrisy for them to turn around and do what they criticize in others.
2. hypocritical act: an act or instance of hypocrisy
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:48 pmAfter his hypocrisies became widely known, he decided not to run for re-election.
And what a Mighty lame troll she is.
Blah Blah Blah…whistleblowers are bad to grandmas.Whaaaa.
Blah Blah Blah…obeying federal law is being “politically correct”.
Blah Blah Blah…If we can’t spy illegally our entire system will be set ablaze!!
Blah Blah Blah…Dems bad. Ooooooohhhhhhhh
Poor little goddess, fighting hard for the lies but still lost and all alone in the land of truth.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:50 pmSo basically if you reveal national secrets that were given to you there is no law broken?
Interesting dilemna there: if the “national secret” is evidence of breaking the law, is it breaking the law to reveal it?
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:51 pmGot news for ya, Giacomo:
Even my Republican Friends are looking at eachother wondering what the hell is going on.
Yes, I have Republican friends. We debate this stuff CONSTANTLY on the internet. And since I qualify as someone who “aids the enemy” because I am anti-war, they wonder if they are being listened to because the assume I’m being listened to! It’s so over for you guys.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:51 pmWhy don’t Airliner Simulator owners question why ANYONE would want to learn how to fly and not land an F*CKING Jumbo Jet
It’s my understanding that they weren’t quite this obvious with their training, but I get your point. They were all private pilots (some instrument rated) … if you know about planes (I happen to be an instrument rated pilot), then you know that takeoff and landing are the hardest parts, especially in unfamiliar planes … it’s not hard to fly a “jumbo” once it’s in air. It’s possible that they learned the instrumentation on their own with little outside training … once you know the basics, it’s not hard to infer to other airplanes.
Now, if they said “we just want to know how to fly a 757 around … don’t worry about the landing and take-off part” … then I’d likely be a tad suspicious.
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:52 pmWire tapping has not caught the so called mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Proof that Bubble boy is a failure even when he breaks the law to get things done.
Where’s Osama Bin Laden?
Well, I’m pretty sure he’s avoiding calls to terrorist cells in the US right now (inspite of the really low international rates).
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:53 pmGiacomo,
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pmThis is your style. You “see the point”, yet you’ll go on about how experienced you are and spend the bulk of your response off topic. There is no justification for Bush behavior. If he attaches his right to spy to his war powers then we’ll end the wars. Period. Throw the liar in prison.
Interesting dilemna there: if the “national secret†is evidence of breaking the law, is it breaking the law to reveal it
Given that “whistleblowers” have an official course of action to handle such a case internally … yes, if the “reveal” is to the press …
Many democrats knew about this policy (and now are de facto against it) … why didn’t they “whistleblow”? Has anyone considered that this huge heinous violation was basically known for 3 or 4 years by many leading liberals … who did nothing … zip … zero? Why the indignance by them now? Do you honestly think that they’ll now push this issue, knowing that they somewhat indite themselves (especially given their stance against it).
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:59 pmHere is a great link and thread for the Judy Miller security clearance thing. i think this is the ticket. Also john Conyers has a letter in to Sec. Rumsfeld with some great questions. Thanks Enjoy. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/16/112238/93
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:00 pmtalkleft.com/new_archives/012772.html
all copyrights respected.
It’s pretty obvious, Bush admin couldn’t protect us then and still can’t. Since we aren’t any safer, he is a failure at the one job he said was most important. He is and will be jotted down in history as a failure.
Things are looking up for democracy. We will always have good citizens that see wrongdoing and will not let it continue. Let the few like Aphro and Gia believe what they want, it will not slow, stop or impede us in any fashion, we are on a mission. And not a mission in the name of anyone, just our American duty to protect one another.
The neocons did a real good job at pulling the wool but false promises and selfish agendas will always show through eventually. I can’t believe they thought it would last forever. Just like the filibuster, they will be sorry if they use the nuclear option. And giving Bush all of this power, eventually a dem will have the position, and then what? Can they really not see past tomorrow?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:00 pmYou “see the pointâ€, yet you’ll go on about how experienced you are and spend the bulk of your response off topic. There is no justification for Bush behavior.
