4 May

Why Bush didn’t get Bin Laden [Reader Post]

                                       

All that stuff you hear from democrats, and Obama himself, about Bush failing to get Bin Laden and taking his eye off the ball is total crap. Obama and democrats fought tooth and nail to rip Bush’s eyes off of Bin Laden. They did their damnedest to prevent Bush from getting Bin Laden.

George Bush was dealing with 3000 dead innocent Americans in the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. He needed intel to work from. He needed information. He needed help.

Democrats stood behind Bush. They kneed him. They tripped him up. They opposed every single thing he did to keep the nation safe and find Osama Bin Laden.

Warrantless Wiretapping

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible “dirty numbers” linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

Democrats call for investigation of NSA wiretaps

Democratic House leaders called Sunday for an independent panel to investigate the legality of a program President Bush authorized that allows warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens, according to a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

“We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation,” the letter says.

Pelosi Statement on President Bush’s Authorization of National Security Agency’s Activities

“We all agree that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with the United States Constitution and our laws. The President’s statement today raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful.

“I was advised of President Bush’s decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions.

“The Bush Administration considered these briefings to be notification, not a request for approval. As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.”

Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell

“You have to keep a certain distance from that power to whom you have to speak the truth,” said Holt. “And that’s why it concerns me that when you talked about the lawyers who were working to prepare this legislation back in August, when you made some of the statements that you made, they clearly seem to be influenced by lawyers in power, in the White House, in the vice president’s office.”


Pol: Americans support Bush impeachment for wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge’s approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Sen. Leahy tells Mukasey that his nomination is tied to subpoenas

Acknowledging the White House’s resistance to complying with Democratic subpoenas, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) told attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey on Wednesday that the executive-privilege fight is now his to resolve.

Leahy had indicated that Mukasey’s confirmation hearings could not begin until the Bush administration met at least some Democratic demands for documents on the U.S. attorney firings and the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. But in a letter to Mukasey released Wednesday, Leahy suggested that he would shift his focus from negotiating with the White House to negotiating with the nominee.

Committee targets White House, DOJ

The House Judiciary Committee has long been known as the site of some of the fiercest social policy battles on Capitol Hill. It has lived up to its reputation in the 110th Congress, with fights over immigration, wiretapping and the scope of executive power all boiling over at the committee.

Led by Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee has taken a sharp leftward turn since Democrats regained control of Congress, launching investigations into voter fraud, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and other hot-button topics.

And, of course, Barack Obama August 2007

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

Barack Obama 12/27/07

They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies ( ed note: you mean like Osama Bin Laden?) as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.

Obama Camp Says It: He’ll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity

It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

Rendition

Dems regroup on Iraq plans

The Responsible Plan draws heavily from the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report and from 17 bills that have been introduced in Congress; it would set a date to begin withdrawal, though it would rely on military advice for the pace of that redeployment. The plan’s broad reach promotes clean energy, a restoration of habeas corpus, a ban on torture and rendition, opposition to media consolidation, State Department reorganization, veterans care and a new GI Bill.

Learning from President Bush’s mistakes

The Bush administration opened several lines of attack against the rule of law and the integrity of an independent Justice Department. The scandals are so famous that they’ve been reduced to shorthand: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, NSA, Attorneygate.

No matter what, these incidents will remain a blot on our nation’s history. But we can achieve a measure of closure and justice by pursuing legal accountability for anyone involved who broke the law. The initiation of proper legal proceedings — both investigations and prosecutions — simply cannot depend on whether the accused are powerful.

Rendition hearings video uploaded by Nancy Pelosi

YouTube Preview Image

Obama outlaws torture, rendition flights and secret jails run by CIA

PROPELLING the United States rapidly away from the Bush era, President Barack Obama yesterday banned torture and closed the CIA’s infamous “Black Site” prison network, the secret locations used to interrogate terror suspects.

The orders will also mean the end of so-called extraordinary-rendition flights, in which the CIA transported hundreds of bound-and-gagged suspects around the world, using airports including Prestwick for refuelling, so the detainees could be interrogated in “friendly” states that permit torture.

ICC Complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tent, Rice, Gonzalez

Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.

Enhanced Interrogation

CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described

Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

Democrats must demand special prosecutor for torture

In other words, George Bush and Dick Cheney are lying. Is there any chance a bipartisan commission will reject these lies and demand the truth? No chance whatsoever, because the Republicans on the commission are guaranteed to remove every single word that suggests criminal or moral liability for Bush, Cheney, David Addington, and other high-level officials.

Will Bush officials ever be prosecuted for ‘enhanced interrogation’ program?

Meanwhile a new Senate report shows that top Bush administration officials approved the use of waterboarding as early as 2002 and 2003 – the harsh methods were approved by the likes of then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Maybe that’s one reason we’re hearing so much from Cheney these days.

Up to Democrats to investigate Torture

Democrats criticized the Republican-controlled “rubber-stamp Congress,” which failed to provide adequate oversight of the Bush administration. Now that the Democratic Party has control of Congress, the onus is upon them to restore law and order, to investigate the use of torture and to demand prosecution of those who engaged in it.

About that torture:

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

The former intelligence official familiar with the matter noted that Goss has given only one on-the-record interview on these CIA controversies since leaving the CIA director job. In the December 2007 interview, he said that Congressional leaders including Representatives Pelosi and Harman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), had been briefed on CIA waterboarding back in 2002. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Washington Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.”

Jane Harman claimed to object to waterboarding but

The only forthright objection contained in Harman’s letter is to the CIA’s intention to destroy the videotape of Abu Zubaida’s waterboarding.

In which Nancy Pelosi tortures the truth

Nancy Pelosi has a tall tale regarding her purported ignorance of the enhanced interrogation techniques that President Obama and Pelosi’s fellow Democrats condemn as “torture.” Pelosi boldly denied she had been informed of the actual use of the techniques in the briefings she received as a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. Huck Finn would have called Pelosi’s tale a “stretcher.” Here is Pelosi’s classic “stretcher” of April 23:

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel…opinions that they could be used.”

Scott Johnson concludes:

I think we can fairly draw at least one conclusion from this episode. The case of Nancy Pelosi provides the key to the “torture” controversy. It is a partisan charade. And it is a charade of a particularly disgusting kind. The Democrats’ “torture” charade is a case of low politics masquerading as high principle.

After Bush, or when a democrat became President.

Obama administration goes to bat for secrecy

For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush – in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate.

Obama Administration defends Bush warrantless wiretapping program

President Obama is maintaining the secrecy of a wiretapping program authorised by his predecessor, George W Bush, a Department of Justice lawyer told a San Francisco courtroom on Wednesday.

Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing

The Obama administration backed the Bush administration’s arguments in a lawsuit involving the practice of seizing terror suspects abroad and sending them to third countries for questioning.

U.S. opposes “rendition” review

With Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan not taking part, the Obama Administration on Wednesday afternoon urged the Supreme Court not to hear a major test case challenging the once-secret program of “rendition” — that is, capture of terrorism suspects and transporting them to other countries, often for aggressive questioning and even torture. Solicitor General Kagan’s deputy, Neal K. Katyal, signed the new brief as “Acting Solicitor General.” It is unclear whether this was an indication that, while Kagan’s nomination to be a Justice is pending, she will opt to stay out of government cases. The new brief is here.

Obama Makes Indefinite Detention and Military Commissions His Own

While the order is new, most of the ideas [3] it contains are not. This is the third time such a board has been created for nearly the same purpose. Two similar processes to review detainee cases were in place during the Bush administration. Like its predecessors, the Obama administration’s review process will operate outside the courts and will be subject to no independent review. Also like the Bush White House, the Obama administration alone will choose all members of the review board and appoint a “personal representative” to advocate on behalf of the detainees.

The major difference is that the White House, sidestepping claims that detainees have a right to counsel, will allow them to hire private attorneys The order states that the government will not pay legal fees. While detainees will have access to some evidence against them, the government will choose what evidence to share. The process is meant to be more adversarial than it had been under the Bush administration. Detainees can submit their own evidence to the review board but will be permitted to call only those witnesses the government determines to be reasonable. It is unclear whether a detainee can dismiss his personal representative or how the lawyer and representative will work together. The order allows a detainee to make his case for release once every three years.

Obama: torture doesn’t work.

President Obama said tonight that the “torture memos” do not show that intelligence obtained using harsh interrogation techniques could not have been discovered through alternate methods.

From Ace:

1. 2003: Enhanced Interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad Results in the Nom De Guerre of bin Ladin’s Courier.

2. 2004: Enhanced Interrogation of al-Qahtani Confirms the Nom De Geure of bin Ladin’s Courier.

3. 2006 (?): Enhanced Interrogation of an Al Qaeda Captured in Iraq, Ghul, Produces the Real Name of the Courier.

4. 2006-2009: NSA Begins Furiously Intercepting Any And All Communications Made By Anyone “al-Kuwaiti” Has Ever Known.

5. Then in the middle of last year, the courier had a telephone conversation with someone who was being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. The courier was located somewhere away from bin Laden’s hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch him.

6. 2011: Surveying Abbottabad, We Grow Confident We’ve Found Bin Ladin’s Hideout.

Obama frequently says that Bush took his eye off the ball:

Well, I think– I talked frequently during this campaign that we took our eye off the ball when we invaded Iraq.

Ghul (#3 above) was captured in Iraq.

The torture didn’t work. Except it did.

The hunt for Osama bin Laden was helped over the years by information from prisoners, including at Guantanamo Bay, US officials say, while arguing that criticized interrogation techniques yielded no specific clues.

“The intelligence was acquired over the last nine years or so. And there was some painstaking work done by some very, very dedicated analysts,” John Brennan, the top White House counter-terrorism adviser, told CNN.

“There was no one single piece of information that was an ‘ah-ha’ moment that led us to Abbottabad,” the Pakistani city where bin Laden was killed in a raid by US special forces.

“It was acquired over time. There was a lot of information from a lot of different sources including some people in detention.”

“Over the last nine years”

“It was acquired over time.”

“..including some people in detention.”

The bulls**t hasn’t stopped yet.

Senate Intelligence Chair: Information That Led To Bin Laden’s Killing Did Not Come From Torture

Today, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) rejected these assertions. She was asked by a reporter whether the intelligence that led to the killing was the result of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of detainees. She responded: We are in the process of a big study on the detention and interrogation of the detainees on the Intelligence Committee. The Republicans have pulled out of the study. So this has been carried out by the Democratic staff essentially. They have gone through more than 3 million emails, cables, pieces of paper looking for this. To date, the answer to your question is no. Nothing has been found to indicate this came out of Guantanamo.

There’s a fly in that soup. No one was waterboarded at Guantanamo

Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

The waterboarding KSM got persuaded KSM to become compliant with more conventional interrogation methods.

When KSM was captured, he was resistant to any form of interrogation, conventional or otherwise. As our colleague Marc Thiessen learned in writing Courting Disaster, KSM’s resistance was “superhuman.” It was only after being subjected to waterboarding and other enhanced measures that he became compliant, and from that point forward, cooperated with more conventional techniques. As one of the CIA interrogators told Marc, “If we had not had these techniques, we would have gotten zero from him.” So enhanced interrogation methods played an integral role in all of the intelligence collected from him.

Or you could read it for yourself.

Barack Obama’s embrace of virtually all of George Bush’s policies is complete vindication of Bush.

Democrats began their war on George Bush not long after the fires of 9-11 were being put out and they concentrated their war on Bush far more earnestly than they sought Osama Bin Laden. Had they sought to assist Bush, had they stopped distracting Bush, or had they stopped hamstringing Bush at every opportunity and simply gotten out of the way Bush would almost certainly have gotten to Bin Laden before Obama.

But then, maybe that was the plan all along.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in 9/11, American Intelligence, Barack Obama, Deception and Lies, Foreign Policy, Guantanamo, Liberal Idiots, Middle East, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, POWER GRAB!, propaganda bureau, War On Terror and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
| 2,366 views

73 Responses to Why Bush didn’t get Bin Laden [Reader Post]

  1. Old Trooper 2 says: 51

    @Greg: Nan, Of course You know how well the Russians fared.

    ReplyReply
  2. anticsrocks says: 52

    @little dickie wheeler: To play the race card when there is no racism involved is, in itself a racist act.

    Defined enough for ya?

    ReplyReply
  3. johngalt says: 53

    @anticsrocks:

    That is a simplified statement of the comment I made in #22. I wonder if he saw that?

    ReplyReply
  4. rich wheeler says: 54

    John Galt #22 and #50 anticsrocks #41 and #49 see my #43.
    J.G As usual well thought out and constructive commentary.
    Antic Not so much.As usual.I would certainly agree it is absolutely wrong to accuse someone of being a rapist, a racist or a communist if you know it to be false,

    ReplyReply
  5. anticsrocks says: 55

    @johngalt: Looks like he did see it, and in his own little way I think that might have been a mea culpa….though I doubt it.

    ReplyReply
  6. DANEgerus says: 56

    Memogate Intelligence Committee Links
    Memogate
    And Here
    And Here

    ReplyReply
  7. Greg says: 57

    An al Qaeda statement confirming bin Laden’s death…

    The text of the release is here, in Reuters.

    I guess the confirmation is worth having to briefly put up with the sentiments.

    ReplyReply
  8. Ditto says: 58

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Ben Franklin.

    I for one have never supported the Bush “warrentless wiretaps”, because I consider them to be a clear violation of the our Forth Amendment rights just as the TSA searches are. Just because it is someone from your party of choice (whatever that might be,) doesn’t mean it’s harmless nor constitutional. I don’t give a damn what political party supports the watering down of, “temporary suspension” of, or outright violation of our Constitutional rights, I don’t trust either of them, as they both rely on incrementalism to slowly take away our rights. Nor do I completely trust the politically appointed Supreme to interpret our rights as the founders would. Just as Democrats tend to go after the Second Amendment for “the good of society,” Republicans tend to have no problem with enforcement agencies violating the Four Amendment “only to keep us safe”.

    ReplyReply
  9. anticsrocks says: 59

    @Ditto: You are against our government listening in or intercepting messages originating outside the US and emanating from terrorist organizations?

    ReplyReply
  10. Ditto says: 60

    @ anticsrocks.

    Listening in on or intercepting messages originating outside the US and emanating from terrorist organizations?

    There is no US Constitutional jurisdiction in foreign nations, if you want to tap a phone in a foreign nation, you follow their laws.

    As with organized crime syndicates, Government agencies should have little problem getting a RICO warrant to listen in on terrorist organization or their known agents. Remember that a wiretap warrant is specific to the target’s own devices. If they get a telephone call from a telemarketer, it doesn’t mean that the telemarketer is now a suspect or involved with the terrorist.

    As for “wireless transmissions see Section 705 of the Communications Act or other Federal statutes

    Law enforcement agencies continually seek more free reign to violate the Fourth Amendment. Many Republicans support this mindset because they think that enforcement agencies and Prosecutors should be given the benefit of doubt. There have been many cases of Prosecutors and enforcement agencies trying to bypass or go around the law. That is why the courts are so important, to halt such violations and to throw out unconstitutional violations of the 4th Amendment.

    ReplyReply
  11. anticsrocks says: 61

    @Ditto: I hear what you are saying about the 4th amendment. In this day and age of rapid telecommunications, obtaining a warrant to intercept a communication of foreign origin would be pointlessly too late.

    When I call my Uncle in Des Moines, my other Uncle, Uncle Sam cares not. When I accept a call from a known terrorist agency from another country, then Uncle Sam is obviously correct to listen in. September 11, 2001 was important in so many ways, among which was the fact that we need to learn from our mistakes.

    ReplyReply
  12. Ditto says: 62

    @ anticsrocks.

    Placing a wiretap on the telephone of a US citizen’s phone requires a warrant. Failure to obtain a warrant means that the wiretap is illegal, Period. If said person is a known member of a criminal organization, then a warrant can be applied for. (Undeniably a terrorist group that has violated US or international laws, is a criminal organization, and the RICO Act applies.) The Supreme Court has held in the past that some portions of the Bill of Rights also protect aliens, I suspect that they would require a warrant in such cases.

    * On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) denounced the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. The ABA also formulated a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without obtaining warrants from a special secret court as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[5]

    * Edward Lazarus, author, law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and federal prosecutor, has argued in articles such as “Warrantless Wiretapping: Why It Seriously Imperils the Separation of Powers, And Continues the Executive’s Sapping of Power From Congress and the Courts”, that “Unilateral executive power is tyranny, plain and simple”

    Back in 1972, the Supreme Court took on a case (where President Nixon ordered wiretaps on individuals suspected of plotting to bomb a CIA building) and ruled that the President’s power under the Constitution to defend the country from attacks does not give the executive the power to unilaterally order wiretaps. (US v. US District Court, 407 U.S. 29)

    (Anticsrocks):

    I hear what you are saying about the 4th amendment. In this day and age of rapid telecommunications, obtaining a warrant to intercept a communication of foreign origin would be pointlessly too late.

    There’s no history of urgent investigations held up by overzealous privacy concerns. As late as 2009, only 11 requests out of 28774 have been rejected. Warrants requested under FISA can be approved in a matter of hours, and the statute allows the government in emergency situations to put a wiretap in place immediately and then seek court approval later, within 72 hours. 1952, the Supreme Court considered Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, and flatly rejected the president’s assertion of unilateral domestic authority during wartime. While intercepting the enemy’s communications on the battlefield may well be an incident of the war power, wiretapping hundreds of people inside the United States who are not known to be members of al-Qaida in no way qualifies as an incidental wartime authority. The slippery slope of your argument is the continual and incremental moving of where the stopping point is for Big Brother’s violation of our 4th Amendment rights.

    Distinction must be made on WHO is being wiretapped. If a NSA spook taps and listens in on a terrorist’s international line (re: through a wrong number) to a Chukee Cheeze Pizza Imporium, it may make for interesting conversation, but it will probably be insufficient evidence to conclude an actual terrorist “connection” with the pizza parlor. Now, if the person being called is on the do not fly list, there should be no FISA problem with granting the wiretap of the phone.

    The World Court might have a very different opinion on this matter, considering the CIA, NSA and others have been spying on the world’s communications for decades. (Including the wiretapping phone lines at the United Nations.) Although, beyond the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, I don’t thienk I’ve heard of them giving a waver for terrorists.

    More:
    NSAWatch
    On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
    US evesdropping via ECHELON

    ReplyReply
  13. retire05 says: 63

    Dr. John, I know I am late to this conversation but you forgot a few things.

    One, we were tracking ObL via his cell phone. But somehow, it “leaked” out that was what we were doing. Who leaked that information? Some think it was none other than Jay Rockefeller (D) who was trying to do what he could to stop Bush from wire tapping PERIOD. Also, let’s not forget the three traitorous Congressmen that traveled to Iraq, under the pretest to child on orphanages, to warn Saddam that Bush had plans to invade Iraq. Third, we were tracking the money, a process that also just seemed to find its way into the editor’s office at the NY Times.

    The Democrats, who now want to act like they are hawks who are only interested in protecting Americans, did everything they could to thwart President Bush in his efforts to catch ObL and kill the terrorists. Odd, that now Obama is taking credit for actually using Bush’s tactics. And the Democrats are still shoving their heads up Obama’s ass while people question the 16 hours delay because Obama wanted to “sleep on it.”

    ReplyReply
  14. retire05 says: 64

    You people who decry tracking phone calls of terrorists overseas are nuts.

    There is a law requiring FISA permission to wiretap Americans CITIZENS. What is it about ObL not being an American CITIZEN you can’t seem to understand?

    ReplyReply
  15. elaine says: 65

    listen, Bush-haters, for those of you whom think Bush let UBL escape, YOU LIE! Even though Bush pulled troops out of Afghanstan, He did leave a large group of Soldiers over there along with other NATO Soldiers. You damn liberals and Bush-haters think Bush just totally forgot about the Afghanstan war all this time. He didn’t forget about the Afghanstan war, Yall azzes forgot about the Afghanstan war because yall was to busy drinking the left-wing liberal media kool-aid and eating peanut butter sandwhiches………..Bush was too busy bashing the fuk out of KSM head and the GITMO couriers behind closed doors while yall was crying about civil liberties and chit……man, I remember the Bush years as if it was yesterday, I be damn, every got damn time the Bush folks did somethink, the fuking NYTimes printed in the paper….for example, the NSA Wiretapping, remember that libs……how can yall forget that part….in the death of UBL, its been reported that a single phone call led to UBL front door (BUSH NSA WIRETAPPING) remember libs/bushhaters, remember libs/bushhaters said Bush was listening in on people phone calls…………Ya got Ya answer boo boo, that single (NSA WIRETAPPING) phone called led the American Soldiers straight UBL front door……..Bush is still my CIC, no doubt, baby.

    ReplyReply
  16. drjohn says: 66

    @retire05:

    One, we were tracking ObL via his cell phone. But somehow, it “leaked” out that was what we were doing.

    It was Thomas Tamm. The Thomas Tamm who is not getting charged by Eric Holder because Tamm’s actions were harmful to Bush so that makes them OK.

    It’s a recurring theme.

    ReplyReply
  17. Pingback: Spiking The Football Ten Yards Outside The End-Zone « Blog de KingShamus

  18. anticsrocks says: 67

    @Ditto: As retire05 said so well, foreign nationals calling INTO America are not American citizens.

    ReplyReply
  19. Ditto says: 68

    @ Anticerocks “…foreign nationals calling INTO America are not American citizens. ”

    Agreed, and as such our Constitution doesn’t apply towards foreign nationals in foreign nations. If you check back on the controversy of the Bush Wiretaps it included the NSA tapping, eavesdropping on & recording the phone lines of US Citizens and not just on calls coming in from “terrorists overseas”. My ire is not just about the government evesdropping on phone calls. agencies of the government are continually trying to expand their power and abilities to spy on Americans. Pretending that it’s only about fighting terrorism is “BS” meant to placate the public. There is a concentrated effort to water down and erode our 4th Amendment rights by enforcement zealots who are either: Paranoids who consider any of their fellow Americans are “potential criminals or enemies”. Or power hungry bureaucrats who want to expand their agency’s reach and authority to Orwellian extremes.

    I consider every one of our Constitutional rights as important as the other, and I’m getting fed up with Republicans who are too blinded by their fear of terrorists to understand that they are being played. We are being slowly morphed into a police state, and some of you don’t care so long as you think it wont be a communist one. They seem absolutely clueless, not realizing that the expansions of reach and powers granted today to ferret out terrorists, can tomorrow become SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) and can quickly and easily be turn into tactics to use against any citizen they desire to target?

    Pull your heads out of, …the sand, and look at just a little of what’s going on:

    2003

    The Department of Justice and the FBI have been working for years to expand their surveillance capabilities to the Internet.

    2003

    Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who voted for the bill, but has since voiced his concerns of the law, said he wasn’t surprised, but disappointed to hear reports earlier this month that FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.

    2007

    Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1,000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.

    2009

    DOJ admits “…in 2009, the government admits that the NSLs, which were intended only to apply to terrorism investigations, were not used for terrorism more than 99% of the time in 2008.”

    “The FBI has been assuring us for years that the abuses of the Patriot Act could be cured by more layers of internal review, but now we learn that the supervisors themselves were abusing the process,” Nojeim said. “When people are under pressure, internal review is not enough, there needs to be external oversight, and the best way to do that is to have a judge look at the situation.”

    2011

    Former FBI Agent Turned ACLU Attorney: Feds Routinely Spy on Citizens
    Domestic spying on citizens is done by too many federal agencies, targeting people based on religion and political activity.

    2011

    Police use drones to spy on Americans

    2011

    Dade Cops Waiting To Get Crime Fighting Drone Airborne: Police admit the MAV, if flown low enough, has the ability to look into people’s home, but that is not its intended purpose.

    2011

    Even DHS Is Freaked Out by Spy Drones Over America: Police departments around the country are warming up to unmanned spy planes. But don’t expect the Department of Homeland Security to catch drone fever anytime soon. It’s too controversial for an agency already getting hammered for naked scanners and junk-touching.

    20011

    Remember when George W. Bush was accused of spying on Americans by listening in to phone calls made to terrorists overseas? Well, now President Obama wants to spy on you! Let’s see if Russ Feingold again leads a charge against this! Obama wants to change the “Cookie Rules” and even ACLU is upset about this stunt!

    2011

    Obama Administration Says It Can Spy On Americans, But Can’t Tell You What Law Allows It Remember how President Obama, while campaigning, promised to reject the questionable spying practices of the federal government of President Bush? Yeah, forget all that. Over the past two years, we’ve seen time and time again that he’s actually extended those abuses even further.

    The following article covers some of the many methods to track and gather information on Americans.

    10 Ways We Are Being Tracked, Traced, and Databased: Are technological advances infringing on our right to privacy?

    http://www.activistpost.com/2010/07/ten-ways-we-are-being-tracked-traced.html

    As I’ve said many times. I don’t trust either party when it comes to our Constitutional rights, and just because it’s officials “you trust” today, doesn’t mean you will be able to trust them tomorrow. Data mining is the perfect tool to create damaging dossiers on political opponents, or to discredit people a party wants to silence, and these systems are rife to be misused to destroy an individual.

    ReplyReply
  20. Pingback: There really are only two liberals worthy of respect [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces

  21. Doctor Dave says: 69

    Living in California, and putting up with both Pelosi and Boxer, it makes sense that they use all the political
    bull to cover up their incompetence for their Democratic support. It makes sense to lie about the truth when the truth is so obvious that enough lies will convince the morons who vote for them that the Democrats really understand the depth of terror and anti American positions of the Islamic world. Read the Koran (Quarn, Korran?) and try to understand a book written in 600 AD by radicals who only wanted to lop of the heads of non-Muslims. Pelosi is supposedly a Catholic. If she stuck her head out, I would be more than grateful for the Islamists to do the head lopping of hers. Of course, the air in the head may make it a difficult target to lop?

    ReplyReply
  22. Ditto says: 70

    @Doc Dave

    Keeping their noses up in the air offers a clear target to the radical jihadists.

    Incidentally, I’ve read the Koran comprehensively cover to cover in an effort to understand. It’s ironic that far left atheists are totally clueless to the fact that Muslim extremists hate them even more than they do Christians and Jews (who are at least considered “people of The Book”).

    ReplyReply
  23. Pingback: How Bush paved the way for Obama to get Bin Laden and why NY Times reporters should already be imprisoned | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>