Skip to comments.Media lies about President Bush and “mass spying”
Posted on 12/18/2005 3:53:16 PM PST by luv2ndamend
As soon as the New York Times hit the streets with its mendacious attack on President Bush, accusing him of ordering the National Security Agency to secretly spy on Americans, I knew instantly that this vile hit job would be parroted in the Australian media virtually word for word. And so it came to pass, as the Good Book would say. David Nason and Patrick Walters led the attack on President Bush with
George W. Bush has allowed the US National Security Agency to spy on hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens since 2002 without the court-approved warrants that make such surveillance legal (No warrants given for mass spying, The Australian, 17 December).
This was followed by the accusation that the covert operation [was] secretly authorised by the President, thus conveying the impression that the President acted alone. This is a brazen lie. This pair of phoney reporters then admitted that the sole source for their agitprop was the New York Slimes Bush-hating national security reporter James Risen.
Why didnt this pair of intrepid journos investigate the story further rather than relying on the viciously partisan NYT whose reputation for integrity and disinterested journalism has been reduced to tatters by its publisher Pinch Sulzberger? Any man in the street would have had enough sense to smell a rat. Not this pair of Bush-hating lefties. If the so-called paper of record says Bush violated Americans civil liberties then that is good enough for them.
Far from acting in secret, and without the knowledge of Congress, President Bush made a point of briefing congressional leaders. How come Nason and Walters didnt bother to find this out? Moreover, this pairs outrageous insinuation that thousands of innocent Americans were spied on is refuted by the fact that the program is directed against the international communications of people within the US who are believed to be linked with terrorist organizations.
Yet Nason and Walters made no mention of this vitally important fact. Even more sickening is that the NYT had this fact in its possession but chose to ignore it in a despicable attempt to smear Bush as a danger to Americans civil liberties.
The liars at the Times claimed that they delayed publication of Risens article for a year to conduct further investigations. But we now learn that Risen had written a book on the subject that will be released in less than a week even though he finished it more than three months ago!
One would have to be a complete idiot, or a leftwing journo, not realise what the hell is going on here. Additionally, these scumbags also timed publication of Risens article to bury the good news from Iraq. They are obviously hoping that the books publication will continue this process. Hence, in their perverted eyes, they will have killed two birds with one stone. Only this time the liars are not getting away with it.
Its becoming increasingly clear that Risens book State of War is another leftwing hit job on Bush. The book is being published by Simon & Schuster using the same person who acted as editor for Richard Clarke and Hillary Clinton. A coincidence? Not likely given that Simon & Schuster is owned by Viacom, a company with strong links to the Clintons. Furthermore, Viacom owns CBS. It also runs the leftwing Sundance Film Channel, promoted leftists activities and practiced censorship.
So how did Nason and Walters manage to overlook these connections and the Times obvious conflict of interest? And why do I get the feeling that what we have here is ideologically motivated selective reporting?
Now lets examine another fact that these fearless defenders of the publics right to know managed to overlook. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was fully informed of this program from the beginning as were other members of Congress.
It was Rockefeller who requested that the special court that overseers the program should re-examine some of the NSAs new powers of surveillance. Yet not a peep from Nason and Walters about this. According to them Bush did it all by himself. As far as they are concerned, Bush is the real enemy. And these political bigots have the nerve to call themselves journalists.
Its more than obvious that partisan Democrats within the CIA are intent on destroying the Bush presidency irrespective of the damage it does to national security and the danger in which it puts their fellow Americans. In this regard they have a lying media fully on side.
For years now Congressional Democrats like Leahy, Rockefeller, Durbin, Kennedy and Levin have been embroiled in a number of national security scandals. Yet this has never been reporting in the Australian media. Moreover, the Democrats are notorious for using security agencies for partisan ends. In addition, evidence is surfacing that the Clintons used the IRS to harass their critics. This is another story that our media spiked.
The media are the real scandal here not George W. Bush.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes economics editor
Media lies about everything!
1) The spying is only done on those people within the United States who are known to have association with Al Qaeda.
2) The NYT article makes clear that no laws were broken. Any democrat saying differently is playing politics, imo.
3) The NYT article also says that the C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, the officials said. In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said.
They were tracking numbers that were tied to confirmed terrorists and according to reports, stopped 3 terrorist attacks within the US. This is EXACTLY how the 9/11 attacks were coordinated - between jihadists and sympathizers of other terrorists living in this country.
4) The NYT article also states that the government DID use subpoenas for domestic taps in a great many instances, mostly related to conversations between terrorist within the US.
5) Clinton used NSA satellites to spy on Americans after the Oklahoma City bombing incident. The leftists never had a problem with that and all the complaints we hear from them now about American's civil rights being abused pale in comparison when one remembers what happened to women and children at WACO and how Clinton abuse his office and used the IRS to target his political enemies.
Love how they don't pull punches. Calls "liars" what they are!
I see yet another Democrat blunder as they complain that Bush broke the law, violated the rights of American citizens, etc... only to find out that MOST people support what the president is doing and that he is also within his constitutional perogative.
The military does not request permission of the courts to perform their job. This is a military issue... we are at war.
Amazing it needs to be said.
Great points! Thanks for clarifying.
Media lies and has done a sickening job, in this war on terrorism. Calling the Media pea brains would be an undeserved compliment.
I keep hearing the MSM saying that "members of both parties" are calling for investigations. Of course they never point out that's just Senator Spector. [*rimshot*]
It would be nice tonight for the President to give dates of such briefings and who was in attendance.
I would also like to hear him have the Justice Department go after ALL the leaks.
1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [e.g., defined as terrorists /angkor]
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person [e.g. citizen or perm. resident /angkor] is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
Excellent summation regarding the law! Thank you so much; saved under my file on this matter. And I'm sending it around to my e-mail group.
Please spread it around, people need to be informed.
By the way, it's not a summary, it's the verbatim text of 50 USC 1802.
I think that you need to email that to Feingold--the ignorant dunce.
Yes, you're right.
And I just posted the link to your post on the Live President Bush thread and pinged you to it and mentioned that you posted it. Thank you again and I will spread it around on appropriate threads.
Great post, thanx
Thanks. We have a dupe post, I put it on the live thread just before you. We'll live with it :)
Thank you for the summation. Tried to read FISA last night and got bleary eyed. This will be passed around.
I read the link you posted; amazing stuff!
LOL. That's what I get for not checking your inforums before posting :-)
I would not be trusting a Clinton in office with this type of spying. No way.
And I too had a lot of problems with what Clinton did and included some of his activities in the post I made only to show the hypocrisy of the left; they had NO problems with the spying when it was a Democrat president.
It's permitted by 50 USC 1802, which is posted on several threads here on FR.
Your post deserves its own thread. I have not heard one politician with enough brains to cite this code, so the general public doesn't know what to believe. All they hear is Dims spewing "Broke the law! Broke the law!" and Repubs responding "Did not! Did not!" Cite the law, you morons! Use your heads!
OK, I'll give it a thread. Let's see what happens. I'm even gonna' put it in breaking news.
When Harry Reid says "President Bush broke the law!!!" he insinuates that Bush did something illegal and implies that it was for some personal gain.
I appreciate your citation of 50 USC 1802 but even if the action of our president *was* illegal, most people would consider it acceptable if it was done to protect our citizens or nation.
I think that this is another example where Bush is in the right, and rather than immediately cite 50 USC 1802, he is letting the Democrats step into the deep doo doo a bit further before he drops it on them.
The fact they continually overshoot the target is doing them more damage than if they simply shut up and did nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.