I can both 1) see your point and 2) not agree with your point … unlike others, I don’t ascribe morality (or illegality) in singular deference to my political leanings. There are plenty of “legal scholars” who think that Bush has plenty of “legs” to stand on …
All I read is moral outrage in lockstep with political idealogy … an opinion based upon political expedience that’s no better than “I don’t agree so you must be evil”.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:04 pmit’s not enough to “have the nations best interest†in mind
It sure seems to work, even if the “best interests” part isn’t true, for every hare-brained scheme the administration is pulling. And when exactly did following the law get downgraded to merely following “procedure?”
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pmGiacomo, I think what you see is moral outrage AGAINST lockstep political ideology.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pmIt’s a battle over details and differences in Foreign policy.
Everyone (here) is jumping up and down about Bush’s failure to follow FISA procedure with the wiretaps … given that, will those same individuals continue their chorus and decry the leak? I bet not.
Comment by Giacomo
Of course not, that would be counter productive….
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
~ Jesus
5 U.S.C. 1213 sets up the procedures by which federal whistleblowers are to proceed.
Complaints are to be filed with the Office of Special Counsel. If they are found to be of merit and they involve “foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information†and disclosure of information described in the complaint is “prohibited by law or by Executive order, the Special Counsel shall transmit such information to the National Security Advisor, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.â€
~ US Code
It’s funny but I don’t see a provision in the Act for calling New York Times reporters in lieu of the Office of Special Counsel. Those sources/traitors just violated federal laws designed to protect national security in the middle of a war started on our own soil. And the reporters who abetted that disgusting act are not worthy of our sympathy. I want the whistling traitors brought to trial right along side the reports and editors of the NYT. After that it’s 20 years vacation in Ft. Leavenworth.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmAll I read is moral outrage in lockstep with political idealogy …
Americans aren’t irrational. They can (and do) justify Bush’s behavior. But the record shows Bush is the very last person to be given the benefit of the doubt. This is what he has on his hands. And he knows it. People don’t like him and they find him dishonest.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmThis aint Lincoln spying on us. It is a pathological, feeble-minded liar.
#58- PP - “Since we aren’t any safer..” We aren’t? The last terror attack against us was when???
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmIt sure seems to work, even if the “best interests†part isn’t true, for every hare-brained scheme the administration is pulling. And when exactly did following the law get downgraded to merely following “procedure?â€
Which is precisely the problem. The reason the procedure’s are in place (both the FISA law and the whistleblower certification) is to avoid personal decision making as the governing rule in the process. Because you like the outcome in this case, doesn’t change the issue (it doesn’t for me in the Bush case either).
I’ve already said that the legality/illegality of the wire taps will ultimately be fleshed out by Congressional inquiry. Everyone is entitled to their opinion at this point and time, but that opinion is no more valid than the contrarian point prior to this inquiry. There will be “legal scholars” of all persuasions with lucid and intelligent points in favor of any and all views.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pmSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Does that one really require any commentary? Stunning, truly stunning…
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:17 pmThere is no Declaration of War. We are not at war. We are occupying Iraq. We are not at War with them. Show me a link to the Declaration of War.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm# 68
The last terror attack on US soil was September 11th, 2001, during the term of the current president. The last attack on US soil previous to this was Pearl Harbor is memory serves. If you want to give Chimpy all the credit for no attacks over the last 4 years, you also have to find him responsibe for the first attack in 60 years.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:19 pmSpudge is right, but it doesn’t change the point. The whistleblowers, in this case, could be indited for failing to follow proper procedure and for invloving outside agents on topics of national security. If one is calling for Bush to answer for his “illegalities” they must also recognize the same in this “leak”.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:20 pmThe last attack on US soil previous to this was Pearl Harbor is memory serves
I’m not going to touch this one since your memory obviously is not “serving”. (hint - during Clinton’s years)
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:21 pmGiacomo, so what you’re saying is that if we caught Atta before the 9/11 attacks we might have prevented one of the planes from hitting the WTC, but Atta would be free to roam the streets. Letting a murderer go free. Welcome to Bushworld. Again, this is based on the assumption that the terrorists are stupid and don’t know we’re listening in on them.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pmHere’s a thought. bin Laden’s family and other Saudi associates were free to leave, and flown out of the country within a day or two of 9/11 having been cleared of any possible knowledge or connection, etc. yet “enemy combatants” are held for years because they somehow can be neither cleared nor convicted of some type of crime.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pmIn some cases people have been released but why does it take 3 years to discover they were wrongly detained, in other cases the detainee is charged with a crime unrelated to the reason for detainment (e.g. Padilla). WTF?
We are supposed to “trust” Bush to be doing what’s right for the country? What has he done correctly so far? Forget impeachment, indict and try them for war crimes.
mighty,
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pmYou’re in the pre-911 mind set. Let big brother take care of it for me. Everything will be OKAY.
Sponge - The link to the Declaration of War is right next to the links for the Korean War Declaration, The Viet Nam War Declaration, the Gulf War I Declaration and the Bosnian War Declaration. Find em’???
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmGiacomo, so what you’re saying is that if we caught Atta before the 9/11 attacks we might have prevented one of the planes from hitting the WTC, but Atta would be free to roam the streets.
Perhaps … I’m saying that based upon what I know about what WE, the USA, (intelligence agencies) knew about Atta … probable cause for a wire tap was not present. If he was caught prior to 9/11, he would’ve been sent home for having an expired visa.
I don’t really like to use this hypothetical because it’s not really a fair way to argue a point though. I can’t stand when people say “we could’ve prevented 9/11 if we listened back then” … it’s pure conjecture. I mention it as a point to consider. Did we have enough on Atta to eavesdrop on him … given that we know what he eventually did, is this lack of evidence or lack of probable cause useful when considering the current wire tap policy. I think so …
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:27 pmThis aint Lincoln spying on us. It is a pathological, feeble-minded liar.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
Old George has single handedly taken down the Democratic party. Ok, he had a lot of help from the Filthy Left but facts is facts, the Donks are dead in the water. They have no ideas, no programs, no issues except one; hate George Bush. We The People don’t trust people without a plan and we don’t trust people who think our President is worse than our enemies. Thank you all for assuring a Republican dominated government for the next 50 years.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:28 pmMany democrats knew about this policy (and now are de facto against it) … why didn’t they “whistleblow�
I’m not sure how many exactly knew- the number would appear to be rather small, and in the case of Warner, it would appear that he had strong reservations re this “policy.”
Has anyone considered that this huge heinous violation was basically known for 3 or 4 years by many leading liberals … who did nothing … zip … zero?
By whom? And short of going public and being promptly “swift boated,” what course of action would that leave?
Why the indignance by them now? Do you honestly think that they’ll now push this issue, knowing that they somewhat indite themselves (especially given their stance against it).
Let me guess, only Dems are conniving operators looking to make everything political, right? Along those same lines, why are GOP legislators coming out to say that they think it was illegal?
I’m sorry, but the indignation over the leak, rather than the act, seems a bit misplaced, if not duplicitous. But “shoot the messsenger” seems to be the admin’s policy.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:28 pmWe are supposed to “trust†Bush to be doing what’s right for the country?
Well … yes. It’s called a republic. We give the government power and they represent us … we are free to vote that government out if they fail to do so. (Please don’t bring up diebold - if everyone agreed that Bush was so bad, the last election shouldn’t have been close (or anywhere near striking distance for illegal voting activities to make any difference, if they occurred).
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:30 pmMA so tell me what is wrong with oversight? Simply telling congress “I am doing this…” is not oversight. Oversight is having people review the program to ensure that it is not being abused. Talking the administrations word for it is not good enough regardless of the times. Heck William Safire said he was being tapped. Why? Oh, it was because he called another reporter, why was he being tapped? How do we know that they have not been monitoring…political opponents? Patrick Fitzgerald? Congressional leaders etc… Would you at least agree that monitoring these types (reporters, political opponents, prosecutors etc…) is wrong?
Oversight does not have to be out in the public eye either. There are many things occurring in government that you and I will never hear about, but they are, or rather were, being monitored by people with proper clearances. I have no clue if anything in our government is being done properly anymore.
The other day the president talked about how this program was monitoring known Al Queda types in the US. Have you thought to ask yourself, “Why haven’t these known AlQueda types living in the US been arrested yet?” Don’t use the silly liberals won’t stand for it argument either. People get arrested all the time in this country, tried and then convicted or released and most of the population is fine with it as long as the system is fairly applied.
The answer to all of this is simple…the president does not want oversight because the program is being abused. The Brooklyn Bridge triumph they discuss is a farce. The need for speed is a farce because they can get the warrents retroactively. The onerous conditions to obtain a warrant argument is a farce because the FISA courts have approved what amoutns to essentially 100% of the warrent requests. Heck Gonzales even hinted that what they are doing is abusive when he said congress never would have granted us this autority.
By the way with the way this adminsitration has purged (lets call a duck a duck) so many governemtn agencies and replaced so many experienced people with political flacks, and with the loyalty of the Bush legions, do you really think a whistle blower would get a serious hearing of their grievences? And how do any of us know that this person did not already attempt to go through proper channels?
Whay did Bush and co not quietly start investigating this leak when they learned about it…in 2004? Why oh why? It only make sense. And they could have done it very secretly and quietly too. Nope they wanted to see if the story came out, then they could feign outrage to garner adidtional public sympathy. Sad thing is that I don’t think the general public (or we the people as I like to think of us) has bought into the fake outrage. Crimes are crimes regardless of the reasoning.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:32 pmLet me guess, only Dems are conniving operators looking to make everything political, right? Along those same lines, why are GOP legislators coming out to say that they think it was illegal?
I’m sorry, but the indignation over the leak, rather than the act, seems a bit misplaced, if not duplicitous. But “shoot the messsenger†seems to be the admin’s policy.
My point is that the democrats (despite possible misgivings at the start) who knew about this, sat on it. They could follow the procedure to “whistleblow”, but they didn’t. It wasn’t a big deal to them … now that it’s been leaked to the press (which is clearly illegal) and gained traction, we hear from those same democrats (pelosi comes to mind).
The legality of Bush’s actions will be decided by Congress … they will also likely look into the leak. My concern is the outrage for the former and the praise for the latter. I’ve already said I’ll take a wait and see attitude about both … I’m not trying to inflate or deflate the importance of either (obviously, I have an opinion which colors some of my comments, but I am ultimately waiting to see).
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 pmGiacomo also thinks you can put a 1 foot diameter object into a 1 foot diameter hole.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pmMy point is that the democrats (despite possible misgivings at the start) who knew about this, sat on it.
I agree the Dems sit on things. How could you not? I would go so far as to say the whistle blower is a Republican.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm79- you’re wasting your breath/keystrokes. MA is a “bitter-ender,” who is imperivous to reasoning, facts, or logic, and only posts ad hominem attacks on other posters and Democrats in general.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:42 pmWhat about the government’s case against Sami Al-Arian. 21 counts and nothing stuck. If they had won that one they would have interupted xmas. I would love a time line from when the White House first negotiated with the Times and the release a year later. Why would the White House trust the NY Times to not leak any if not all of it’s story?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pmMark - I don’t disagree with you - oversight is an excellent insurance policy. But you must have noticed that the politcal climate has been laced with “gotcha” as well as the politicization of this war. Frankly, the last time Congressional Democrats seemed united in fighting terror was the Kodak moment when they all sang “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol. I was surprised how many of them seemed to know the words of the song.
To answer your question,
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm“Why haven’t these known AlQueda types living in the US been arrested yet?†It’s called going after the “big fish” - religious zealots are not likely to be frightened of prison time like the soft-handed Jack Abramoff or the Enron sleazeballs. Vigilance and investigation are ongoing activities - but you’re bright enough to know that and your question appears merely reflexive.
Was it the “big fish” who flew the planes into the towers, mighty?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pmYou’re losing it, mighty aphrodite. Now I’m gonna pull one of your stunts. Gotta Go!
Why do Couric’s comments/questions sound like she is representing the administration? I thought the media was all so very “liberal” according to the Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, and all Republican/coservatives. Risen had believable answers for her, but her line of questioning couldn’t have been more telling of her personal bias for Bush&Co.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pmMighty Aphroditzo-
I guess you just can’t accept the fact that the NYT is finally coming out of its’ coma and now that Judith Miller is out of the building, they are working hard to rehabilitate their image as a reliable quality newspaper.
I also guess that you can’t accept that this year, as soon as the Democrats get back both houses, the word Impeachment will get very louder and louder and louder.
IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH.
I guess for you, the truth hurts.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:55 pmAnother mighty -Blah blah blah…We’re not dead so George Bush must have saved us.
Hey, Gus the gynonator, our resident hole expert.
A 1 foot diameter object will fit into a hole that’s 1 foot in diameter.
Am I missing a bar trick somewhere.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pmWhistleblower Revealed White House Spy Program
“People who truly believed there was something wrong going on in the government” revealed spy program to NY Times reporter James Risen… “[T]hey came to us because they thought you have to follow the rules and you have to follow…
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pmOh, and Mighy Aphroditzo
You never answered the question I put on in post number 26.
I’m waiting. >:(
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pmI think that is at the root of the intention of Bush&Co. Friends and like-minded people on the SCOTUS will determine that the laws work against the “right” purposes. The elimination of “rights” for criminals (that will eventually mean all of us who might have traffic violations, or other minor infractions of local ordinances). Their larger goal is to eliminate rights and liberties for all Americans, so they may impose their law, and their version of the Constitution (the original wil be seen as “quaint”)will be the new guidline giving the administration unlimited power, and in an unending war on terrorism the president will remain in office indefinitely.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:01 pm“The legality of Bush’s actions will be decided by Congress … they will also likely look into the leak.”
Like they’ve looked into the president’s use of intelligence for political gain?
Ask Senator Roberts how that inquiry is proceeding, and then get back to us about how confident you are that the truth will be revealed by “congress”.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:09 pmAs usual, demotwats are on the wrong side of this issue. The majority of Americans support the NSA wiretapping. Continue to press this issue and the Republicans will be guaranteed to pick up at least five seats in the house and two in the senate!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pmAs usual, the Republicans are being misleading on that poll. That poll assumes the targets are valid targets and there is evidence for a warrant before, or within 72 hours of the wiretapping. What the poll does not suggest is that the people support wiretapping of Bush’s illegal tapping of ordinary Americans who don’t support his fascist policies. There is no reason to avoid getting a warrant unless the administration knows they won’t get one because they know they shouldn’t be spying on political enemies and other dissenters.
I’m also sure Bush’s already low poll numbers would be even lower if the people knew the utter contempt that Bush has for the system of checks and balances. He’s using perpetual war and an unrealistic scare of another 9/11 to justify an executive branch with no checks on its power.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:39 pmPlunger if I may inquire about the big prize. if israel and the united states are in this wire tapping thing what is the end game? And what about Sami Al -Arian?
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:48 pmTry to google Sami al-Arian. Why can’t you find one link? This was a huge story in Tampa, the Tribune and The St. Pete Times did massive stories on this. Why can’t Ind any links on google? Here is alink from Salon:
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:56 pmhttp://www.salon.com/ tech/ feature/ 2002/ 01/ 19/ bubba/
If the program is illegal, the leak is irrelevant. Period. Congress needs to investigate this period, taking the administrations word that everything is kosher is not an option.
The few congressional leaders who were otld of the programs existence had no oversight authority whatsoever and they really had little information about the program other than that it existed, so to toss it on them to be the whistle blowers is simply not feasible because they had no clue as to what needed to be whistled about. Nope, the leaker is from inside the NSAand has leaked because there is something terribly wrong here. This is nto a partisan issue, this is an issue about the constitution of the united staes being circumvented and about we the people of the united states of america being screwed by our leaders for politcal gain once again.
Congress needs to 1) begin oversight immediately. If they are not allowed to do this, then they need to impeach. The oversight does not have to be public it can be behind closed doors. If the oversight function shows that only bad guys were monitored, then that information can be kept secret and warrants applied for. If the oversight shows that not only bad guys but political enemies and others were being monitored, then those people need to be notified and so does the public and criminal proceedings should start. In either case congress and the courts will need to discuss the presidents authority to do this. Is it perceived authority by the president? Authority granted by congress? Or simply bull shit?
