Page 1 of 28 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 546
  1.    #1  
    story by NY Times. Are you kidding me?! NY Times editor should be in jail, the only investigation should be to find out who leaked this info. The US liberal media is out of control.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    story by NY Times. Are you kidding me?! NY Times editor should be in jail, the only investigation should be to find out who leaked this info. The US liberal media is out of control.
    Ah yes. You know there is legal channels he could have gone through.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Ah yes. You know there is legal channels he could have gone through.
    You mean in addition to the legal channel he DID go through?

    ATM is 100% right. This is an actual, genuine national security jeapordizing (illegal) leak that should be investigated.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    You mean in addition to the legal channel he DID go through?

    ATM is 100% right. This is an actual, genuine national security jeapordizing (illegal) leak that should be investigated.
    No he did not go through the legal channels(i.e. FISA), hence the flap over it.

    PS. What ever became of the investagation about the leak of info of secret prisons that Frist promised us. Oh, that must have died when it was found out the leak came from a repub.

    By the way how do you feel about Bush politics with our National Security?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No he did not go through the legal channels(i.e. FISA), hence the flap over it.
    FISA only covers communications that start and end within the US. Hence the "flap" is complete manufactured BS.
    PS. What ever became of the investagation about the leak of info of secret prisons that Frist promised us. Oh, that must have died when it was found out the leak came from a repub.
    Was that "found"? That's not the topic here anyway.
    By the way how do you feel about Bush politics with our National Security?
    Bush playing politics with our national security??? You've got to be putting me on. He's responding to BS charges based on an illegal leak that compromised a covert operation to gather intel on real threats.

    Your side is playing with fire on this one.

    Maybe if the left would show some genuine concern for our security they might actually get elected to something again.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I]Bush[/I] playing politics with our national security??? You've got to be putting me on.
    This is something different, this has to do with the Patriot Act and bush getting stuck in his own spin! LOL, it is amusing to see it I must tell you, but none the less It gets down to whole of this admin.

    Here is Bush's quote from an article:
    Source: Yahoo!

    President Bush said Saturday that senators who are blocking renewal of the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act are acting irresponsibly and standing in the way of protecting the country from attack.

    "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment," the president said in a live broadcast from the White House of his weekly radio address. Senate Democrats, with the aid of a handful of Republicans, succeeded Friday in stalling the bill already approved by the House. The vote to advance the measure, 52-47, fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes required to end debate.

    "That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics and the Senate must reauthorize the Patriot Act," Bush said.
    A truly concerned President wouldn't have refused to sign a 3-month extension, would he? If he believed the provisions are so necessary, then he would have agreed to the 3-month extension, as a way of protecting the country while the Senate resolves the concern over the provisions. If Bush's claims are true, then he had a way to protect us.

    The reality is that Bush refused to the compromise for purely political reasons. By his own comments then, he is playing politics with our security.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is something different,
    Oh, I see. You changed the subject.
    this has to do with the Patriot Act and bush getting stuck in his own spin! LOL, it is amusing to see it I must tell you, but none the less It gets down to whole of this admin.

    Here is Bush's quote from an article:
    A truly concerned President wouldn't have refused to sign a 3-month extension, would he? If he believed the provisions are so necessary, then he would have agreed to the 3-month extension, as a way of protecting the country while the Senate resolves the concern over the provisions. If Bush's claims are true, then he had a way to protect us.

    The reality is that Bush refused to the compromise for purely political reasons. By his own comments then, he is playing politics with our security.
    I'm not sure exactly what 3 month extension you're referring to. Perhaps the compromise that was floated (and never presented for a vote) was so watered down as to be useless?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8. #8  
    I have been on the road so I missed the 3 month option. Do you have a link for the article you quoted above?

    EDIT: NM....I just saw it in your post.

    EDIT: I agree that the 3 month option was pretty stupid to pass up, at least in hind sight. I think a factor in the situation is that they felt that they could have had it passed okay without the political power play by the NYT.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 12/18/2005 at 01:05 PM.
  9. #9  
    Bush is trying to ruin something that could have done wonders for our nation. Prior to Homeland Security, the agencies that were supposed to be protecting us were in the midst of their own bureaucratic war. One agency would withold information from another agency and subsequently that agency would not be able to protect us. Homeland Security centralized all that information. Every agency would feed any and ALL information they had to Homeland Security and whenever any agency had to look up information all they had to do was enter a name and it would return all the information on that name. Then Bush screwed us over and gave the agencies the ability to trample on our civil rights to try and collect more information. Bush ruined it.


  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    Then Bush screwed us over and gave the agencies the ability to trample on our civil rights to try and collect more information. Bush ruined it.
    You do realize that Bill Clinton pushed long and hard for roving wiretaps that the Dems are now criticizing so much, don't you?

    Funny how the opinions of topics change when one or the other party gains power.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No he did not go through the legal channels(i.e. FISA), hence the flap over it.
    It is also important to note that the wiretapping that is now being trumpeted by Dems was approved by many of law makers themselves, including the likes of Harry Reid, top dog Dem.

    On a Fox News interview tonight, Harry Ried said that he was informed it, but that he takes not responsibility as it was "the President's baby".
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by FrozenCode
    Bush is trying to ruin something that could have done wonders for our nation. Prior to Homeland Security, the agencies that were supposed to be protecting us were in the midst of their own bureaucratic war. One agency would withold information from another agency and subsequently that agency would not be able to protect us. Homeland Security centralized all that information. Every agency would feed any and ALL information they had to Homeland Security and whenever any agency had to look up information all they had to do was enter a name and it would return all the information on that name. Then Bush screwed us over and gave the agencies the ability to trample on our civil rights to try and collect more information. Bush ruined it.
    Bush did nothing more extreme than any other President is his position should have done. No one's civil liberties have been compromised (well, except for terrorists). If you believe they have (in the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary) - then you sir, are beyond reason or are very ill-informed. Bush ordered surveillance of the international communications of those suspected of plotting terrorist activities. You have a problem with that?

    The only present danger to civil liberties we should fret over are the increased threats to our lives caused by destructive leaks of national security information by self-appointed crusaders in the media and amongst the political opponents of Bush. They seem to value damaging Bush over protecting their country. They are not patriots. They are damaging their country - and I give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they are doing it unintentionally in the pursuit of political gain. Others may see darker motives.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is also important to note that the wiretapping that is now being trumpeted by Dems was approved by many of law makers themselves, including the likes of Harry Reid, top dog Dem.

    On a Fox News interview tonight, Harry Ried said that he was informed it, but that he takes not responsibility as it was "the President's baby".
    Rhetorical question: so the point of informing Harry Reid is what, exactly?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  14. #14  
    Not sure, only caught the last half of the interview, but I just found it interesting that the likes of him had full knowledge of this happening and he does not hold himself accountable in the least. Just after the interview, it was reported that these wiretaps without a warrent were legal and approved by high ranking law enforcement agencies.

    It seems that this was not a big secret for those in the know, on several sides of the fence, but a big secret that was not available to the public...hence the terrorists they were trying flush out.


    OFF TOPIC: During this interview, after the 3rd time of saying all the corrupt Reps, he was asked about money he received from Jack in the amount of $66,000. He said that many Reps and Dems have paid back all the money they got in this scandal claiming they didn't know it was from him. Reid said he was not going to return any of it. He never met the man. Never dealt with him or any of the organizations. He refused to acknowledge that he received the $66,000 that was paid to him and was not going to return anything.

    Basically everything he was questioned about had a theme to it.....look at so-and-so they are bad because of that, but I didn't do anything so I am not accountable for anything.

    Believe me, I am just sharing exactly how it went.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It seems that this was not a big secret for those in the know, on several sides of the fence, but a big secret that was not available to the public...hence the terrorists they were trying flush out.
    Right. Which is why this needs to be investigated and prosecuted as a national security breach no different that someone actually working on behalf of Al Qaeda. This is a whole different league than the Plame/Wilson thing.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Not sure, only caught the last half of the interview, but I just found it interesting that the likes of him had full knowledge of this happening and he does not hold himself accountable in the least.
    It's part of the "I voted for the war, before I voted against it" mentality.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #17  
    The NYT reported that wiretapping was approved on "overseas calls;" Bush said that he approved it for those with "ties to terrorist organizations." Has anyone reported on what the official wiretap approval order says?

    I'd have a lot less problems with Bush's more narrow approval. Otherwise, NSA could have potentially wiretapped me during conversations with my research colleagues in England. That I would not be keen on.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by pbryon
    The NYT reported that wiretapping was approved on "overseas calls;" Bush said that he approved it for those with "ties to terrorist organizations." Has anyone reported on what the official wiretap approval order says?

    I'd have a lot less problems with Bush's more narrow approval. Otherwise, NSA could have potentially wiretapped me during conversations with my research colleagues in England. That I would not be keen on.

    Do a Google search on "Project Echelon". I think you'll find some interesting reading.
  19. #19  
    The NYT reported that wiretapping was approved on "overseas calls;" Bush said that he approved it for those with "ties to terrorist organizations." Has anyone reported on what the official wiretap approval order says?
    No, thank God - it's CLASSIFIED. Disclosure of the actual order would mean the end of the surveillance.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #20  
    I've got a question for you folks that think this leak/whistleblowing should be investigated as a leak such as the Plame case, and not a whisleblower case. How is this not a whistleblower case? The president as far as I can tell has commited a crime, somewhere along the lines of 12 sources for information have been cited. Why should this be investigated and how did it harm our National Security. Answers to these questions and these question alone would be of help to me, to help me understand where you folks are coming from. Also if you could please cite the legal grounding Bush has to authorize these wiretaps.
    Last edited by NRG; 12/19/2005 at 01:59 PM.
Page 1 of 28 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions