Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[sodaseller]

Today's talking point disseminated.

Query - if there was day without directed though processes, would Bush apologists spontaneously combust?

 

[eclectics]

Yes, but one has no credibility when they start calling this president Hitler, a fascist, etc. You (Puffy) may disagree, but there is no way that this country or this president is fascist. The fact that you liberals get so incensed about the selective and limited spying on people in this country making international phone calls to known terrorists just shows your true colors. You don't really think we're at war with these people.

First of all I am a slightly left of center moderate democrat. If you are going to throw labels around, make sure they apply to the person first. Second, you have no idea what I think about phone tapping because I don't believe I have shared that on this board yet.

 

[AMcaptured]

The media spin on this story is so apparent it isn't even funny. Bush haters will go on and on and on about how the Presidents supporters will defend him no matter what, yet the Bush haters will find ANY reason at all to believe anything they hear about this administration that they don't like.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just assume these days that I am being watched, listened to and monitored at just about all times.

There are camera's EVERYWHERE these days, traffic lights, shopping malls, hospitals, gas stations, just to name a few.

Why don't all the Bush haters wonder who leaked this story to the press? I mean, you were all so fascinated with Valerie Plame, why not who leaked this. Now this is an important leak, isn't it? Which democrat or republican in congress was responsible for telling their friends at the NYTimes?

Also, don't forget, the Times had this story for over a year and are only now coming out with it because they have a book coming out on the subject soon. One has to look at their motivations, oh, I know the motivations of the main stream media, its to discredit George Bush as much as they can.

 

[M:SteveO]

First of all I am a slightly left of center moderate democrat. If you are going to throw labels around, make sure they apply to the person first. Second, you have no idea what I think about phone tapping because I don't believe I have shared that on this board yet.

I actually wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Puffy, but used your quote because you were referencing Puffy from your previous post. I could tell your position on the issue, and was not directing my post at you. I apologize.

 

[Mom2be]

Yes, but one has no credibility when they start calling this president Hitler, a fascist, etc. You (Puffy) may disagree, but there is no way that this country or this president is fascist. The fact that you liberals get so incensed about the selective and limited spying on people in this country making international phone calls to known terrorists just shows your true colors. You don't really think we're at war with these people.

The PROBLEM is that if there was a evidence that these calls needed to be tapped then why did the President not go through the courts as our consitution firmly states? Or is he now above the very foundation that our country was built on? The President has 72 hours to start and listen to wire taps before filing with the courts, so "time" could not have been that huge of an issue. We have a consitutution for a reason if we start ignoring it then what exactly is our country about? I am not about to limit my freedoms due to fear. The enemy is fear itself.

A patriot does not reveal a country's secrets during war time to the enemy. It is called treason and during WWII, one would have been charged with treason and imprisoned. The information gathered was of tremendous value in the war on terror. It may have even saved your life.

Uh-huh. So then I am sure you agree that we need to locate the member of Bush's administration that leaked a undercover CIA agent's name to the press in order to discredit her husband?


~Amanda

 

[Mom2be]

The media spin on this story is so apparent it isn't even funny. Bush haters will go on and on and on about how the Presidents supporters will defend him no matter what, yet the Bush haters will find ANY reason at all to believe anything they hear about this administration that they don't like.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just assume these days that I am being watched, listened to and monitored at just about all times.

There are camera's EVERYWHERE these days, traffic lights, shopping malls, hospitals, gas stations, just to name a few.

Why don't all the Bush haters wonder who leaked this story to the press? I mean, you were all so fascinated with Valerie Plame, why not who leaked this. Now this is an important leak, isn't it? Which democrat or republican in congress was responsible for telling their friends at the NYTimes?

Also, don't forget, the Times had this story for over a year and are only now coming out with it because they have a book coming out on the subject soon. One has to look at their motivations, oh, I know the motivations of the main stream media, its to discredit George Bush as much as they can.

I do wonder who leaked this story and their motivation for doing so. Just as much as I roll my eyes at the fact that the Times held on to the information to benefit their book release. That is not responsible journalism.

But neither one of those 2 points change the facts - and we also need to have Congress look at the actions of the executive branch. There should be a systems of check and balances within government and in my opinion Congress has been lack luster in doing so.

~Amanda

 

[Chuck S]

So then I guess John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, the United Nations, France, Britain, etc., etc., etc., all lied too. All poor George is doing is trying to protect his country. God, I hate presidents who try to do that. Clinton was trying to protect his country in the same way using the Echelon program and by using spy satellites on white supremist groups after the OK State Bombing.

In case you haven't heard, United Nations based their votes on false info supplied to them BY the White House via Colin Powell. The UN inspectors said there was no evidence of WMDs, remember? The UN was then swayed by the false intelligence supplied by the White House.

Congress did NOT receive the same intelligence that the White House did, the President had info that clearly stated that there was no link between Osama and Saddam, he chose to omit that when making the case for war to the American people and the congress. Of course, never mind the old saying "The Buck Stops Here" when it comes to the current administration, their slogan seems to be "Look for a scapegoat, have someone set up to take the rap."

 

[sodaseller]

A patriot does not reveal a country's secrets during war time to the enemy.

How far will you go with that?
PPG

First is Woodward's method: Once again, he has been granted access to America's top leaders, although President Bush was obviously careful to have National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice present. Her presence put the brakes on any excessively creative license Woodward might take with what he said.

Access also apparently included minutes of more than 50 National Security Council and other key meetings on the war against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Given the shortage of critical judgments of the policies pursued or the leaders pursuing them, there appears to have occurred the usual devil's bargain between Woodward and the senior leaders. Access was granted in return for a favorable portrayal.

CBS News

In a 60 Minutes interview with Mike Wallace, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward discloses previously unknown information from his new book about how the president and his cabinet prosecuted the war on terror in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Bush at War," draws on four hours of interviews with President Bush and quotes 15,000 words from National Security Council and other White House meetings in reconstructing the internal debate that led to U.S. military action in Afghanistan and the decision to aggressively confront Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Again, Dawn, according to the 60 minutes story you refered to, the interceptions of American communications were done by intelligence agencies OUTSIDE the US, most notably Canada and the UK.

How many times can a man lie (WMDs, Saddam/Osama link, Iraq trying to buy uranium...the list goes on and on) to justify a war before he actually stops fooling some people. Maybe it is true, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Of course, thank God Bush hasn't had a mistress like Clinton. All poor George has done is invade a soveriegn country, topple a regime, and get people killed all based on bad intelligence. If he'd had a mistress he'd have been impeached by now.

You are making the list of "lies" up.

Many lives have been saved due to getting rid of Saddam and fighting terrorism. Too bad nations on the Secruity Council preferred taking bribes rather than taking real acton. Sounds like you are the one (of many) who has been fooled.

Start wagging your Clinton finger at the UN and nations who kowtow to or support terrorists.

 

[Mom2be]

You are making the list of "lies" up.

Many lives have been saved due to getting rid of Saddam and fighting terrorism. Too bad nations on the Secruity Council preferred taking bribes rather than taking real acton. Sounds like you are the one (of many) who has been fooled.

Start wagging you Clinton finger at the UN and nations who kowtow to or support terrorists.

Joe have you forgotten that the administration has come out and said the evidence they used to go to war was bad? The Un while yes taking bribes didn't believe the bad intelligence we had. Both sides have egg on their face for that one.

~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

Just when we though the quality of debate could not descend any lower

 

[DawnCt1]

Again, Dawn, according to the 60 minutes story you refered to, the interceptions of American communications were done by intelligence agencies OUTSIDE the US, most notably Canada and the UK.

How many times can a man lie (WMDs, Saddam/Osama link, Iraq trying to buy uranium...the list goes on and on) to justify a war before he actually stops fooling some people. Maybe it is true, you can fool some of the people all of the time.

.

Well lets see, Iraq was clearly trying to re establish trade with the Sudan. Now what do they have to sell? Sand? Nope, Iraq has plenty of sand. What about dates? Nope, Iraq has that too.l What does Sudan have that Iraq wanted? Let me see, Yellow cake? The Brits stand by their report.

 

[sodaseller]

Well lets see, Iraq was clearly trying to re establish trade with the Sudan. Now what do they have to sell? Sand? Nope, Iraq has plenty of sand. What about dates? Nope, Iraq has that too.l What does Sudan have that Iraq wanted? Let me see, Yellow cake? The Brits stand by their report.

What is the reference to Sudan about?

 

[Mom2be]

You are making the list of "lies" up.

Many lives have been saved due to getting rid of Saddam and fighting terrorism. Too bad nations on the Secruity Council preferred taking bribes rather than taking real acton. Sounds like you are the one (of many) who has been fooled.

Start wagging you Clinton finger at the UN and nations who kowtow to or support terrorists.

Joe have you forgotten that the administration has come out and said the evidence they used to go to war was bad? The Un while yes taking bribes didn't believe the bad intelligence we had. Both sides have egg on their face for that one.

~Amanda

 

[DawnCt1]

Uh-huh. So then I am sure you agree that we need to locate the member of Bush's administration that leaked a undercover CIA agent's name to the press in order to discredit her husband?


~Amanda

Again Amanda, There is no evidence that Plame was ever undercover and she certainly wasn't undercover for the last six years she worked at the CIA. Victoria Tensing, who helped to write the law said that no law was broken. Perhaps its against the law to "out" a janitor who sweeps the floor at the CIA. Give me a break. Someone leaked one of our most secret secrets and they should be in jail. In fact, President Bush said that during the 1990's we were able to track Osama Bin Laden by the type of phone he used but now someone has leaked that type of phone and now we have lost him. How much has this leak helped our enemy and hurt our national security. Perhaps you should be more concerned about that than the COVER GIRL on Vanity Faire and her loser husband.

 

[DawnCt1]

What is the reference to Sudan about?

I meant Niger. My mistake.

 

[Judge Smails]

So then I guess John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, the United Nations, France, Britain, etc., etc., etc., all lied too. All poor George is doing is trying to protect his country. God, I hate presidents who try to do that. Clinton was trying to protect his country in the same way using the Echelon program and by using spy satellites on white supremist groups after the OK State Bombing.

Oh well thank Christ he's trying to protect us. i'd hate to see what he'd do to the country if he was slacking.

 

[sodaseller]

In fact, President Bush said that during the 1990's we were able to track Osama Bin Laden by the type of phone he used but now someone has leaked that type of phone and now we have lost him. How much has this leak helped our enemy and hurt our national security. .

That would be false. The phone issue was a distraction. They knew we tracked sat phones and stopped using those long ago. The larger issue was the relaese of PGP encryption software, which is why we only get "chatter" now. That was a bit of a bipartisan debacle, although far more on the Right, who objected to the Clinton Administrations attempt to seal it under national security grounds under civil liberties concerns. Who woudla thought?

 

[Chuck S]

You are making the list of "lies" up.

I am? Bush just admitted that there were no WMDs, didn't he? He also had intel indicating no Saddam/Osama connection, as well as indicating that Iraq was not actively pursuing the purchase of uranium. I didn't make that up.

 

[AMcaptured]

I think this has been said but I am going to repeat it just because I feel like it.....

It amazes me that the same people who were sqawking about the Bush Administration NOT connecting the dots before 9/11 are now the same people complaining because THIS administration is being proactive about the global war on terror instead of being reactive to attacks against our country like the last administration was.

France and England would be speaking german today if we had the type of media during WWII that we currently have in this country.

Appeasement doesn't work.