93 replies to this topic

[Lin731]

Quote

Deep throat was a guy who was a coward to not stand up and say in public what was going on. He was the number 2 man at the FBI he never said anything to congress or to the people. He wanted to embarass the administration rather than see justice done. He kept doing what the Nixion administration wanted done by the FBI rather than raise legal objections within the system.

A coward? There are rules about what happens to agents that leak info (even when it NEEDS to be leaked). So he should have just chucked his career and possibly his own freedom because the President was breaking the law? Sorry, I disagree. The real cowards IMO are those that continue to mouth the lies, do the deeds and make NO attempt to bring the truth to light.

Quote

Put another way he kept working at the death camp after telling people what was going on. He kept kill people and we are suppose to praise him for leaking.

Don't we have spies all over the world that do that very thing daily? Don't cops do that as well? Being on the inside affords you an insiders knowledge that can be used to benefit the American people.

Quote

The soldiers who sent back the pictures were under no form of non disclosure agreement. But CIA and other intellegence service personel are.

It was my understanding that military personel ALSO have rules...aka...no open dissent against policy.

[G-man]

^^^ You tell me.  (GAH, Lin beat me to it.  This was addressed to G1223)

Cheney, on Bush's behest, instructed Rove to leak classified information to the press, thereby compromising Plame, her network, and her family ... all because her husband spoke up against the Administration.  The argument now being offered is that if the President OK'd its release, then it is no longer classified, therefore not a crime; but it still caused damage to an ongoing CIA operation.

Is it then OK to leak information to discredit your detractors, no matter what damage it may do to any ongoing operation an agency was running?  And if so, then why is it OK for the Administration to leak this kind of information when it damages their detractors, but not OK for information to be leaked when it damages the Administration?

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

Edited by G-man, 16 May 2006 - 11:02 AM.

[Kosh]

G1223, on May 16 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

Well the major papers is a different kettle of fish.  If they are monitering employees of the CIA NSA or even FBI who have high level security access it has it's place as those agents have signed agreements to prevent discloser of information they have.

They are trying to stop whistle blowers. Which is what Deep Throat was doing. If the Nixion administration had been tapping the right phones, we would never have heard of Watergate.

You guys are going to have to face the facts, this administration is as bad as Nixions, if not worse.

[G1223]

You mean the silence he kept up with even after Nixion was gone?  Or even after he retired?  He leaked to a paper. Why not to the responsible people of congress. He knew who they were  he was Number 2 and FBI he might know what was in J Edgar's files but he had the FBI's he could look at.

He could ensure his safety by going to them or going public himself.  Even after Nixion board the helicopter.

The people who went before congress in the 90's and talked about the problems within the IRS and other government agencies went to congress first to tell the responsible parties.

You are corect they cannot give public statements against an administration. But they can send photo's home like was done here. Then those family members can send word to the press or to congress.

[Kosh]

G1223, on May 16 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

You mean the silence he kept up with even after Nixion was gone?  Or even after he retired?  He leaked to a paper. Why not to the responsible people of congress. He knew who they were  he was Number 2 and FBI he might know what was in J Edgar's files but he had the FBI's he could look at.

He could ensure his safety by going to them or going public himself.  Even after Nixion board the helicopter.

The people who went before congress in the 90's and talked about the problems within the IRS and other government agencies went to congress first to tell the responsible parties.

You are corect they cannot give public statements against an administration. But they can send photo's home like was done here. Then those family members can send word to the press or to congress.

The way this administration operates, with US citizens being held without bail, and at least some torture going on down in Cuba, I think I'd have to go the same way as DT. You never know who's listening in on your phone calls now.




http://blogs.abcnews...al_source_.html

Quote

May 15, 2006 10:33 AM

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

[Zwolf]

The herd is easily spooked.  And way too trusting.

