Bush surveillance program was massive, report says

smithinjapan: "'no he hasn't"

Yes he has. And so have you.

sarge said:

of any significance

Good ole sarge and his qualifiers. He hates using them but if you push him enough, out they come.

CORRECTION: sorry, sarge, I said 'give it a rest', which you cut and pasted TWICE (not once); I didn't say 'drop it', though you really should while you're down.

sarge: "Give it a rest, smithinjapan. Even the Democrats admit there hasn't been a terrorist attack of any significance since 9/11."

I notice you had to backtrack and add 'of any significance' to your cut 'n pastes.

"Al Qaida's attack on the U.S. on 9/11 was massive."

And happened on bush and cheney's watch -- largest terrorist attack in US history. ZING! Plenty happened since on his watch, as has been pointed out and even you can admit (you try to twist it by talking about 'significance', but you've at least stepped up by admitting they have happened), but that was the biggest by far. Still succeeded in recruiting more terrorists than existed previously, so maybe bush and co. deserve TWO medals (biggest terrorist attack and most terrorists recruited) along with the 'taking away of freedoms while still being supported by fools' awards.

"Give it up DenDon. You've lost this one."

'no he hasn't'. Did you like my sarge-esque retort?

Drop it sarge (as I said and you copied and pasted), arguments against the facts coming up DAILY against your former president and (amazingly) still hero just look plain old silly, young man.

"Bush surveillance program was massive"

Al Qaida's attack on the U.S. on 9/11 was massive.

smithinjapan - Give it a rest, smithinjapan. Even the Democrats admit there hasn't been a terrorist attack of any significance since 9/11.

sarge: "DenDon? Even the Democrats admit there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11."

Just because you can't compare the MASSIVE list of terrorist acts to the US history's most horrible terrorist attack, which happened on bush's watch (and some of you can't admit even THAT, which is humourous to watch), does not mean they were not acts of terrorism, particularly because you're government under the past president would simply arrest people without crime and/or charges on the grounds of suspecting terrorist activities.

Give it a rest sarge. You really have lost this one more than you usually lost arguments on here.

Score one for sailwind. Although I suspect he had the information from the very beginning and was just baiting and waiting for the challenge. Although it does not change the fact that Obama is not just following Bush's policy because he did not fill up Gitmo and has not receded in his desire to empty the prison. He tried months ago as most people know to get the funding through Congress to do so. sailwind used Gitmo as an example of Obama following Bush policy. No that would be Congress. The simple fact that Obama attempted to get legislation to fund the closing of Gitmo is a complete reversal of Bush's policy. Bush never would have sought funding to close Gitmo, now would he? So sailwind's example of Gitmo falls flat on it's ass in spite of Obama's broken campaign promise.

I knew there would be no response on the fact that America is not taking responsibility for capturing these guys. They are being held in a country that does not even want us on their soil. Yes indeed, I include Democrats. Congressional members lack the fortitude to own up to America's responsibility of either housing prisoners where they were captured or on their own soil. I don't give a crap who agrees with me. I believe America obviated their responsibility, in the world, by dumping prisoners in a county's back yard with whom they were estranged. It disgusted me to see the Congressmen recoil even though I did agree that a prison holding an actual terrorist or operative, whatever you want to call some of them, could be a target for terrorists.

So again sailwind congrats on your victory of citing a reference of an Obama campaign promise. It had absolutely nothing to do with proving that Obama is following Bush's policies and even less to do with the article.

I bet the terrorists out there are reading this with the greatest of glee. "Hey Ahmed, it's only a matter of time now before the US stops 'torturing' and 'surveilling' us. Got those bombs ready?"

sailwind, Oh I thought you were going to post a link to where you claim Obama said he would close Gitmo in 100 days. There are a whole lot of references to where he said he would close it in one year.

I guess you were have another "sailwind moment."

A sailwind moment for goodDonkey

During our exclusive interview on "This Week" I asked President-elect Barack Obama if he thought he could make good on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay within his first 100 days.

"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," Obama told me during the interview, his first since arriving back in Washington, D.C. as president-elect.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/obama-closing-g.html

I guess I am arguing between the lines, that is fine with me. I am not going to say that any response to 9/11 would have been unjustified. I will not say that Bush was wholly ineffective. That is certainly not the point. "It is ok if it saves a single American life" is great for Steven Seagal(?) movies, but what POTUS ever thought that? Creating a climate of perpetual fear and abusing authority are not what America is about. It is great if you are the abuser, I guess, but look what has happened. Bush created a nation of sheeple.

The Manhattan PET bottle incident above is a perfect example. People do not even consider first that it might be a prank or a kook. They look to government to do something to save them. What does an ORANGE ALERT even mean? I have never met anyone who knows, but the ALERT status is announced on PA systems at all international airports. I guess it is supposed to make people feel better about having armed soldiers walking around while passengers stand shoeless in a queue. What other purpose can it serve?

I consider myself a patriot, as Sarge does. Obviously, our opinions differ. Does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave? We are much closer to NO than to YES because of Bush administration policies. Terrorist Schmerorist. Bush prevented terrorist attacks? America could have absorbed two or three 9/11 attacks per year and paid for them with revenues from Disneyworld. Instead Bush and crew created an armed camp filled with frightened people who are happy to be ignorant of where they came from and where they are going.

Sarge. You are old enough to remember how it used to be. Tell me honestly that Osama Bin Laden did this to change America. He and his little group did all this. Is it true? No. You know it was someone else. As evil as OBL might be, he did not control the mechanisms of government. By saying that preventing attacks is the only meaningful goal you are subsuming that OBL is more dangerous than a US government that is beyond control. And if you DO think that OBL and his little team justified the unprecedented construction of a police state in the US, then you are really saying that Reagan's shining castle on the hill and Bush Sr.'s million points of light and Martin Luther King's dream and Lincoln's country for the people must have never amounted to much anyway.

God help me, I cannot let go of that America. My children should know that America.

Yeah. Here you go. Let's cherry pick here.

"New York City A small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on. No injuries or deaths were reported in the blast that brings fears of terrorism."

Do you read the news or just cut and paste headlines? This was a 17 year old kid who made a PET bottle bomb with some fireworks and a 350 ml plastic bottle. He confessed. Big deal. No injuries. Some broken glass. If it had not been Manhattan, it would not even have made news. Tell me again how this is equivalent to the Civil War and WWII and demands an unprecedented nationwide intrusive anti-terror administration with a budget of billions of dollars. The dork was imitating Fight Club. I really like your "brings fear of terrorism." Kind of makes my point for me. What surprised me much more was reading that this kid has his own apartment in Manhattan! Wow. That is the real news here. 17 year olds making fireworks a week after July 4 is no reason to call out the troops, unless your name is GoodDonkey.

Anthrax. Sheesh. Good thing we installed all of those expensive mail checking devices.

You know, mandatory trigger locks and gun registration would have accomplished more than setting up a police state, don't you think? But whose interests would that have served? If Rush Limbaugh told people to stop killing doctors, it would stop tomorrow, but he and Bill O'really to go on the air and ENCOURAGE them. Read my post above about how a certain historical figure used chaos to gain and hold power. You have a nice little list there GoodDonkey, but you need a little more imagination to see the big picture.

And Sarge. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That is tired. Let me try a different tack. Let's just say that Bush did something to deter later attacks. Would you agree that doing so much was overkill? Anyone could agree not to pillory the Bush administration for doing SOMETHING if you could agree that things really did get way out of hand. My whole point is that some Manhattan real estate and 3000 lives was not a sufficient justification for what ensued.

crimes? not terrorist attacks? haha ok...

what is the minimum number of deaths before you define it a terrorist attack sarge? need bush to tell you?

DenDon? Even the Democrats admit there have been no terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11.

DenDon? What, that lame list of crimes by gD? Give me a break.

sarge said:

How many terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 again?

United States: Anthrax attacks on the offices the United States Congress and New York State Government offices, and on employees of television networks and tabloids.

United States, May: Luke Helder injures 6 by placing pipebombs in mailboxes in the Midwest. Motivation to protest government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana and promotion of astral projection

United States, July 4: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

United States, October: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo conduct the Beltway Sniper Attacks, killing ten people in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area from October 2 until they are arrested on October 24.

United States, October 1: Joel Henry Hinrichs III detonated a bomb near the packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma killing himself in the process.

United States: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine.

United States: An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.

A teenage gunman kills five bystanders and wounds four more in a popular shopping center before being shot dead by police in the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah.

A pair of improvised explosive devices are thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder and detonated by fuses, causing very minor damage. Police investigate the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.[111]

Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, Jim David Adkisson kills 2 people and injures 7 in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Dalton, Georgia An explosion at a personal injury law firm in downtown Dalton, Ga., injured four people, including at least one lawyer, and resulted in the death of the apparent bomber in what a federal law enforcement spokesman described as a suicide attack.

Woodburn, Oregon. Woodburn police Capt. Tom Tennant, and Oregon State Police bomb technician Bill Hakim were killed, and Woodburn Police Chief Scott Russell was critically injured after a bomb exploded at the West Coast Bank Branch in Woodburn. Customer Service Manager Laurie Ann Perkett was taken, and later released from the hospital after being hit by shrapnel. The explosion happened just before 5:30 p.m. while Hakim and Tennant were trying to open the bomb, which Hakim felt confident was not a bomb. Officers were on the scene investigating a bomb threat called in to the bank at 5:00 p.m., when the explosion occurred. There had been an earlier bomb threat at a Wells Fargo branch at 10:19 a.m. Joshua Turnidge and his father, Bruce Turnidge were charged with the murders.

West Memphis, Arkansas, United States. Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast.

Victorville, California, United States. An improvised explosive device went off inside a federal prison in California during a search Saturday, according to federal authorities. No one was injured, the authorities told CNN. The incident happened in the recreation area of the Victorville Federal Penitentiary. Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Traci Billingsley said the device was found by a staff member during a “routine search of inmate property”. She said it “detonated upon discovery.”

New York City A small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on. No injuries or deaths were reported in the blast that brings fears of terrorism.

Little Rock, Arkansas Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.

Washington D.C. 88-year-old white supremecist fires shots in the Holocaust Memorial building. Kills guard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofterroristincidents,2009

And that doesn't include the recent slaying of the doctor by the nut bag in Kansas.

AGAIN!

(credit to taka313)

sailwind, Oh I thought you were going to post a link to where you claim Obama said he would close Gitmo in 100 days. There are a whole lot of references to where he said he would close it in one year.

I guess you were have another "sailwind moment."

How many terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 again?

goodDonkey, Klein2.

I think you who both hold Obama administartion to the same standard that your holding the Bush adminstration, you might have a case.

GITMO is still open.

Sailwind... Well, Lincoln was a Republican too. Is that what you are getting at?

I do not see equivalence here as you do. Lincoln was faced with the dissolution of the entire country. He was looking at more people dying in a day than have died in the last 20 years in Iraq. Lincoln never created an intrusive structure, as the Bush administration has. And yes you are correct about FDR. I cannot defend that even to say "well, it was only Japanese Americans". But FDR did not actively spy on well, all Americans. Nobody was checking papers at train stations. Kids pulling high school pranks were not being arrested on felony charges of terrorism. Grandmothers were not getting frisked by uniformed government workers.

And what does your comparison show exactly? Bush set America back 60 years? Bush set America back 120 years? What is really your point? Bad times, sure. Bad decisions, yeah. My point simply is that I don't know how 9/11 justified all this. War? You mean Bush wars against two little nations of brown people on the other side of the world are comparable to the Civil War or WWII? Bush Sr. did not take special intrusive measures during the Gulf War. Why not reinforce pilot doors instead of creating the TSA? The Patriot Act. Homeland Security. Those are unprecedented. Why didn't Truman do what Bush did? Why didn't LBJ? Why not Kennedy or Nixon? They were all hawkish wartime presidents who did not resort to changing the NSA mandate. Nixon put a toe over a line that Bush and crew hurdled after a running start.

As you are, I am waiting for a rollback. I want to see it accelerated. Good to see that we agree on this, Sailwind. Tell me what you would like to see next. Guantanamo is a good, but abortive start. This stupid ORANGE ALERT system seems to be on its way out. AFAIK, the wholesale phone wiretapping has stopped, but as the article above shows, the FBI is still licking its chops.

There is a lot of work to do, but the smell of things is a whole lot better now. I wonder what Walter Cronkite would say. He knew all of these presidents and he was paying attention. I would value his take on this whole thing.

sailwind said:

This administration is the only one with the power to roll anything back. So far they aren't in real hurry about that. I have to conclude since you aren't up in arms in trying to get Obama and the Democrats to suspend or roll back Bush era programs then your view is more partisan then objective in your real opinion on this.

Saying "they aren't in a hurry about that" is a false premise. Obama would like to pull more troops out of Iraq in less time. He is trying to preserve the United States' reputation. He would like all the troops out now. It is so inaccurate to compare someone who never would have placed troops there in the first place to someone who sent the troops there. I expected Obama to do the right thing when I voted for him and try to preserve as much order in Iraq as possible. Obama is also following agreements made by Bush. That is a long held tradition in world politics; it is a sign of integrity and allows other nations to see that we maintain as much continuity as possible between administrations. It has nothing to do with maintaining Bush policies; it has everything to do with trying to respect Iraq after we made a egregious error. It has everything to do with trying to maintain the trust of other nations. It does not get any more disingenuous then holding Obama to a standard when he had no option of turning back the hands of time and never having entered Iraq.

Obama attempted to appropriate funds to relocate the Gitmo prisoners. He was unable to accomplish that task. That is all that needs to be said to reasonable people. I prefer to address them rather then one of the most partisan persons that comments on JT. sailwind said, "the detainees are still being held without charges, because he can't figure out what to do with them either." This is simply not true. He can't go forward with his plans at the moment and that is not the same as not figuring it out. Once again Obama is cleaning up a mess he did not make. He is not following Bush's policy. Bush's policy was to populate the Gitmo prisons. Obama never did that. Bush's policy was to go to war in Iraq. Obama never did that. sailwind likes to take small details and compare them to a huge Bush policy and say they are equal. Most people know better than that.

sailwind said in reference to closing Gitmo:

I believe he said within the first one hundred days if I'm not mistaken.

If you are going to make such bold statements I wish you would back them up with references. I am not saying Obama did not say that; I am saying that many of us will not believe it until you show proof. Many of us have shown you proof of many things.

It is also extremely disingenuous to claim Obama does not have certain policies because he cannot immediately accomplish them. sailwind said, "Obama isn't exactly doing anything much different then Bush did except fine tuning on what that administration had put in place." When Gitmo is closed sailwind will have been wrong now. Obama said he planned to do it in a year's timetable. When Obama pulls troops out of Iraq sailwind will be wrong. Claiming Obama is following Bush's policies is erroneous. Just because it takes time and an enormous effort to accomplish massive undertakings like pulling troops from Iraq or because it is extremely difficult to make America take responsibility for the prisoners they captured and detained does not equate to following Bush policy. It is shameful to keep a prison in a country that does not even want our presence instead of taking responsibility for your actions.

I'll keep it short and sweet just for some real historical perspective.

Klein2

Why did the Bush administration just feel free to run roughshod over due process, habeas corpus, probable cause, privacy, and all those other things that Americans were proud of?

Substitute Bush and insert Lincoln and read your sentence again.

After that substitute Lincoln and insert FDR and read your sentence again.

Both those administrations did far worse, much worse than the Bush administration ever did in curtailing rights. FDR put Japanese nationals in for a lack of a better word concentration camps by force during his administration. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Why????? There was a war going on. The Bush's administration in reaction to the current war we are is tame by comparision.

I'll say it again, so tame that the current administration doesn't see any real need to roll anything back that the Bush started. I would direct my ire at the current administration not the Bush administration if your so upset about what they did.

This administration is the only one with the power to roll anything back. So far they aren't in real hurry about that. I have to conclude since you aren't up in arms in trying to get Obama and the Democrats to suspend or roll back Bush era programs then your view is more partisan then objective in your real opinion on this.

We will never learn from our mistakes if we don't evaluate what we did in the past and determine what was successful and where we failed. I want to learn from any mistakes Bush has made. I don't like the Democratic Congress' repeat of surveillance procedures in legislation they enacted that Bush used and I find reprehensible.

I am far less critical of Bush than I am of Cheney. Even when I am highly critical of Bush it may not be evident that I think he lacks the subversive intent that I have seen in Cheney. I don't recall Bush continuing to claim linkage between al Qaida and Iraq the way Dick did when the facts were known to the contrary. But it sure pleased the conservative base. I found Dick and the base disgusting. Dick because he was a bold faced liar and the base because they chose to remain ignorant.

I don't think we need to shield Bush insofar as not thoroughly looking into what was done and what failed. But I personally would not want to see charges brought up against Bush; even for some unethical behavior that may be uncovered. I feel very differently about Cheney. I have seen ample evidence of deception and violation of the public trust. Part of that hinges on Pannetta not having lied about Cheney directing the CIA to break a law which I have posted that clearly states information must not be withheld. For myself it all boils down to intent. If you have ordered an agency to break the law you should be prosecuted. With great power comes great responsibility.

Sebastian, Godwin is at the door, he wants his thread back.