Saying that they did not arrest these people whom the president has described as Alqueda type because they were hoping to snag the “big fish” later on , then that is in direct contradiction to what they have said about the ticking time bomb time is of the essence argument, and apparently they have had all the time in the world to get warrants. So what is it…is time of the essence? Or do they have time to develop the case and go for the big fish? Also how do you explain away Gonzales pretty much saying Congress would never have granted the president this authority and how to reconcile Gonzales statement with the president’s statement that congress granted him the authority ?
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pmFly-man,
I find plenty of links for Sami al-Arian.
The first one to come up in Google is
http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm
This is the guy right?
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:06 pm#99,
Are you talking about this man?
http://www.freesamialarian.com/home.htm
I’m not completely sure why the neocons have their alliance with Israel and it’s off-topic so I won’t go into it.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:11 pmthanks Spudge! I swear to god those were not there just a second ago. Before I posted i checked his name from the Salon link and typed in a few permutations of the caps. and nothing came up. now it does. Man i am losing it. sorry to all. back to the scientific experiments for the lot of me all.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:14 pmWhere does this MA (Mendacious Asskisser aka Mighty Aphrodite) come from? Another stranded troll?
MA is yet again a perfect example of rightnuttery. Fed on Fox News — particularly the sage O’Reilly –, Rush Limbaugh, and the likes of Ann Coulter, he/she cannot think outside the Black & White box set forth by Chimpy the Intellectual Midget and the so-called pundits who pretend to adore him.
MA is typical of the hapless and mindless twits who get whipped up into hysterical frenzy in supporting dictators. They are followers, not leaders. Their sense of self is so low that they need to stick to Dear Leader to find some vindication for their mediocre lives.
What creatures like MA do not understand is that they are manipulated, by BushCo because they need the vote, and by the performance artists (bad ones) who whip them up into right-wing hysteria, because they want attention and the money that it brings.
I have news for you, MA. The right-nut “pundits” like O’Reilly, Malkin, Coulter, and Limbaugh, do not believe a word of what they say. All they want is for you to keep feeding their ratings — hence their compensation — and for you to open your pocketbook to buy their publications. You and your fellow blind-followers are fools of the highest magnitude.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pmThe sad part about this whole spygate case is that the whistle blower will probably go to jail and the administration will get away with breaking the law. Isn’t that so typical of Washington for you. I give the President is above the law now and the can do whatever he wants.
I can’t believe the republican party isn’t concerned about a President over stepping his bounces. To bad they didn’t see it that way when President Clinton was have sex with Monica. I wonder which one is worst having sex or spying on the American People. Apparently having sex is a crime and spying without proper authority of a court is Constitutional. All of those lawyers are going to have to go back to law school and learn that the President has dictatorial powers just because he says he does.
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:57 pmIf the program is illegal, the leak is irrelevant. Period. Congress needs to investigate this period, taking the administrations word that everything is kosher is not an option.
Neither is disrupting an ongoing (and for all you know perfectly legal) operation to catch Islamo-splodeydopes. The Filthy Left’s arguments are irrelevant unless and until a federal judge steps up and makes a case. That hasn’t happened. All that has happened is the creation of a media circus and the compromise of a secret operation designed to keep us all safe. Exactly what American’s rights have been infringed? Name a name. You can’t because the “American” in question is working with the enemy to kill you and to let on that “we know” would help our/your enemy complete his mission.
You people have your head up your ass.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:29 pmYou and your fellow blind-followers are fools of the highest magnitude.
Comment by Evil Progressive
Fine, be stupid. We’re still going to do what is required to stay alive. The fact that you personally benefit is something of a bummer but apparently unavoidable.
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:31 pmFine, be stupid. We’re still going to do what is required to stay alive. The fact that you personally benefit is something of a bummer but apparently unavoidable.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 3, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
We’re?? most of you will be in jail. Try staying alive there “bitch”.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm“joef*ckfacefriday,”
why don’t you go back to watching your foreign azz owned “news station” Fox?
Ya know, the one owned by that australian guy, who accepts phone calls from Al Waleed Talel, the saudi guy who owns 5% of Fox news? The guy who influenced the way Muslims were being portrayed in the media during the riots in France? Incidentally, the same guy who criticized America after 9/11. I would love to cram a bunch of flags and freakin flag magnets down your ingnorant piehole.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:35 amGet over yourself, “big papaâ€. I talk to mighty in absolutes.
Comment by Gus the Loving OBGYN
Gus #41
My profound apologies for having misread your post as sincerity. I despise Bushites and xenophobes so much so that sometimes I squeeze the trigger without thought.
Hey blame it on the times…
January 4th, 2006 at 9:03 amTrust us. We’re only listening to terrorists…
Do you really believe that the Bush administration’s … domestic spying program was really limited to listening in on 500 or so al-Qaida sympathizers chatting away on their cell phones to their handlers in Harare? If you do .. you’ve already gone do…
January 4th, 2006 at 11:47 am#68 - You apparently have exclusive information that everyone else seems not to have. We are not safer. There are no new radios in NYC for the love of Pete. Does that not tell you anything? Denial is ugly.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:33 pm#108 you have no clue who they are monitoring and neither do I. You can assume that they are only monitoring terrorists if you wish to. If that were the case then the administration should have no trouble getting legal warrants through proper channels, even in the case where they need the tap instantly because they have the 72 hours to go back and get the warrant. So you have no way of knowing that reporters and politcal oppnents of the president are not being monitored. No way of knowing.
Of course there is the fact that Gonzales said congress never would grant them the authority to conduct this program while Bush said congress did. There is also the fact that I have yet to hear a legal scholar outside the administration say the program is legal.
I don’t fear the terrorists as much as I fear that people like you want to destroy America. I think you and your Ilk are more bent on it than any terrorist.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:39 pm“joef*ckfacefriday,â€
why don’t you go back to watching your foreign azz owned “news station†Fox?
Ya know, the one owned by that australian guy, who accepts phone calls from Al Waleed Talel, the saudi guy who owns 5% of Fox news? The guy who influenced the way Muslims were being portrayed in the media during the riots in France? Incidentally, the same guy who criticized America after 9/11. I would love to cram a bunch of flags and freakin flag magnets down your ingnorant piehole.
Comment by Destardi — January 4, 2006 @ 6:35 am
Where the heck did you get that. I hate “Faux News”. I cut down I-R-I and you jump on me? Put your tin foil hat back on dude.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:50 pm#112 - I’m not surprised at the fast and loose vernacular employed by competing blogs - but - please a quick question or two…
1.) The post you reference assumes that people receiving phone calls in the US are citizens - WHAT rabbit hole have you fallen into and can’t get out???
I’m sure you’ll have your hands full with that “q” - so we’ll skip #2 for now…..
January 6th, 2006 at 8:47 pmlauren hutton face
March 18th, 2008 at 4:05 amCash Advance
If a friend is small on bill paying money just simply apply for a online cash advance loans that is leading, plain, and swift today!
March 19th, 2008 at 11:45 aminspection procedures
A borescope is an optical device consisting of a rigid or flexible tube and not only provide an image for visual inspection and photography,
March 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pmJessie
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
March 21st, 2008 at 7:53 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 6:41 pmairline reservations
Where paper tickets are still available, airlines frequently charge extra for issuing them. Sometimes the pass replaces the tickets,
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 amPayday Loan
Best athetize payday loan for Carpenters
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pmgrants from the federal government
How you doin? Kewl website. You should check out my free educational government grants domain.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pmfree government grants for home repair
How are you? Kewl website. Visit this government grants for writing book website sometime and let me know what you think.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:26 amEvelyne
Ordinary people believe only in the possible. Extraordinary people visualize not what is possible or probable, but rather what is impossible. And by visualizing the impossible, they begin to see it as possible.
April 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pmgovernment grants for real estate investing
Hi. I just stopped by and I’ve got to say you have a kewl website. Come check out my how to get government grants webpage.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm