Give Michelle Malkin props for revealing the real story of the NYT spy leak case. Read her latest here.
Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak
By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program.
...White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Justice undertook the action on its own, and the president was informed of it on Friday.
"The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaida's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications," Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was spending the holidays
Gotta love it. When we (that means the United States) succeed in Iraq and continue to quell terrorist attacks on the United States, will they be "President Bush's" success?
The New York Times' defense in the Valerie Plame issue opened this can of worms.
I wonder, will this investigation also cover the 'outing' of the 'secret' prisons containing Al Qaeda types? Watch out Washington Post. Send your love notes to the Times.
If it's discovered that this story gave Al Qaeda and other terror cells information they didn't have already and helps them pull off another attack, can we call it the New York Times' Terror Attack?
52 comments:
Intriguing that this investigation comes one year after the White House becomes aware of the NY Times story and asks them to sit on the story for national security reasons? Is this really about finding the leaker or retribution for the White House being publically embarassed?
In reply to anonymous:
Well, I see it as part of a trend: the White House seems consistently more intersted in enhancing its own power rather than really protecting the nation. Recently, the 9/11 Commission gave this administration failing grades on matters of upgrading security, more than four years after the original 9/11 attack. And that 9/11 Commission had to be formed over administration objections. Sadly, I think you are right: this administration is more interested in public and political embarassment than real national security.
It sounds to me like the distraction (a la Karl Rove) has begun! The conservatives wish to make the source of the leak the issue rather than the admitted crimes and law breaking of the President.
The hypocrisy is unreal. The WHITE HOUSE can “out” a CIA agent and the agencies cover company, resist the investigation as trivial, but when one of their secret programs gets “outed” they scream bloody murder and immediately move to “find the leaker.”
President Bush’s announcement Friday, that the Justice Department would begin an investigation into the leak that brought forth his probably illegal domestic spying project, is clearly political and meant to insulate the White House and intelligence agencies from further public scrutiny by saying they are under a criminal prosecution.
It will be up to Congress to undertake a serious investigation, issuing its own subpoenas, and calling the major participants to testify.
For as up in arms as the left was over Valerie Plame, I'm appalled that there is no outrage that someone is leaking and printing sensitive defense measures for our enemies to read openly.
leaking secret material to the press is not an incidence of "whistleblowing," it's treason to inform the enemy of our plans.
Imagine what it would have been like to "leak" the date and time of D-Day to Germany? Imagine of our own press leaked the news that we had broken Japan's code early in the war?
Leaks as this may result in thousands more innocent deaths and a much longer fight and yet, all the left sees is a Bush scandal, not that our enemies have been informed of how to avoid detection.
Next terrorist attack on American soil, I hope to see the left prudly stand up with puffed out chests admiring their handiwork.
What is the difference between a whisleblower and a leaker? If something illegal is going on, the outcome will be the same except that the leaker tries to remain incognito. The justice department's investigation seems to be more towards plugging the leaks which might be embarassing rather than of national security concern. I hope it will not end up being a comedy of errors where one commits one error to cover up the other. Anyway, good luck.
Anonymous, maybe that question would best be answered by the Clintons or every woman who accused him that was audited by the IRS shortly after.
In this case, the "leak" was of Secret National Security matters that were directly tied to possible terror attacks inside the U.S.
Don't be too surprised to see this matter also fall by the wayside as the left once again fails to manufacture a scandal where one doesn't exist. Even former Clinton Administration people have come forward saying there was nothing illegal in this.
In the meantime, the leaker and the New York Times has tipped off the enemy, Al Qaeda, as to how we go about frustrating their plans.
The hatred of Bush and Republicans is out of hand when some members of a major political party start rooting for our enemies that are hellbent on killing us.
There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship.
The crux of the liberal position regarding the wire taps isn't the fact that they were done; rather that they were done without the appropriate warrants. No liberal friend of mine believes a campaign against terrorism can be successful without aggressive intelligence gathering but all within the framework of the Constitution and appropriate FISA court.
Conservatives like Lew want to make this an argument that "we are for wiretapping, libs aren't" but like all other issues with opposing views, conservatives are incapable of discussing the differences of opinion without gross distortion of them.