I recently watched a BBC documentary on the rise of the one who shall remain nameless. Calmly, I should just say I would be very gratified to see the US take a few steps back on the path it was on before the election. I am not going to demonize Bush or call him an idiot. I think it is probable that he did not know what was going on -- Hindenburg. Remember that AH was the vice-Fuhrer after all, before making himself "protector of the nation" -- does that suggest an analogy? Just to prove it was all a mistake, the machinery should be dismantled and the data destroyed. If that does not happen, what will it prove?

Looking at some components of the pattern, one can see that the surveillance program knits the whole thing together. It justifies, supports, or is supported by all the rest.

Create an amorphous fear (terror, WMDs, islam, drugs, crime, immigrants). Strengthen the military (Halliburton, support the troops, hundreds of foreign bases). Court big business (environmental policies, tax cuts). Deride and punish dissent (Fox, Rush, libs, prisons) and social justice (medical care, social programs, ACLU). Control information, transportation, and communications (TSA, surveillance, drug policies, ECHEL*N, RFID, embedded chips, degraded privacy). Create separate services for loyal and disloyal citizens (no fly lists, CLEAR, private jets). Hold to the big lie (9/11 justifies it, I have nothing to hide, ??). Then just lather, rinse, repeat. You can continue as long as people live in fear and believe the big lies. After a while grandmothers will get cavity searches in airports and nobody will bat an eye. After a while, "defense" expenditures will be more important than education, health, and public works put together. People will want it that way because you will TELL them to want it that way.

Were the last eight years determined by necessity? If one believes that, then one must believe that the world would be the same place today if Gore had been elected.

That is enough I guess. The use of surveillance can very drastically affect society in too many ways. The internet is the new Press, the new Assembly... it must remain free.

None of this is shocking. GWB was a would be dictator who showed great contempt for our laws and treaties. He leveraged the fear American had after 911 to set up a police state. And he demonstrated no concern for the constitution or civil rights.

While fighting terror abroad, we lost the fight against tyranny at home. Bush, Cheney and the lot of them should spend some time in jail fo rhtier crimes.

After seeing first hand how a moron like Bush could get so much support from average Americans, it is much easier to comprehend the support of the German people for the rise of the Nazi's all those decades ago.

Sailwind, I am not even talking about GITMO. What a can of worms. Guess who opened that one.

You want to paint me as a perfectionist apparently. I am not really sure who you are talking to, and you aren't either. I am perfectly willing to give anyone a mulligan if I am convinced that the mistakes and intentions are not pointed solidly at destroying American liberties for vaguely defined, then demonstrably spurious reasons. What we are finding out now is that Cheney apparently told people to lie to my elected representatives. No mulligans for that. Lying to the American people and usurping checks and balances shows that you are not even willing to play by the basic rules. American rules.

I wish I could be more eloquent about this.

The breakneck pace at which the last administration set about searching, collecting, inspecting, etc. was justified by what exactly? It produced what great intelligence breakthroughs exactly? What justifies spying on American citizens? That was unthinkable and expressly forbidden in 1949, at the height of the cold war. Why did the Bush administration just feel free to run roughshod over due process, habeas corpus, probable cause, privacy, and all those other things that Americans were proud of? Was OBL EVER more scary to anyone than Stalin or Mao was?

I know it would be more comfortable to just shrug and say it was all justified, but it wasn't. When you get mugged, you can just forget about the wallet and the watch and get on with your life. When your rights have been ignored systematically by your own government with no warning or justification, what do you do? Go on with life and hope it gets better? Is that survival or denial? Or denial for survival? "Show me your papers comrade" is a quaint formality compared to what the Bush surveillance team was up to.

That machine is a McCarthyist's dream. It makes me sick to think about it. Why teach civics classes in school anymore if you leave that machine intact? At what point do you not bother with law school?

The surveillance program is probably still massive. I'm willing to bet we are all on a list somewhere. You don't just turn something that big "off."

The Bushadministration stopped any further attacks on us after 9/11 and extinguished the threat of Saddam and his ambitions to terrorise us. Why can'T the LIberals thank Bush instead of mock, talk about lack of patriotism.

Why didnt bush and cheney stop 9-11 when they were warned over and over about OBL using planes to attack the US. Because they didnt care about protecting the US, they only wanted to get access to Iraqi oil. And now 8 years later OBL is still free and posing a threat again to the US. Bush and Cheney did nothing to protect the USA, they only used the attack to drive up oil prices and get Exxon back into the Iraq oil market after Saddam threw them out.

Cost to the USA, trillions and another failed war to add to the growing list including Vietnam.

Klein2, excellent posts. You are leaving us who agree with you very little to say.

I think you misunderstand. I am not mocking Bush, or even you, I am simply wondering why, given all the resources used and constitutional problems that have arisen, well, why is it that the results seem to be so disputable?

Nobody had a script as to how to conduct the Global war on terror. This was uncharted waters not only for the U.S but for the world as a whole. The Bush administration did the best it could in fighting this war. There were mistakes and there were successes. President Obama who highlighted the mistakes during the campaign has changed his tune quite a bit now that he has access to the same intel and briefings President Bush did.

GITMO is still open for business under Obama as we speak and the detainees are still being held without charges, because he can't figure out what to do with them either.

I'd wouldn't be so smug in looking back at the way Bush handled the war on terror and level the criticism. Obama isn't exactly doing anything much different then Bush did except fine tuning on what that administration had put in place.

GITMO is going to be in business for a very long time. Obama, doesn't much talk about it anymore and I believe he hopes that nobody really will hold him to the fire on his promise to shut the place down when he was candidate. I believe he said within the first one hundred days if I'm not mistaken.

He knows how hard this is now also. Bush did as well as to be expected in this new type of global asymetric warfare environment.

Hey good point Dick! I think you have a little problem with post hoc ergo propter hoc there, but it is good to see you are hanging in there.

By the way, do all all Americans spell terrorise with an s, or only the patriotic ones?

I think you misunderstand. I am not mocking Bush, or even you, I am simply wondering why, given all the resources used and constitutional problems that have arisen, well, why is it that the results seem to be so disputable? Did you suggest those two accomplishments of Bush as his crowning achievements?

The Bushadministration stopped any further attacks on us after 9/11 and extinguished the threat of Saddam and his ambitions to terrorise us.

Why can'T the LIberals thank Bush instead of mock, talk about lack of patriotism.

"Good thing we captured Osama Bin Laden, that's all I have to say. Without that, I mean, it all would have been for nothing, right?"

"look how quickly the US was able to track down and capture bin laden"

Dude. You stole my gag. I sentence you to rereading my rants entirely before you can post again.

Um. Now I have to write something on topic. Has anyone considered what MASSIVE must mean? I mean, before 9/11 there was ECHEL*N by the NSA, which already gave them surveillance of all internet email traffic, if memory serves. Then we already knew that the telecoms had been held harmless for surrendering phone call numbers and times. We know that cellular phones can be monitored locally, and that various switching stations can be monitored for their logs of calls. Sheesh, what is left? I mean aside from JT forums.... ooops.

Hey, this bush surveillance program was SOOOO worth it. I mean, look how quickly the US was able to track down and capture bin laden and mullah omar!

oh wait..

Sarge, Regarding your "how many terrorist attacks" rejoinder, everyone else seems to shy away from stating it this way. Why has America changed everything about itself and its relations with the world based on 3000 lives give or take and four jets and some Manhattan real estate?

How can everything be justified by 9/11? If someone had told me that over 10000 US military people were going to be killed and maimed in unpopular wars, creating millions of civilian casualties and refugees, alienating the US among all nations, impoverishing the state, putting military personnel in charge of transportation, and trashing Americans' and others' human rights, ETC. who would have honestly agreed to that? Just the man hours lost to TSA and bankrupting of the airlines have GOT to be worth more than what was lost on 9/11, right? Good thing we captured Osama Bin Laden, that's all I have to say. Without that, I mean, it all would have been for nothing, right?

9/11 horrible? Sure. But what happened to my America? Look around. Surely a nation must be more valuable than 3000 people and some assets, right? This is a debacle. We have been manipulated by bunglers. And all the people who saw it coming were derided, shouted down, and pilloried as the US rushed headlong to squander its greatest treasures, sacrifice its sons, and pawn its future to the Chinese.

I can rant no more. Please Sarge, the boilerplate is just not doing the job anymore. For someone who watched CNN for three weeks after 9/11, maybe the last 8 years make sense, to someone reading the newspapers, though, it seems like one mistake after another. Why does remembering 9/11 have to mean forgetting everything that happened before or since?

This stuff makes me go ballistic!! Who scrapped probable cause? Where did that go?

"Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the “President’s Surveillance Program” did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the “mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile.”"

I think that there is the MERE POSSIBILITY that someone used the Constitution as toilet paper for no apparent reason other than to show that they could. And that person is "The President" as identified above.

Good thing that they got all this information safe and sound in US government computers, which are being hacked daily by Chinese and North Koreans. Did anybody ever suggest that merely gathering these data could have presented a security hazard?? Everyone knows about CLEAR going bankrupt, right? The data of 250,000 frequent travellers, down to SS numbers, retina scans, and fingerprints were provided by people so that the TSA could use it. Now that CLEAR is bankrupt, nobody knows what is going to happen to the data.

This has it all. Stupidity, arrogance, fraud,.. It makes me want to scream I told you so... at the top of my lungs.

I know this sounds abit.... but if the US Congress wants details of the Bush Administration's techniques for surveillance, they only need to come to my neighborhood, but would need very high security clearances - minimum GS 15.

Most of the intelligence leads generated under what was known as the “President’s Surveillance Program” did not have any connection to terrorism, the report said. But FBI agents told the authors that the “mere possibility of the leads producing useful information made investigating the leads worthwhile.”

I don't know why the previous post was deleted, other than it was sensitive. The point I was trying to make was that, something does occur after surveillance. The equipment involved is touched on by the book, "The Body Electric", by Becker and Selden. The last chapter describes the technology. Take a look.

zurcronium: "Hell, if the republicants went for impeachment due to sex the democrats can go for an indictment for real crimes domestic and in Iraq."

Yeah, but don't you know that sex is 'ba-a-a-a-a-ad' (sheep's voice) and murder based on lies, torture, and domestic spying are 'goooood'?

Obama needs to let the dogs loose on the crimes of the bush/cheney trainwreck administration. He and bush must have made some agreement but bush broke too many laws and screwed up too many times to let it all pass. Cheney should be in jail for sure for his crimes and bush, like the senile reagan on iran-contra, needs to at least get a chance to say he does not remember anything in front of a special prosecutor.

Hell, if the republicants went for impeachment due to sex the democrats can go for an indictment for real crimes domestic and in Iraq.

Sounds like the Cheney adminstration was a bit like Hitlers third reich, except that this time we were all distracted whilst Bush played the part of the organ-grinders monkey.

buddha4brains:

Ummm, Whitehawk, the "missing W" scandal was proven to be false years ago (like I said trashing Clinton regardless of merit), but here you are doing your hagiography of Bush even as you deny doing so.

It was proven false? Perhaps I missed that, but I would like a reference source for confirmation please.

There was an Aug. 2001 PDB that explicitly warned of a threat and yet Ms. Rice piped up months later asking, "Who knew?" If Clinton or Obama said that kind of BS had they been president at that time I would guess you'd crawl out of your skin in outrage. But Bush was president so you and your ilk work endlessly in establishing a sainted Uncle Bush legacy where good people never do wrong.

Nice strawman you've got there. And you built it all by yourself.

bushlover: Or wait... is your comment about 'abuse of the constitution' more of that, "you cannot condemn bush for stepping all over the constitution and be against guns" rubbish that poses for 'logic' on the tenuous defense platform that is the Right?

bushlover: "Did I say it was you who used any specific words? No I didn't."

Ummm... you claim suddenly to say you're not 'specifically referring to goodDonkey, but let's take a look:

'goodDonkey at 08:13 PM JST - 12th July: ... so much for the constitution'

and then, good old bushlover:

'[So much for the constitution] -- Liberal cop out. We defend this when it's convenient but when it comes to other matters we say it's outdated.'

Interesting. You directly quote a person and then claim you are addressing someone else. Easy as it might be, we cannot read your mind when you jump from place to place.

"But I do know that liberals use the constitution thing when it's convenient for them."

You mean like bush and cheney have done, which is in part what this is all about, right? Wow... and you talk about twisting words.

bushlover said:

Did I say it was you who used any specific words? No I didn't.

Fair enough.

Did I say it was you who used any specific words? No I didn't. But I do know that liberals use the constitution thing when it's convenient for them. Some of your friends might know who I'm talking about. You can consult with them for further clarification.

bushlover said:

[So much for the constitution] -- Liberal cop out. We defend this when it's convenient but when it comes to other matters we say it's outdated. I wish they'd make up their minds.

I made the original statement. I haven't said the constitution is outdated. I have always defended it.

I think a "cop out" would much more easily fit a definition of someone willing to attribute words to someone that were never said by that person.

[So much for the constitution] -- Liberal cop out. We defend this when it's convenient but when it comes to other matters we say it's outdated. I wish they'd make up their minds. (this should net a few paragraphs hehehe).

[supporting the increased restrictions and monitoring of American lives ] -- No monitoring foreign communications to see if anyone is plotting against the USA. Some might be Americans but there are plenty of non-Americans living within as well as we saw with the 9/11 bunch. Oh but of course we KNOW they didn't do it. It was a Republican conspiracy. The proof is in the pot. (puff puff).

I did not agree with Bush's illegal surveillance program. I don't agree with the legislation passed by the Democrats. I never have. Just because someone is flipflopping around after previously supporting the increased restrictions and monitoring of American lives I don't need to defend the Democrats. I can't stand many of the areas they chose to appease the previous administration.

I don't think we needed all this bullshit where the government digs into Americans privacy. I think all we needed to do was get Osama bin Laden and his comrades. We had that opportunity but we blew it. That's all.

"than did the original program"

That's right the 1978 law needed updating. Republicans had a chance to update it. They never seemed to get around to it; why should they? They don't need to follow the law, they are conservatives. Bush broke the law before it was updated in 2008. Check what he did. Check the existing law at the time. Check the dates!

sailwind said:

The I.G report never said any laws were broken. That dog isn't going to hunt no matter how times you try to spin it that way.

Who are you trying to b.s? Tthe I.G. report certainly did not exonerate the administration. Like you would ever admit anything if were in black and white (which it has been in the past). I am not the only one who can see through that.

But they defend a president who clearly could not obey the law prior to it being changed.

The I.G report never said any laws were broken. That dog isn't going to hunt no matter how times you try to spin it that way.

Liberals are always cleaning up Conservative messes. I'd say.

In 2008, Congress restructured the federal surveillance law, the broadest such overhaul in three decades. The inspector generals’ report said the new law “gave the government even broader authority to intercept international communications” than did the original program. That same measure also gave legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that cooperated in the wiretapping program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html?hp

But when they take away your rights it is always for a, "Good Cause". And they stand meekly by it and want to prattle on about Bush instead.

I think the president had an obligation to follow the law before it was changed in 2008. Apparently conservatives think they can do whatever they want. Hey, just put it in the "right context" (right meaning conservative). They circumvent the law and expect congress to update it after the fact.

Then we have a conservative whimpering about whether our current president threatens a veto. That's the conservative way; criticize a president who follows the law and chooses to use constitution powers to strengthen the powers of his office. But they defend a president who clearly could not obey the law prior to it being changed.

So much for the constitution.

sailwind: "You think some people would actually read the article."

I think you mean you think some people would read the LAST LINE in the article (ie. the footnote). You're trying to make it sound like that's what the article is really about, when in actuality it's about the bush surveillance program that they tried to keep secret, and lied about. Now, if Obama's TRULY (and I say that because it would set a bad precedent to seek the info. himself, as it would be for him to seek the probe of bush/cheney and co. on the torture) against it, then that is an issue to be addressed at some point in the future for sure, and something I'm pretty sure most people would be against (Dems included).

Sheesh,

You think some people would actually read the article.

House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White House has threatened to veto it.

That's the OBAMA whitehouse folks.

"legally by the Clinton administration or illegally by that administration?..."

and again, let's talk about Clinton to deflect...

"...Maybe the Lewinski and the Cigar thing was to distract away from the real issues...."

ahhh... the complete and utter denial...

So when the Cheney demanding the CIA keep a lid on the program article comes out, it'll be even harder to defend these guys and deflect, but I'll see you there, bushlover! I'd keep the blinders on, though, if I were you -- the evidence against your arguments, and the inability to keep bouncing back and forth between Clinton and Obama to shirk the blame, is mounting and pretty hard not to see with your eyes open.

[the worst terrorist incident occurred on 9/11 on bush's watch, and in large part because he ignored frequent warnings of what was to come (as Buddha and Donkey have pointed out, for political reasons).] For political weasons? Weally? hahhaha. I can almost smell the pot in this post. I wonder how this information contained in the warnings was obtained... legally by the Clinton administration or illegally by that administration? Who knows with all the secret things going on in the gubmint. Maybe the Lewinski and the Cigar thing was to distract away from the real issues. A Democratic conspiracy I guess.

RomeoRamenII: "The U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket under the current administration and Obama's Ministry of Truth (aka, the MSM) need to distract Americans from that fact and what better way than bring up Mr. Bush, who to them is the symbol of eeevil."

Ummm... in case you didn't notice, this thread is about the 'bush surveillance program'; bringing up the former president, therefore, is not 'distracting Americans', and only people who are doing their utmost to blame others for his wrong doing are distracting. See a post of mine above -- bushlover will gladly point it out -- where I said some Right-wingers will ultimately come on here, clearly you and WhiteHawk and try to blame this secret program on either Obama or Clinton (or both), and insist that somehow none of it ever existed in the past eight years (or like WhiteHawk, that Obama went back in time and started it on bush's watch).

Seriously, it's amazing! Some of you are even in such a state of denial that you're suggesting OBAMA started this program (in the past!). WhiteHawk can only jump back and forth between 9 years ago and this past January in his attempts to deny that the worst terrorist incident occurred on 9/11 on bush's watch, and in large part because he ignored frequent warnings of what was to come (as Buddha and Donkey have pointed out, for political reasons).

So, when the thread comes up about how Cheney has been proven to have told the CIA not to talk about the program that he and bush started, are some of you going to come on here and suggest Obama went back in time and instructed Cheney to do so? or will it just have been already started by Clinton and Cheney was an innocent victim trying to 'help his people'?

The U.S. is going to hell in a handbasket under the current administration and Obama's Ministry of Truth (aka, the MSM) need to distract Americans from that fact and what better way than bring up Mr. Bush, who to them is the symbol of eeevil.

of course, darth vader was behind this massive spying effort . . .

Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

Whitehawk, I give wingers one chance to make sense. 95% of the time they do not and your post brings that average up to 98%. I think you reference disarming US citizens, first that is not happening and second it has nothing to do with freedoms. These spy programs take your freedoms away, but wingers like you only cheer on that effort. You just want to have guns so you can shoot people like Cheney shot his hunting buddy.

I can state w/ some insight I received during the Bush Administration from relevant personnel. They did not and still do not understand the new environment created by the Internet, and former Sec. of Defense and the Pentagon has gone on record stating as such - questioning how to control international opinion pertaining to the Iraq situation. A clear example was former Sec. of State Rice globetrotting advocating "democracy and freedom" whereas the international community could read and see the Patriot Act being implemented in the US curtailing "democracy and freedom". Old methods don't work in this environment, and to assert policies to acquire more control will instead isolate the US internationally. Old methods pursued results in negative conclusions.

Ummm, Whitehawk, the "missing W" scandal was proven to be false years ago (like I said trashing Clinton regardless of merit), but here you are doing your hagiography of Bush even as you deny doing so.

There was an Aug. 2001 PDB that explicitly warned of a threat and yet Ms. Rice piped up months later asking, "Who knew?" If Clinton or Obama said that kind of BS had they been president at that time I would guess you'd crawl out of your skin in outrage. But Bush was president so you and your ilk work endlessly in establishing a sainted Uncle Bush legacy where good people never do wrong.

Clinton was not a perfect president (or human being) and neither is Obama. That is a given and not a concession. Bush, on the other hand, seems to require special care and not be expected to shoulder the heavy responsibility of owning up to the outcomes of his (in)actions.

zurcronium:

Wow, the bush nazi like administration never surprises. "Nazi-like"? Who wants to disarm the general populace? Oh yeah, the fascists on the Left.

Let this be a final warning to those who say the republicants believe in a small government that protects the freedoms of US citizens. Bush increased the government massively and spied on all of us with no cause.

Hey, you could've voted for McCain. Then you wouldn't be seeing the exponential increase in federal spending and the increase in taxation on all of us that will follow. I tried to warn y'all that it would get worse with a Democrat in the White House, but would y'all listen to me? Nooooo! Several of the "educated, enlightened and tolerant" liberals on JT had to plug their ears and call me a rascist.

Besides, Obama is now the one spying on "all of us" with "no cause", but it doesn't seem to bother you the same way. Fascinating.

So zurcronium, how's that Operation TIPS going? It's not? Fancy that.

buddha4brains:

Whitehawk, sure Obama has to take responsibility for his actions just like everybody should. However for Bush legacy propagandists this "no attacks on America since 9/11" is a very sad attempt at shielding Bush and Co. from responsibility for their inaction prior to 9/11.

Yes, all eight months of it. Don't forget, there was also a lot of inter-agency competitiveness that prevented the sharing of information. And also something from one Jamie Gorelick.

Similarly, you are basically doing the same when you question why call it Bush's surveillance program. It is Bush's surveillance program because it was, among other things, a fig leaf to hide the fact that they ignored intelligence reports specifically stating an airplane strike. For all the criticism of the intelligence system prior to 9/11, it had gathered a lot of actionable data which was ignored for political reasons - the data came from a Clinton era team. I remember the contempt the Bushies had for Clinton (who doesn't). Anything that had anything to do with the Clintons was trashed regardless of merit. And who could miss the foreboding from April 2001 onward that something bad was going to happen. When Sept. came around I thought that perhaps the crisis had passed ... tragically it hadn't. Ever since the Bush propaganda is to push away responsibility away (towards Clinton if at all possible and at every turn) and create a hagiography for Bush that will in time cloud the responsibility issue.

Please re-read my 5:39 post where I address the information the Bush administration had to work with. Perhaps they should've replaced everyone with "their own people" as the Clintons did? No, without the vilified surveillance system, the information wouldn't have been any more accurate.

I remember the contempt too. The vandalism, the computer keyboards with the "W" broken off... oh wait, that was the Clinton team. Oh well. Yes, so much contempt that Bush fired 8 (not all 93) federal judges, and then only after they behaved as partisan political activists instead of as judges. Unless you can provide something substantive, instead of vague accusations like "Anything that had anything to do with the Clintons was trashed regardless of merit."...?

Yes, Obama needs to answer for his inaction, but it is still Bush's surveillance program.

Ah, thanks for that. If there's ever a thread about Bush's plans for illegal alien amnesty or his lack of vetoes for congressional spending, I'll be there to criticise him.

It's not something new about the previous administration's attempt to authorize wire-tapping without warrant. W's regime has successfully marked its name as the most notoriously pachyderm hypocrites thanks to his hawkish aides- Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and the vice president Dick Cheney.

Obama"s program?? Only a befuddled nutter would come up with something as goofy as that. Yes, Obama has gone back in time and started a program while Bush was President. Somebody has watched the new Startrek movie too many times it seems.

apecNetworks, yes you are right. After 9-11 the MSM was absolutely worthless. Today the NYTs and others have improved somewhat but they may never recover from the cheerleading that went on in support of the failed iraq invasion and the lies used to justify the war crimes involved.

Whitehawk, sure Obama has to take responsibility for his actions just like everybody should. However for Bush legacy propagandists this "no attacks on America since 9/11" is a very sad attempt at shielding Bush & Co. from responsibility for their inaction prior to 9/11.

Similarly, you are basically doing the same when you question why call it Bush's surveillance program. It is Bush's surveillance program because it was, among other things, a fig leaf to hide the fact that they ignored intelligence reports specifically stating an airplane strike. For all the criticism of the intelligence system prior to 9/11, it had gathered a lot of actionable data which was ignored for political reasons - the data came from a Clinton era team.

I remember the contempt the Bushies had for Clinton (who doesn't). Anything that had anything to do with the Clintons was trashed regardless of merit. And who could miss the foreboding from April 2001 onward that something bad was going to happen. When Sept. came around I thought that perhaps the crisis had passed ... tragically it hadn't. Ever since the Bush propaganda is to push away responsibility away (towards Clinton if at all possible and at every turn) and create a hagiography for Bush that will in time cloud the responsibility issue.

Yes, Obama needs to answer for his inaction, but it is still Bush's surveillance program.

To Zurcronium:

Do you realize what you are saying if the policies mentioned in fact is implemented - that would render anything coming out of academics and the press is tainted, very biased. It would render it only applicable for domestic consumption because the "facts" are sanitized.

Just imagine that evil US government trying to protect the country from bad guys. Those irresponsible government baddies. But if something happened then these liberals would all be in a fit that they were not protected enough. There is no winning with these type of flip floppers.

And none of the posters even mentioned the thousands that were recruited to scan pics on the web for steganography algorithms. Wonder what else they had going on???

This was a good one from the bush criminal administration via that religious nutjob Ashcroft . . .

OPERATION TIPS - the Terrorism Information and Prevention System - is a scheme that Joseph Stalin would have appreciated. Plans for its pilot phase, to start in August, have Operation TIPS recruiting a million letter carriers, meter readers, cable technicians, and other workers with access to private homes as informants to report to the Justice Department any activities they think suspicious.

This is not an updating of George Orwell's ''1984.'' It is not a satire on the paranoid fantasies of right-wing kooks who see black helicopters swooping across their big sky. It will be a nationwide program run by Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. If it is allowed to start up and gather steam, it will begin in 10 cities and then expand everywhere, enrolling millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors.

On the Web site of President Bush's new Citizen Corps program, this assault on the Constitution is described without any hint of irony as ''a national reporting system that allows these workers, whose routines make them well-positioned to recognize unusual events, to report suspicious activity.''

After the Berlin Wall came down and communism vanished into the dustbin of history, Czechs, East Germans, Poles, and Hungarians had to suffer through wrenching revelations about the reporting systems their totalitarian regimes had instituted. The Communist Party bosses in those captive nations justified the pervasive recruitment of citizens to inform on their neighbors as a requirement of security and a proof of loyalty to the party, the revolution, or the working class.

Wow, the bush nazi like administration never surprises. Since bush and cheney let 9-11 happen, some think for political reasons (to win in 2004), they went way overboard to pretend to try to make sure it didnt happen again. The constitution be damned in the process.

Let this be a final warning to those who say the republicants believe in a small government that protects the freedoms of US citizens. Bush increased the government massively and spied on all of us with no cause. Really, its safer if the married Republicants are going to Argentina for a immoral booty call. At least they are not shredding the constitution while on the plane, just their phony christian morality is getting shredded.

smithinjapan:

Obama adopted the shrub's 'plans for withdrawing from Iraq'? Sorry, but weren't all Republicans against what he is doing?

They were? Which ones? Were they against the plans when the Bush administration sorted them out with the Iraqi government?

buddha4brains:

Yeah Whitehawk let's do just that and scrub Bush's name from the things he had done. While we're at it, let's push the fantasy that Bush kept America safe making 9/11 magically go away. Blaming someone else is always fun (besides the Clintons seem to enjoy it). Sure Obama would like to carry more blame, since he's doing it anyway with the bailouts that pre-date his election. I think in a year or two everyone will think of Bush as a kind uncle sort of ex-prez and all the bad stuff will be associated with Obama and the Clintons.

First, at some point, Obama has to take responsibility for what he's doing. If he campaigns against what the current president is doing, accuses his political opponent of being a continuation of that president, then continues the practice himself once elected to office, can he genuinely blame the previous president completely? Can you? (Yeah, it looks that way.)

Nobody is pushing a fantasy that Bush made "9/11" magically go away". Except, apparently, his critics. I believe that's called a "strawman argument". He did, however prevent further attacks to civilians within the country's borders (not including drunken illegal aliens committing vehicular manslaughter, but that's for another thread).

Obama is going to every country on the planet apologizing for everything anybody thinks we're guilty of, whether it's true or not. That doesn't mean he is capable of carrying blame. In fact, he doesn't appear to handle criticism well at all. Besides, most of the bailouts do not pre-date his taking office, and he cannot blame Bush for the "stimulus" (porkulus) spending. You might try to spin it back to Bush for him (as you're attempting with other points), but at some pont, Obama will have to take responsibility for his decisions. Whether it's continuing a surveillance program he campaigned against or firing private sector CEOs and IGs, he and his supporters will have face the fact that Obama can and does make bad decisions instead of blaming everything on the previous administration.

goodDonkey:

Take WhiteHawk for example.

Please! (rimshot) :D

smithinjapan:

Once again you come on here and start saying how apples are the same as oranges. People are critical of bush in regards to 9/11 because he went out of his way to IGNORE information on terrorist groups and the very probability they were going to use planes to attack the US; not for spying. Not heeding, and worse yet, tossing away a warning is not the same as spying on everything under the sun. But hey, in the world of the few remaining people on this site in complete and utter denial, this black and white view is not surprising.

Say, didn't a terrorist attack (or 3) occur on American soil during the administration which preceded Bush 43? And didn't that administration handle the terrorist attacks as police crimes instead of acts of war? Didn't that administration prevent the CIA from investigating the 1993 WTC bombing as anything other than an isolated crime? Why yes, indeed they did. So what were you saying about ignoring something?

Prior to 9/11/01 (and the surveillance program referenced in the original article), the Bush administration had information that terrorists wanted to use civilian planes to attack civilian populations, but they did not know which planes, when, where or how. Not having much to go on is a far cry from "tossing away a warning".

Give this person a top job at the Puzzle Palace.

****HOLY COW!!!!!!!!!!

BeaverCleaver at 12:41 AM JST - 12th July

"I for one HOPE you aren't saying that the administration of Obama is keeping secrets from us the way that bush did.I could never believe something like that.Sorry."

The trouble is that he is the president, not the king. He is also not bullet-proof. Even if he were, he still cannot run the country but through other powerful and influential men. Come to think of it, even kings and queens have this trouble. This genie may not easily go back into the bottle. No matter your feelings about Obama, it is reasonable to think that Bush tied his hands, and he now has nothing but a list of bad options. If Obama goes for disclosure option and closes this whole thing down, and pisses off some high up guys in the process, who is going to protect him? The public?

We don't even know what they have on Obama! Remember even the CIA is not privy. These guys answered to Bush and Bush alone it seems. They may not be taking kindly to their new master, and its not like Congress has any clear authority over them. This could be a very nasty beast that bumbling junior has unleashed on the world, and even Obama might be powerless against it. This may be Mace Windu vs. Emperor Palpatine. We know how that turned out.

The above post describes former Pres. Eisenhower's situation and why his Farewell Speech was a "shocker". The previous Administration created departments above the US Constitution, superior to the US Congress, Supreme Court and the Presidency. Pres. Obama's situation is like that of former Pres. Eisenhower's.

BINGOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU WINNNNNN!!!!!!

Harmon's remarks are especially funny. Ever since the 60s when liberal politicians began exploiting the peace movement to further their careers, we've listened to Democrats feign shock and righteous indignation. "Gonzales looked me right in the eye and LIED! To ME!" "Mind-boggling" indeed!--that the inner workings of national security wouldn't be opened up to a run-of-the-mill career politician! . . . I'm sorry, but when it comes to my survival, I'll trust Michael Hayden any day over a bunch of scurrilous "lawmakers". . . . Wake up, silly liberals! No one has harmed a hair on your heads! Abuse, indeed! . . . Take a look at the al Qaeda torture manual if you dare and then perhaps consider revising your definition of abuse.

bushlover-"BeaverCleaver could you provide examples of the "abuse"?"

Abuse of trust and responsibility-lawmakers had never been apprised of its existence.

Abuse of the chain of command- Attorney General John Ashcroft, was not aware until March 2004 of the exact nature of the intelligence operations beyond wiretapping that he had been approving for the previous two and a half years

Abuse of the law-Yoo ignored the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which had previously overseen federal national security surveillance.

Abuse of authority and the constitution- basically one person at the Justice Department, John Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president’s office were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment

All from the article. As for other less general abuses, we won't until the information is released, if it ever is. Given all the other larger abuses, you have no reason to believe that smaller more person ones do not exist, well, no good reason anyway.

Yawn, let's tell tall tales about Bush to hide Obama'S shortfalls. Thesde stories are becoming too predictable.

It sounds like Taka313 was worried that the Bush surveillance program was watching him. Har! Taka313: "sarge" It's Sarge.

Wow - another conclusive debate winner from the master orator. Folks - don't you get it?

The former president had every right to renegue on his solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States because Sarge is spelt with a capital "S".

C'est ca!

BeaverCleaver could you provide examples of the "abuse"? Now I'll leave it Beaver.

bushlover-"First they say that you can't watch suspect groups"

Uh, no. Nobody said that. Watching suspect groups by following established rules and protocol and with clear oversight is A-ok with any American. Establishing secret spy orgs that massively abuse the power Congress gives you to wantonly spy on anybody you feel is not cool, unless you happen to be a Neo-con underling, in which case you either give a sappy grin and a thumbs up, or you accuse concerned Americans of hypocrisy via building a strawman argument.

PS: War Measures Act. October 1970. But doubt you know much about that. Think your RCMP weren't watching or still don't watch?

It's not surprising from you as well. Bush = 100% bad; Obama = 100% good. Like you said. It's not always so black and white. What you need to do is come to a compromise position but then again you are not American you are a superior Canadian and your opinions mean squat in the US of A. Happy voting.

Sorry, bushlover, that's, "I'm not sure why you insist on calling the little round ORANGE ones apples, but like I said above, it's not entirely surprising."

bushlover: "First they say that you can't watch suspect groups because it harms their "rights and freedoms" and then they say 9/11 was all Bush's fault because it happened on his watch."

Once again you come on here and start saying how apples are the same as oranges. People are critical of bush in regards to 9/11 because he went out of his way to IGNORE information on terrorist groups and the very probability they were going to use planes to attack the US; not for spying. Not heeding, and worse yet, tossing away a warning is not the same as spying on everything under the sun. But hey, in the world of the few remaining people on this site in complete and utter denial, this black and white view is not surprising.

"Well I'm sure you'll put it in someone's mouth..."

Nope. What I said before was a precise example of some bizarre allusion you tried to make between my admonishing bush for calling the constitution a 'useless piece of paper' and that should be ignored when it fits his purposes, and my thinking that guns should be banned. It's not hypocrisy to decry a government spying on its people while disliking guns, my friend. I'm not sure why you insist on calling the little round ones apples, but like I said above, it's not entirely surprising.

Gombei424Canada-"Your posts are usually bang on, mon ami,

Thank you.

"I for one HOPE you aren't saying that the administration of Obama is keeping secrets from us the way that bush did.I could never believe something like that.Sorry."

The trouble is that he is the president, not the king. He is also not bullet-proof. Even if he were, he still cannot run the country but through other powerful and influential men. Come to think of it, even kings and queens have this trouble. This genie may not easily go back into the bottle. No matter your feelings about Obama, it is reasonable to think that Bush tied his hands, and he now has nothing but a list of bad options. If Obama goes for disclosure option and closes this whole thing down, and pisses off some high up guys in the process, who is going to protect him? The public?

We don't even know what they have on Obama! Remember even the CIA is not privy. These guys answered to Bush and Bush alone it seems. They may not be taking kindly to their new master, and its not like Congress has any clear authority over them. This could be a very nasty beast that bumbling junior has unleashed on the world, and even Obama might be powerless against it. This may be Mace Windu vs. Emperor Palpatine. We know how that turned out.

smithinjapan said:

Next someone on this thread will be saying we can no longer talk about history since Obama is now president.

I recall similar words in the past. Too Funny! Sometimes the conservatives are just so odd that it is amusing. Take WhiteHawk for example.

sarge said:

Pfffft! All Taka313 did was list a bunch of lame violent acts that would look lame compared to the violent crimes that take place in any major city on a daily basis.

sarge asked how many terrorist's attacks - didn't Taka313 list meet that criteria?

sarge, if you backpeddle too fast the chain will get caught in the gears and then you will just have another mess to untangle.

[Blaming someone else is always fun]--- Pot and Kettle thing shows up.

The hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming today. First they say that you can't watch suspect groups because it harms their "rights and freedoms" and then they say 9/11 was all Bush's fault because it happened on his watch. So I guess there is no pleasing this crowd and Bush should have been watching them. I thought that is what we are talking about. Better watching of groups and individuals that are highly likely to try to cause people to die or disrupt infrastructure. I wonder what Obama's plan would be. Watch all white, Indian, Jewish and other groups but not a muslim because that would be profiling, and just hope for the best that they find these bad types? Gee I don't even think Obama is as stupid as his supporters. I give him more credit than they do.

Buddha: "I think in a year or two everyone will think of Bush as a kind uncle sort of ex-prez and all the bad stuff will be associated with Obama and the Clintons."

Exactly what I said earlier... bush never existed for 9/11. It was both Clinton and Obama. Bush likewise never existed for the economic mess the US (and world, by effect) is in: that was caused by Clinton (with the record surplus) and skipped to Obama. Oh, but did someone keep the US 'safe' since 9/11 through spying on its own people?

Next someone on this thread will be saying we can no longer talk about history since Obama is now president.

Yeah Whitehawk let's do just that and scrub Bush's name from the things he had done. While we're at it, let's push the fantasy that Bush kept America safe making 9/11 magically go away. Blaming someone else is always fun (besides the Clintons seem to enjoy it). Sure Obama would like to carry more blame, since he's doing it anyway with the bailouts that pre-date his election. I think in a year or two everyone will think of Bush as a kind uncle sort of ex-prez and all the bad stuff will be associated with Obama and the Clintons.

WhiteHawk: Obama adopted the shrub's 'plans for withdrawing from Iraq'? Sorry, but weren't all Republicans against what he is doing?

Just what those activities involved remains classified, but the IGs pointedly say that any continued use of the secret programs must be “carefully monitored.”

And since they're being continued, aren't they Obama's surveillance programs now? Funny how the Obama the Candidate campaigned against a "third Bush term", but Obama the President adopted Bush's surveillance programs, plans for withdrawing from Iraq, and troop increases in Afghanistan. Plus, he's expanded the spending. Third Bush term, indeed!

I'm also presuming the five IGs who did this research won't be investigating any of Obama's cronies for misuse of public funds, now that an example has been made of Gerald Walpin.

We forgive you for being an angry young man and relmaining in Denial about terrorust attacks in the US post 9/11, but we don't forgive George Bush for being asleep at the wheel when he let the single most horrific terrorist attack on US soil happen.

Madverts: "Thanks for putting that to bed Taka..."

Pfffft! All Taka313 did was list a bunch of lame violent acts that would look lame compared to the violent crimes that take place in any major city on a daily basis.

"... though sarge in all fairness might not have been old enough at the time to remember"

Ha ha ha! Good one, Madverts!

It sounds like Taka313 was worried that the Bush surveillance program was watching him. Har!

Taka313: "sarge"

It's Sarge.

beaver cleaver:Oh, but they are not telling us. They are not giving us any indication whatsoever of the success of the program. Wonderful. Sounds very much like an American Gestapo. Just lovely.

Your posts are usually bang on, mon ami, but I am wondering about the ending to your last contribution.I for one HOPE you aren't saying that the administration of Obama is keeping secrets from us the way that bush did.I could never believe something like that.Sorry.

Well, the right seems to be divided into two camps: those who believe the secrect surveillance progam worked and those who think it failed because it was not done enough. Heaven forbid any of them just think it just didn't work, and that Bush and his legions of Yes-men just could not easily and instantly top the systems and controls that were already in place. No, no. One flacid al-Quaida attack makes it past us, and we focus on al-Quaida. But then junior takes over, ignores memos, forgets all about al-Quaida and we get one single though large hardcore al-Quaida attack. Then suddenly we need a whole new system, privacy be damned. We cannot even consider the idea of human error. That would be insulting.

Unfortunately, the question of how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11 is not the correct question. The correct question is "How many terrorist attacks has this invasive program potentially prevented?" Surely a list could be compiled telling us how many arrests and convictions utilized the information they gathered. Then we could have a second list showing how many arrests and convictions were related to ordinary methods. Then a third list showing arrests and convictions related to both. That would give us an idea of how many attacke were thwarted.

Oh, but they are not telling us. They are not giving us any indication whatsoever of the success of the program. Wonderful. Sounds very much like an American Gestapo. Just lovely.

Well, methinks Obama will sweep this all away AND also close Guantanomo too. His fantastic campaign speeches about this very subject are STILL on my ipod.

The amazing political capital that Obama has will end these programs of surveillance against ordinary citizens.He passed an almost trillion dollar stimulus program to help correct the bush trainwreck economy that will be the final legacy of the worst president ever in US history, so closing Guantanomo and ending the CIA spying on people will be a piece of cake.Of course wingers will protest,but hey,logic never was their strong suit.

I guess the paranoid people in the government never learned that when you point a finger at someone,hey, guess what?, you have three of your own fingers pointing back at YOURSELF!

Well, anyways, we should all thank Obama for heroically getting this vital information out.Looks like bush's friends in certain high places couldn't keep this hidden forever,which they undoubtedly thought they could.

I still won't be transiting through American airports anytime soon though.The patriot act is still probably enforced by rednecks in LA and in New York and America is still at war against Muslims like the ones the patriot act specifically targeted, and I HATE war because war NEVER solved anything.I don't care if IGNORANT people try change my mind.That's just the way I roll, dammit!

[So you're saying you think everyone should stand in line and give up their freedoms in exchange for an automatic weapon? hahaha.]

No those are your words hahaha. Some people should only read and not put words in others mouths hahaha. Again. Paranoia.

Wow with all those acts of domestic terrorism and also the international terrorism the radical left tree huggers think that it is bad to maintain surveillance on these groups. Of course their overreacting because they feel someone is going to watch them because they come to JT and badmouth the US government who far from perfect is only trying to protect Americans. Funny how some of them complaining are not even American citizens or in that country so I wonder why all the conspiracies. I guess some substances produce paranoia though so it's a bit understandable.

BTW, a significant portion of my previous post came from the "horse's mouth" and a significant portion was conveyed prior to 2000 AD.

Correction:

"TELECOMMUNICATION surveillance will be used extensively"

From my perspective, I think the Patriot Act and wireless surveillance will be used extensively since all the necessary components are in place. If history is any guide, in the 1950's, even after McCarthyism, tracking and destroying Communists continued - though the criteria was loosely defined. The two most significant change I have been informed about is back door access to Windows and the use of Echelon on US Citizens. I am expecting an increasing attack on privacy in the US for another few decades until a need to upgrade w/ newer technology. Eavesdropping will continue b/c the censors have already been trained and employed.

Madverts: "Why since 9/11 anyway? The biggest attocity to happen ever in the US happened whilst Bush was either asleep at the wheel."

Shhh! Don't you know yet that that was either Clinton or Obama's fault?

sarge,

"How many terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 again?"

Why since 9/11 anyway? The biggest attocity to happen ever in the US happened whilst Bush was either asleep at the wheel.

Thanks for putting that to bed Taka, though sarge in all fairness might not have been old enough at the time to remember.

skip: "I must be missing something. If the police wire tap, and catch some bad guys, is supposed to be thrown out of court?"

Not if the wiretap is carried out after a warrant declaring it legal is obtained, methinks.

"I really can't see the problem with listening in on phone conversations trying to find people that are planning to do something really bad. Of course, I'm concerned with some idiots planting evidence, but I don't see a problem with the program itself."

It's a total breach of privacy for one. For two, let's not forget that the people who 'see a threat' are human beings, and therefore not perfect. Worse yet are the people who have a grudge against, let's say, people from the ME and/or Muslims, and decide they need to listen in on that group a whole lot more because the powers that be decided they could do so with no repercussions. One of them decides to say he or she personally thinks the government is arrogant and is bringing about its own downfall. That person, under the Patriot Act (another ridiculous abuse of powers) can be brought in and held without question, evidence, or trial, deemed as a 'threat' by some paranoid nut with a bit of power.

Pretty radical example, but we've seen the Patriot Act, etc. abused more than once. They can use such powers to watch you and decide you're a 'threat' simply because you don't like what they are saying/doing. Hell, you're probably in their radar just for coming on this site and talking about OBL and terrorism in general.

I must be missing something. If the police wire tap, and catch some bad guys, is supposed to be thrown out of court?

I really can't see the problem with listening in on phone conversations trying to find people that are planning to do something really bad. Of course, I'm concerned with some idiots planting evidence, but I don't see a problem with the program itself.

I don't think limited what the authorities can do in order to catch someone is the right answer.

bushlover: "[while he pi$$ed what Americans consider sacred. ] Funny how your opinion changes when it comes to the right to bear arms. It might be considered what one might call... hypocrisy...."

Wow, this one's got you really riled up, I see.

You're right, though; my opinion that people have a right to their own privacy is somewhat different than my belief that 'the right to bear arms' is somewhat outdated, and the constitution should be ratified. So you're saying you think everyone should stand in line and give up their freedoms in exchange for an automatic weapon? hahaha.

Skip,

are all these measures stopped now?

Well, not really. The program was pretty flawed. The DEOMCRATIC controlled Congress in 2008 fixed it.

In 2008, Congress restructured the federal surveillance law, the broadest such overhaul in three decades. The inspector generals’ report said the new law “gave the government even broader authority to intercept international communications” than did the original program. That same measure also gave legal immunity to the telecommunications companies that cooperated in the wiretapping program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html?_r=1&hp

bushlover,

If you don't like the evidence I provided, that's between you and the facts. I'll sit that one out. However, I did provide a link if you desire to check the validity of any of the acts of terror listed.

Skip,

It's never a bad idea, until it's you on the other side of that extended net. There are several very good reasons why I sincerely would not like that to happen to you.

Taka

Spy on anyone who is suspect of probability of carrying out a violent act.

Taka, your post only makes me think that domestic spying should be enhanced, not eliminated. We know who the white supremacists are, spy on them. Why have issues about it?

sarge,

How many terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 again?

Let's just answer that question and put that little bit of nonsense to bed forever.

United States: Anthrax attacks on the offices the United States Congress and New York State Government offices, and on employees of television networks and tabloids.

United States, May: Luke Helder injures 6 by placing pipebombs in mailboxes in the Midwest. Motivation to protest government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana and promotion of astral projection

United States, July 4: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.

United States, October: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo conduct the Beltway Sniper Attacks, killing ten people in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area from October 2 until they are arrested on October 24.

United States, October 1: Joel Henry Hinrichs III detonated a bomb near the packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma killing himself in the process.

United States: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, drives an SUV onto a crowded part of campus, injuring nine.

United States: An Afghani Muslim hit 19 pedestrians, killing one, with his SUV in the San Francisco Bay area.

A teenage gunman kills five bystanders and wounds four more in a popular shopping center before being shot dead by police in the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah.

A pair of improvised explosive devices are thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder and detonated by fuses, causing very minor damage. Police investigate the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.[111]

Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, Jim David Adkisson kills 2 people and injures 7 in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Dalton, Georgia An explosion at a personal injury law firm in downtown Dalton, Ga., injured four people, including at least one lawyer, and resulted in the death of the apparent bomber in what a federal law enforcement spokesman described as a suicide attack.

Woodburn, Oregon. Woodburn police Capt. Tom Tennant, and Oregon State Police bomb technician Bill Hakim were killed, and Woodburn Police Chief Scott Russell was critically injured after a bomb exploded at the West Coast Bank Branch in Woodburn. Customer Service Manager Laurie Ann Perkett was taken, and later released from the hospital after being hit by shrapnel. The explosion happened just before 5:30 p.m. while Hakim and Tennant were trying to open the bomb, which Hakim felt confident was not a bomb. Officers were on the scene investigating a bomb threat called in to the bank at 5:00 p.m., when the explosion occurred. There had been an earlier bomb threat at a Wells Fargo branch at 10:19 a.m. Joshua Turnidge and his father, Bruce Turnidge were charged with the murders.

West Memphis, Arkansas, United States. Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast.

Victorville, California, United States. An improvised explosive device went off inside a federal prison in California during a search Saturday, according to federal authorities. No one was injured, the authorities told CNN. The incident happened in the recreation area of the Victorville Federal Penitentiary. Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Traci Billingsley said the device was found by a staff member during a “routine search of inmate property”. She said it “detonated upon discovery.”

New York City A small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on. No injuries or deaths were reported in the blast that brings fears of terrorism.

Little Rock, Arkansas Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.

Washington D.C. 88-year-old white supremecist fires shots in the Holocaust Memorial building. Kills guard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2009

And that doesn't include the recent slaying of the doctor by the nut bag in Kansas.

Also, I didn't include any terrorist plots that were foiled because no terrorist attack can occur if it is thwarted.

However, according to the link I just provided sarge, you now need only count to get your answer. However, I think the answer proves far less impressive than the one you "thought" you would get.

Taka

An opinion of convenience might be what one considers...irrelevant!

[while he pi$$ed what Americans consider sacred. ] Funny how your opinion changes when it comes to the right to bear arms. It might be considered what one might call... hypocrisy....

are all these measures stopped now?

sarge said:

How many terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 again?

That has become your generic statement sarge. It must be harder and harder to ignore facts.

Many senior intelligence officials believe the program filled a gap in intelligence. Others, including FBI, CIA and National Counterterrorism Center analysts, said intelligence gathered by traditional means was often more specific and timely, according to the report.

Pesky facts getting in the way again.

Five former Bush administration officials refused to be interviewed, including former CIA Director George Tenet and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Amazing, five refused to be interviewed by the IG. sarge, if we install cameras in everyone's home that the government can monitor and tap every phone line and computer network (the internet and more) I think we can make the United States even safer. sarge do you have any more suggestions than I have offered?

How many terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 again?

I have never considered the systematic attack on individual freedoms carried out by the Bush Administration to be a "terrorist attack," however, you might be onto something there Sarge.

To paraphrase the movie Full Metal Jacket, "perhaps inside every republican there is a democratic trying to fight their way out."

How many terrorist attacks on the US after explicit warnings given?

How many terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11 again?

The bush administration truly was the perfect storm of bad govt.: arrogant, stupid and void of morals.

Taka

Joe: True, but then bush thought the constitution was a useless piece of paper, so no surprise there, really. At least the man was being honest while he pi$$ed what Americans consider sacred. Too bad the same Americans lapped it all up.

Anyway, my hand stays down along with adaydreams. I await the cries of those on the right who believe it was necessary to give up their freedoms for 'freedumb'.

The Bush administration authorized secret surveillance activities that still have not been made public, according to a new U.S. government report that questions the legal basis for the unprecedented anti-terrorism program.

A far right wingers wet dream.....Spying on the people and undermining the Constitution. A win win situation for any neo-con....

Truly sad how the far right wingers love to skirt around the Constitution and laws of our nation. They must never see public office ever again......

All those who are surprised with anything that comes out about george bush and company, raise your hand.

I'll keep mine down. I'm never surprised at what comes out about him. < :-)