If nothing else, they should be suspicious of the way the administration keeps changing its story.  When they first got caught doing this, they said, "No, no, it's only overseas calls to Middle Eastern countries that we're checking up on."  Then when that didn't hold water, they said it was just international calls in general, and that nobody was checking up to see if you were calling your Aunt Martha in Hoboken.  But, whoops, now it's revealled that, yeah, they are checking up on domestic "Aunt Martha" calls.  Millions of 'em.  If there are terrorist sleepers left in this country, there damned sure ain't millions of 'em.  The sheer unfeasible volume of the amount of calls being checked ought to put the quietus on arguments that this is necessary for our "security."  Don't mistake a boot on your neck for a security blanket.  I don't see any way a reasonable, not-frightened-out-of-his-sh*t adult - especially one who espouses a smaller, less-intrusive government - is going to give the feds a pass for checking up on that many calls.  If we just shrug that off, then, sorry, but the terrorists are wasting their time; who needs to bomb a populace who's willing to accept a Stalinesque government?  It's starting to look like the strategy is, "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms... so, if we destroy those freedoms, then that'll end the beef!"  Brilliant.         

A historian who's made a big study of the NSA had the following to say:

Quote

The fact that the federal government has my phone records scares the living daylights out of me. They won't learn much from them other than I like ordering pizza on Friday night and I don't call my mother as often as I should. But it should scare the living daylights out of everybody, even if you're willing to permit the government certain leeways to conduct the war on terrorism.

We should be terrified that Congress has not been doing its job and because all of the checks and balances put in place to prevent this have been deliberately obviated. In order to get this done, the NSA and White House went around all of the checks and balances. I'm convinced that 20 years from now we, as historians, will be looking back at this as one of the darkest eras in American history. And we're just beginning to sort of peel back the first layers of the onion. We're hoping against hope that it's not as bad as I suspect it will be, but reality sets in every time a new article is published and the first thing the Bush administration tries to do is quash the story. It's like the lawsuit brought by EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation] against AT&T -- the government's first reaction was to try to quash the lawsuit. That ought to be a warning sign that they're on to something.

Me, I'm not willing to give up phone privacy, even I don't call terrorists, and I don't discuss any nation-threatening activity, and, frankly, don't use the phone much at all.  But, I pay my phone bills, and if I didn't dial your ass up, then whatever I'm talking about isn't any of your emeffin' beeswax.  And it's pretty surprising to me that people are so willing to just shrug off their privacy being invaded.  Would they carp if agents showed up to watch them take a shower?  They'd probably obligingly explain that away, too.

Cheers,

Zwolf

[Lin731]

Apparently the FCC isn't happy about this either:

http://www.usatoday....ds_x.htm?csp=24

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telephone industry, should open an investigation into whether the nation's phone companies broke the law by turning over millions of calling records to the government, an FCC commissioner says.
The National Security Agency has been collecting records of calls made in the U.S. by ordinary Americans as part of its anti-terrorism efforts, according to USA TODAY. The newspaper story followed reports that the NSA has been conducting eavesdropping on the electronic communications of suspected al-Qaeda members and their contacts in the U.S. without warrants.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps' comments also come as the three phone companies allegedly involved — AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. — face a growing number of lawsuits by consumers. The latest, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, seeks billions of dollars in damages for violation of federal privacy laws.

[Ogami]

MuseZack wrote:

I'd be against this program if it were being proposed by President Noam Chomsky and Attorney General Susan Sarandon and supported by 99 percent of the American public.

It would be interesting to go back and compare positions people had on Ex Isle during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Back then, all we heard from Bush's critics was why he wasn't doing more to fight terror, to increase intelligence on terrorists. Now it's a different tune.

No wonder Bush ignores polls and critics, and just concentrates on doing his job. His critics have no idea what they are going to complain about from week to week, or even which angle they're going to take. Why should Bush ever pay attention to these 360 degree critics? They've proven conclusively why Bush should pay them no heed.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 01:24 PM.

[Kosh]

Quote

No wonder Bush ignores polls and critics, and just concentrates on doing his job. His critics have no idea what they are going to complain about from week to week, or even which angle they're going to take. Why should Bush ever pay attention to these 360 degree critics? They've proven conclusively why Bush should pay them no heed.

-Ogami

With all the scandal coming out of this administration, no one has to wonder what they will complain about next, or which angel to take. All we need to do is watch the administration collapse in on it's self. Rove is supposed to be indited this week.

If it is proven that they have been checking phone calls to and from the press, then we need to bring charges. Someone has clearly gone off the deep end. Once Libby and Rove are in jail, they can get things ready for George "JailBird" Bush and good old Dead Eye Chaney.

Edited by Kosh, 16 May 2006 - 01:36 PM.