Has it occurred to you that by divulging the existence of the spy program that it would tip off al qaeda? No, I didn't think so. Why am I not surprised when your first reflex is to assume this program has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with gaining power. Well, I guess we all know where you're coming from. For your ilk it's all about power. Doesn't national security ever occur to you people? And Valerie Plame? She had already been outed. The CIA desk jockey whose job was analyzing WMD intelligence was already known to many journalists inside the beltway. Ask Andrea Mitchell. EVERYbody knew she was CIA and it was no big deal because SHE was no big deal. Why do some of those cats in the CIA want to hurt Bush? Anybody wonder about THAT?
Anonymous, sorry, but you are wrong. Not about my being Conservative, but that I wish to brand all Liberals. Okay, maybe just the majority of you that wish to see this war on terror fail. ;)
Seriously, if you researched more than headlines and left wing talking points, you may discover that this practice of warrantless wiretaps (not really a wiretap, per se, since it was eavesdropping of electronic communications) is a practice both allowable and performed by administrations of both parties. Sections of FISA even state it may be an allowable practice, as well.
Michael Scheuer, who headed up the CIA's Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999 has come forward stating that Clinton gave them "Carte Blanche" to gather intelligence in whatever manner they could.
If you wish to actually read the FISA law authorizing such actions, here is a link to the law for you:
Cornell Law
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. Any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.
The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. Until recently, these were developing and growing in the twilight world of secrecy. With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law--I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it."
Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. They did so once before, when Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," posed a similar threat to the Constitution. The only possible answer is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached.
As the investigation unfolds, though, it'd be wise to remember one thing. Though Bush has called the leak of details of the NSA program "shameful," this leak was morally and ethically quite different from the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. In that case, someone in the Bush Administration was talking to reporters about Plame and her husband Joe Wilson in an effort to damage them; it was a scurrilous act, and the journalists who dealt with those officials weren't very easy to defend.
The eavesdropping leak, though, was just the opposite: The leakers here were disclosing something of vital interest to Americans. The journalists here were trying to get that story to the public. The real story here doesn't have to do with the press, or with the whistleblowers -- the real story is the Bush plan to wiretap Americans without legal oversight. As we go down the rabbit hole of another leak investigation, let's keep that in mind.
It is a very sad and troubling day for America when the highest officials in our land can break the law, then then turn around and punish those who would reveal their crime.
I blogged about this at http://mymountain.blogspot.com/2005/12/punishing-those-who-report-crimes.html
Sorry, Scott, but no one has yet shown the administration has broken the law. Even a Clinton former Deputy Attorney General has stated laws were not broken.
Still, why isn't the left as adamant at "frog-marching" leakers of this information as they were about Valerie Plame, who was already well known throughout D.C. as a CIA employee?
I suppose the reason could be that the outing of Plame was illegal in itself, with no possible beneficial consequences. However the leaking of Snoopgate, although delayed, pointed out consitutional violations, whistleblowing about wrongdoing, something the citizenry needs to know and address. Far from being a partisan matter. the hearings will be initiated, led and controlled by a Republican Congress.
I'm all for Congressional Hearings on this with full release of whatever is found out.
But, along with that, I also demand a full and unedited release of the Barrett Report.
Otherwise, if any went and read the actual FISA law, warrantless eavesdroppings are totally legal under certain circumstances.
Now, if the Bush administration broke any laws by this and merit prosecution, then prosecutions must also be against persons within the last 4 administrations. Sorry, but Reagan is dead, so you may have to convict him posthumously.
In the end, I believe you will see much whining and bellyaching from the Democratic Leadership and many speeches blasting the administration, but it will be found that Bush not only acted legally, but with proper prudence to protect the country.
Now, the main question must be, since Al Qaeda has been tipped off how we gather intelligence about them, how do we stop the next attack? Maybe another Congressional investigation?
We can always hope that Al Qaeda will respond the way Bush did to the August 1, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, and do nothing.
I am heartened, though cautiously so, that several Republican lawmakers are asserting the power of the legislative branch as a check and balance on the Bush Administration. Kudos to Republican Sens. Lugar, Specter, Graham, Collins, McCain, et. al., who have had the guts to take the high ground that Bush, Cheney, and Co. have surrendered — for all the world to see.
I hope the recent willingness of Republican members of Congress to stand up to the bullying of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft/Gonzalez signals a swift resurgence of moderate governance in our nation. Nothing would better serve the U.S. in the long run than a new, broad-based movement back to the political center. There lies the rule of law, and there lies any hope for the bipartisan cooperation that will be necessary to shepherd America’s strength to truly defeat terrorism in our world.
The 5 RINOs you list are playing to the wrong crowd. Fence straddlers, from either party, end up losing.
But, since you are concerned over bullying from the Executive Branch, have you contacted your Representaives and Senators to demand the Democrats stop trying to bury the Barrett Report and to release it in full and fast?
Not all GOPers are stupid enough to be cult-worshipping Bush-moonies. Many Republicans on Capitol hill will at the very least distance themselves from Mr. Bush. Some will religiously support their monarch, but most will advocate hearings or a wait and see attitude to cover their political behinds. Bush will not have the lock-step GOP support he would have had before he publicly admitted "he" granted himself "sole" discretion in determing when an American citizen's communcations should be secretly monitored despite Constitutional protection.
The saddest part in reading many of the replies here is that so many seem to feel Congress sets Presidential Powers.
Even sadder that so many don't realize that what Bush has done was not only legal, but necessary to prevent another terror attack, possibly against the very people that verbally attack him every day.
It's a canard to state that Bush was spying on "American Citizens," as if the targets were indiscriminate and your cell phone calls to Grandma were eavesdropped on. It was only people that had contacts with known Al Qaeda operatives. But, now that RINO MCCain has gotten his "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights" pushed through, you all may stand proud and puff out your chests after the next terror attack, possibly right here in the Northwest.
How many terror attacks will it take before you people wake up and see that we are at war with an enemy that basically declared war on us nearly 30 years ago?
If you want to live in a country where the chief executive has unlimited powers, I would suggest you move -- perhaps to Russia or Nigeria. However, I live in the United States of America and we are governed by our Constitution which protects us from our government. George Bush has stepped over the boundary which cannot be breached; he must be held accountable.
Congressional hearings will reveal this. I pity those that would cowardly give up their freedom for so-called security.
George Bush has stepped over the boundary which cannot be breached; he must be held accountable.
Please cite relevant law.
I pity those that would cowardly give up their freedom for so-called security.
Also, please cite what freedoms you have lost due to this Al Qaeda eavesdropping program or even the Patriot Act. Not possible future losses, but actual.
Bear in mind, terrorists that come into our country have the same freedoms you do. Would you propose they be allowed free access any and everywhere? If not, please state your preferred method of detection or securing the public.
It is settled law that the Executive may not engage in wiretapping or other forms of electronic surveillance of the contents of private communications without probable cause and a warrant. This is the unambiguous and long-standing understanding of the Fourth Amendment. The most relevant precedent is United States v. United States District Court (Keith). Decided in 1972 The court found:
• The President has a fundamental responsibility and power “to protect our Government against those who would subvert or overthrow it by unlawful means. . . . In the discharge of this duty, the President . . . may find it necessary to employ electronic surveillance to obtain intelligence information on the plans of those who plot unlawful acts against the Government.”
• But “the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards
It’s useless Loyalingrate. Those who believe they are above the law do not have to obey the rule of law. Why should the Congress spend time discussing the extension of the Patriot Act when it is not necessary. The President can do whatever he wants to do. No amount of legal authority, statutory, constitutional or otherwise will convince those who worship Bush. I am particularly surprised by the so-called conservative attitude on this, having lived through several of their law and order campaigns.
Threlfeld. Why are you surprised by the conservative attitude on being above the law. Don’t you remember Watergate and Iran Contra. Now Snoopgate. This is their stock in trade.
Loyalingrate: The most relevant precedent is United States v. United States District Court (Keith).
It’s too bad that whatever site you gleaned that from didn’t dig further. William Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, stated in a letter to several Congressmen, “Under Article 2 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.” He also stated, “Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("The President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.").
We also have John Schmidt, former Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General who said, “In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision (the case you cited) holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.”
Schmidt also said, “In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."”
Under President Clinton, Deputy Attorney Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Schmidt ended his article by saying, “I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.”
In Katz v. United States (1967) Justice Byron White said Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable."
To Moderatelew, of you really wish to speak of those who place themselves above the law, maybe you should research Whitewater, Cattlegate, Helicoptergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Lincoln Bedroomgate, Buddhist Templegate, Chinagate, and IRS Tax auditgate, which remains the only Special Investigation Report to be blocked from Full and Complete Public Release, by Democrats.
It appears that besides massively violating the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure, this illegal spying may have put the U.S. at risk by undermining the prosecution of possible terror suspects.
By illegally snooping on people's email and phone conversations, without first making a showing to a judge of some probable cause for the monitoring, the administration has opened the door for defense attorneys to seek new trials for their clients based upon a claim of improperly obtained evidence. Other cases that have yet to be brought to trial may end up being thrown out on the same grounds.
The infection of these cases by the NSA spying scandal raises the spying to a new level. Bush, by violating the rules on domestic surveillance by the NSA, has compromised national security. This scandal effectively prevents the prosecution of people, some of whom may actually be culpable as terrorists. So much for the war on terror.
ml, if you actually looked up relevant case law, you would find that the courts have consistently upheld the need for warrantless electronic surveillance when actual National Security is at stake. You do remember 9-11, don't you?
One big mistake Bush hater’s keep grasping at is the erroneous belief that the eavesdroppings were just random against any citizen. They were not. They were made against people who had some connection to Al Qaeda.
The appeasers would like to make the administration lose cases and even the War on Terror, just to shake things up against Bush and the Right.
Talk about people who place their own heads in a guillotine and pull the rope themselves.
Salivate away hoping we lose these battles. In the end, truth will win out or you will find even more Al Qaeda wandering our streets, possibly in your own neighborhood.
"L’état, c’est moi." Napoleon
Let’s get back on topic: The Leak. This administration has shown itself to be willing to trample on the civil liberties of everyone, whether American or not, in its sophomoric pursuit of terrorists however defined. Members of the CIA, NSA, Congress and other Washington insiders are now talking (leaking) because they have had enough and will not be intimidated and bought off any more. It is going to be very difficult to prosecute leaker(s) that speak the truth, a truth that the Bush administration fears.
Is there anyone out there except Lew that thinks the leak was wrong and that our rights are not being trampled upon?
I'll ask again, please list every right you have lost due to this. Not perceived, but actual. Not what you overheard someone say someone else lost, but what you yourself lost.
I keep hearing from the left how rights are being trampled on, yet I have yet to hear anyone list what rights they have lost.
Is there anyone out there except Lew that thinks the leak was wrong and that our rights are not being trampled upon? I guess the above answers this question.
Lew, you are right. If a cop beats a confession out of someone in New York City, my rights are not infringed. If Japanese Americans are interred during WWII, my rights are not infringed. Your logic is impeccable.
I find it simply mindboggling on how Bush gets away with this stuff! Folks like Lew seem to approve of this breach of trust. If this stands, then we should start a campaign to have the 2nd Amendment challenged. Why not? We could even make a more persuasive argument to make it happen, then when challenged say "Well, Bush ignored the 4th amendment and we were fine with that!" Maybe then, it will finally sink in.
I agree Fizziwigg that the problem is not just the Constitution, but also trust. Most Americans simply do not value their freedoms unless the freedoms are threatened on a personal level. [The definition of a liberal is a conservative who's been indicted.] The Dems should insist on a bipartisan review of the wiretapping program and make Bush prove he's only snooping on legitimate anti-terrorism targets. He'll refuse and they can make it a real issue.
fizzi, your illogic is unbelievable!
Where did Bush have people grabbed off a street and beaten? Sorry to report, but he wasn't even born yet when the Democratic Administration of Roosevelt interred the Japanese in WW2.
You still can't put your hatred aside long enough to see that this policy was started by a Democrat, Carter and has been used for National Security ever since, even by Clinton.
In fact, if anyone may be guilty of what you infer, it would be Clinton. But since the Democrats are keeping the Barrett Report from being made public, unlike every other Special Investigation Report for either Party, we probably will never know to exactly what extent they violated their office.
Try reading actual laws and cases instead of Bush hate sites. You may become educated, in spite of yourself!
Here we go again. Anybody who criticizes Bush hates him.
I don't hate George Bush but I cannot abide the damage he has done to the country.
I have nothing against Bush as a person,but his policies drive me to distraction.
I'm sure George W. Bush would be fun to watch football games with, but he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is out of his element when running the country.
While George W. Bush sure has a friendly smile, he led our nation to war under false pretenses.
I wish George W. Bush happiness as a person, but the fact remains that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead as a consequence of his impatience with diplomacy.
While I can appreciate the joy of spontaneity,the Bush administration's lack of a plan for post-war Iraq had dire consequences.
George W. Bush can do whatever he wants to with his life -- bully for him -- but I don’t like the way he’s ignored the Constitutional freedoms of others.
Get it? George W. Bush as a person is beside the point. You don't have to hate someone to harbor deep opposition to the course of his behavior.
Fizzi, your own hatred betrays you. You claim people are losing freedoms all over, but won't list any you lost.
You claim Bush can't properly run the country, but I doubt you spoke out against the previous administration that ignored the lead up to 9-11 and turned down the enemies leader three times.
You whine about him damaging the coutnry, but apparently you can't see we have the strongest economy in years with the lowest unemployment in a long time, after the worst terrorist attack in history.
You cry about Bush's lack of a "post war plan" for Iraq. But, you and others do everything in your power to ensure we lose that war. Incidentally, what was Clinton's "post war plan" for Kosovo?
Disagreeing with Clinton brought cries of a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy," and undermining a President. Every woman who spoke about his sexual abuse of them was audited by IRS right afterwards. I haven't heard of Bush using the IRS to go after citizens that disagree with him.
Little do you know, but even us Conservative disagree with him too. Some of us even agreed with some of what the Clinton administration did, although maybe not the manner he did it. (Elian Gonzalez).
There have been cries all over of Bush reinstating a Military Draft. But, the only ones to propose a Military Draft were two Democrats.
Bush needs to do better on border control and he needs to stay in touch with the public about Iraq, I feel. He is not an eloquent speaker and stumbles too much. But his actions show he does have a good head for leading, even though none of the good he does ever gets reported.
It isn't disagreeing with or questioning Bush that makes one a hater of him. It's to constant haranging over every little thing that happens and trying to tie the incident to him, even down to the latest mine disaster (by the New York Times).
It's long past time for the left to get over that Bush did inf act win the election in 2000, even without the Supreme Court stepping in. Incidentally, it wasn't Bush who inititated court involvement in the Florida election. It was the Gore campaign and they failed then to pull off the steal like they recently did here in Washington.
All the cries of Impeachment are most laughable. If ya'll succeed, then you get Cheney. Last I heard, he's more hated than Bush.
LOL, go for it!
Lew, I wouldn't bring up 911 if I were you. The dems haven’t forgotten what caused 9/11. Dems under Clinton were monitoring Al Queda closely enough to come within hours of killing Bin Laden. Clinton and his security people warned Bush that Al Queda was the biggest threat.
Bush pretty much shut down surveillance of Al Queda and focused on Iraq BEFORE 9/11.
THAT'S what allowed 9/11 to happen.
It wasn't lack of surveillance because of dems. It was lack of surveillance IN SPITE OF dems, the discontinuance of surveillance that WAS occurring under Clinton's watch.
Fizziwigg, why is Lew ignoring the Bush legacy?
1. Tax cuts leading to massive, unprecedented deficits
2. Preemptive wars against non-aggressive nations
3. Sanctioning of torture
4. De-regulation of environment protections
5. Weakening of the separation of church and state
6. Exempting the gun industry from lawsuits
7. Weakening of individual privacy protections
8. Rejection of international organizations - U.N., World Court, etc.
9. Increased hatred of the U.S.A. in Islamic countries
10. Increase in terrorist attacks since 9/11
11. Neglect of poverty in the U.S.A. and abroad
12. Shifting the tax burden from wealthy corporations and individuals to wage earners
13. Reducing (hoping to abolish) estate taxes thus creating "a permanent aristocracy" in America
14. Furthering anti-intellectualism - a president who admittedly does not read and is embarrassingly inarticulate
15. Increased military spending; hostility to spending for social services
16. Increased number of Americans without health care
17. Rejection of minimum wage increases - five consecutive years
18. Applying the principle of awarding lucrative contracts to crony companies without competitive bidding
19. Attempts to privatize Social Security
20. Four consecutive years of increases in the percentage of Americans living in poverty
Now, Now, Moderatelew, you are being hateful.
If yout wo could post something besides the normal leftwing talking points, you might make sense.
Clinton did everything he could to avoid dealing with terrorists. The so called warnings and prior notice the left whines about in reality amounted to not very much.
But, since you are inclined to think the previous administration was perfect, I assume you also support full disclosure of the Barrett Report?
If Bill Clinton were still president and it was he who had circumvented the FISA court in the name of "national secruity," would you be defending his actions? I hope you would say, "yes" in the name of consistency, but I would imagine you'd be screaming "bloody murder." After all, how could you trust that a liar like Clinton would not be easedropping on whomever he pleased: republicans, political enemies, foreign dignitaries and leaders, etc.!
But the FACTS are that Bushco has routinely and consistently lied and used any number of dirty tricks in order to "get their way," whether by legal or illegal means and methods.
The same Republicans who cried long and loud about "Clinton's lies" as justification for his impeachment defend Bush's more egregious lies - lies that have led to the deaths of thousands - lies that have undermined our civil liberties - lies that have cost us dearly relative to our position and standing in the world. Could you PLEASE be consistent for a change and act as outraged by Bush's lies as you were about Clinton's lies?!
Since the Bush administration knew that the NY Times had this story ONE YEAR AGO, then why are they just now launching an investigation into who leaked this classified information one year later? Leaking classified information is against the law, yet the Bush administration knew a year ago that this crime had been committed...and yet, they did nothing to investigate this crime they knew about a year ago. Why is that?
Methinks, perhaps, that the administration knew a year ago that what they were doing was illegal...and rather than launch an investigation into who leaked this classified information and thus shine light on their own illegal activity, they chose instead to pretend none of it existed.
Bush is going down on this one. He knows it. Cheney knows it. Rove knows it. They all know it.
They're going to do everything in their power to prevent the Dems from gaining control of any branch of government, because they know the only way they will be protected from being held accountable for anything they do, illegal or otherwise, is to maintain control of all of government and to continue having their lap dogs beckon at their feet.
If Bill Clinton were still president and it was he who had circumvented the FISA court in the name of "national secruity," would you be defending his actions? I hope you would say, "yes" in the name of consistency, but I would imagine you'd be screaming "bloody murder."
Then you'd guess wrong. On the rare occassion that Clinton did stand tough to Saddam, I did indeed support him, althjough I don't think he went far enough. When he wanted to reunite Elian Gonzalez to his custodial father in Cuba, I supported that too. I did not support the Storm Trooper approach to getting him into custody, though, that was over the top.
What you leftwingers can't fathom is that people like me are Conservatives first and Republicans second, and only so long as they support Conservative ideals.
Incidentally, Clinton did indeed engage in the same warrantless eavesdroppings during his administration, especially after the Oklahoma City Bombing. Hopefully, also after the first WTC bombing as well. Check out the Echelon Program, sometime.
Bush is going down on this one. He knows it. Cheney knows it. Rove knows it. They all know it.
The looney left has been engaging in this wishful hoping since 2000. Keep thinking it, you're only fooling yourselves.
Yet another RINO speaks out (1/8/05
STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?
REPUBLICAN SENATOR BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we're going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.
I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.
I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?
REPUBLICAN SENATOR BROWNBACK: It didn't, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.
Post a Comment