[Zwolf]

Quote

It would be interesting to go back and compare positions people had on Ex Isle during the 9/11 Commission hearings. Back then, all we heard from Bush's critics was why he wasn't doing more to fight terror, to increase intelligence on terrorists. Now it's a different tune.

No, it's not.  I still think he should do more to fight terror.  And if he hadn't sent pointlessly off into Iraq after Bin Laden's enemy instead of doing something about the countries that actually had something to do with the terror plots, maybe we'd be a lot farther along, instead of helping Osama's recruiting efforts.  Tapping the lines at ABC isn't doing a furshlugginer thing to catch terrorists.  Sifting through millions of innocent people's phone records isn't catching terrorists.  It's helping the terrorists, in fact, since one of their missions is to destroy democracy. Wanting to stop Bush from doing something dumb and possibly even criminal isn't blocking the fight against terror.  

Quote

No wonder Bush ignores polls and critics, and just concentrates on doing his job.

Vacationing is a job?

Quote

His critics have no idea what they are going to complain about from week to week, or even which angle they're going to take. Why should Bush ever pay attention to these 360 degree critics? They've proven conclusively why Bush should pay them no heed.

Who says he doesn't listen to his critics?  People have been complaining for years that he's too soft on illegal immigration and that he's done nothing to keep the borders secure.  Then, when his polls dip below freezing, he finally makes a token effort and sends some guard troops to the border for a little while, until the poll numbers thaw out a little?  

Cheers,

Zwolf

[veganmom]

Zwolf666, on May 16 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

Quote

No wonder Bush ignores polls and critics, and just concentrates on doing his job.

Vacationing is a job?

[scherzo]

Quote

The IRS? Huh? What does that have to do with the NSA?

In the context of complaints about intrusive government restricting liberties, I don't really see how the comparison can be avoided Robin.(I'm gonna call you Robin) Personally I find a compulsory income tax that requires every citizen to disclose the entirety of their financial information under penalty of law, to be more intrusive than examining phone records...by a factor of about 400 million.(I'm gonna call them Robbin')

Furthermore, anyone comfortable with the gangsters running our internal revenue, is in my mind disqualified from making like Patrick Henry on this phony NSA controversy. A distinction that lets the conservative libertarians off the hook here...but leaves the socialist left looking more than a little hypocritical.

-scherzo

[BklnScott]

Ogami, on May 16 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

No wonder Bush ignores polls and critics, and just concentrates on doing his job.

If you believe Bush (or any politician) ignores polling data, then I've got a bridge buying opportunity in Brooklyn and/or a real-estate opportunity in South Florida for you.  

In fact, here's
Karl Rove invoking one polling category (likability) as if they excuse all others (job approval, right track/wrong track, etc):

Quote

Presidential adviser Karl Rove blamed the war in     Iraq on Monday for dragging down     President Bush's job approval ratings in public opinion polls. "People like this president," Rove said. "They're just sour right now on the war."

...

The presidential adviser, widely credited with securing Bush's win in 2000 and re-election in 2004, was questioned about public opinion polls that show the president's plunging approval ratings. A recent AP-Ipsos poll showed Bush approval at 33 percent. Other national polls put it around 30 percent.

...

Rove accused the news media of being too fixated on polls.

...

Despite low approval ratings, "I'm sanguine," Rove said. "I know our own polls."

He said that Bush's likeability, his personal approval ratings, were in the 60s in some polls. "Job approval is lower. And what that says to me is that people like him, they respect him, he's somebody they feel a connection with, but they're just sour right now on the war. And that's the way it's going to be."

He's honestly a brilliant operative--Not only can he spin a 29% approval rating, he can make it sound as though they *knew* it was going to happen.  And on top of that, he turns around and predicts Republican gains in November:

Quote

"Well, you know, it's interesting, because consumer confidence is relatively high. In fact, it is much higher than the average of the last 40 years," said Rove, who argued that typically should lead to a gain of congressional seats for Republicans in November's midterm elections.

Balls of steel, that guy.  And a political genius.  Too bad he's about to resign in disgrace, huh?  Oh, well.

Edited by _ph, 16 May 2006 - 03:54 PM.

[Godeskian]

I wonder if he knows that sanguine means bloody as well as hopeful

[Call Me Robin]

scherzo, on May 16 2006, 08:24 PM, said:

Quote

The IRS? Huh? What does that have to do with the NSA?

In the context of complaints about intrusive government restricting liberties, I don't really see how the comparison can be avoided Robin.(I'm gonna call you Robin) Personally I find a compulsory income tax that requires every citizen to disclose the entirety of their financial information under penalty of law, to be more intrusive than examining phone records...by a factor of about 400 million.(I'm gonna call them Robbin')

Furthermore, anyone comfortable with the gangsters running our internal revenue, is in my mind disqualified from making like Patrick Henry on this phony NSA controversy. A distinction that lets the conservative libertarians off the hook here...but leaves the socialist left looking more than a little hypocritical.

-scherzo

The left is not socialist.  That is an old right-wing myth.  In fact, the American left has nothing to do with socialism at all.  Socialism is when the government controls all means of production.  It's something entirely different from American liberalism.    

And I find the right-wing antipathy to taxes to be rather curious.  The right-wingers who support the troops should realize that those troops are being supported by taxpayer dollars.  So are this country's cops, firefighters, public librarians, park rangers, and teachers.  So are the folks at the CDC, the NIH, the FBI, the CIA, and the FDA.  Right wingers should realize that the necessary services these public employees provide are not free.  If you are a citizen of this country, you have certain responsibilities, not just rights.

Of course, this is not the subject of the discussion, so...

[Ogami]

Kosh wrote:

With all the scandal coming out of this administration, no one has to wonder what they will complain about next, or which angel to take. All we need to do is watch the administration collapse in on it's self. Rove is supposed to be indited this week.

Rove is as pure as the driven slush. (from a ZZ TOP lyric)

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 16 May 2006 - 05:43 PM.

[Ogami]

Zwolf wrote:

No, it's not. I still think he should do more to fight terror. And if he hadn't sent pointlessly off into Iraq after Bin Laden's enemy instead of doing something about the countries that actually had something to do with the terror plots, maybe we'd be a lot farther along, instead of helping Osama's recruiting efforts.

Let's see... September 11th 2001, Bush's response, invade Afghanistan in November 2001. Where is Iraq in there, again? Oh, that's right, Saddam Hussein was an existing problem who needed to be dealt with, and he was, in March 2003. Years after the killings and arrests of the bulk of Al'Queda's leadership, finances, and bases of operations. Unless you count the life sentence of Moussoui, that's not a failure of the war on terror.

Wanting to stop Bush from doing something dumb and possibly even criminal isn't blocking the fight against terror.

The "Bush is a dummy" strategy lost the Democrats the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm!

Vacationing is a job?

Well the News Media only tells us it's a vacation if  Republican president takes a break from the White House. For eight solid years under Clinton, we never the media ever say he was taking a vacation. No, "Martha's Vinyard" must have been where Clinton's think tank was, that's it!      

People have been complaining for years that he's too soft on illegal immigration and that he's done nothing to keep the borders secure. Then, when his polls dip below freezing, he finally makes a token effort and sends some guard troops to the border for a little while, until the poll numbers thaw out a little?

From my personal experience with the latino community in my area, I agree with Bush's idea for a documented worker program. But if the Republicans in the Senate won't do anything one way or the other, I really do wonder for their success in the 2006 elections.

-Ogami

[Ogami]

Scherzo wrote:

In the context of complaints about intrusive government restricting liberties, I don't really see how the comparison can be avoided Robin.(I'm gonna call you Robin)

That made me laugh for some reason. Ah, it's a silly day...

-Ogami

[Ogami]

_Ph wrote:

If you believe Bush (or any politician) ignores polling data, then I've got a bridge buying opportunity in Brooklyn and/or a real-estate opportunity in South Florida for you.

There's a difference between noting polls and running your presidency exclusively on what the polls tells you. That was Clinton's game.

Like many presidents, Bush's ideas have usually been DOA in congress. Reform social security with private accounts? Reform Hispanic immigration? Reform entitlement spending in general? All DOA.

-Ogami

[Ogami]

Call Me Robin wrote:

The left is not socialist. That is an old right-wing myth. In fact, the American left has nothing to do with socialism at all. Socialism is when the government controls all means of production. It's something entirely different from American liberalism.

When there are calls to force auto makers to a certain fuel economy standard (say, above what SUVs could possibly drive with and still be SUVs), that's socialism in action. The liberal left can duck and dodge, and hide what they are, for all the good it will do them. It's socialism, plain and simple.

-Ogami