Posted on 12/27/2005 7:17:53 AM PST by B Knotts
That's all I know, though I think the unnamed co-workers are telling the truth. If it was health or personal or some other reason than protest, he would have denied it, IMO. Clinton appointed him and he is still doing the bidding of his master ;-)
No way unless it results in action that would stop Bush. So far he seems to be saying neener neener.
The political hit may have missed the mark. People were more excited about Christmas than wiretapping. But it was intended as a political hit. And being that specific about intelligence in a newspaper risks security. Bush said so himself.
This is unlikely to have not been public information already through some other source. Or else the NYT is getting this intelligence out of their keisters like they do 50% of the time anyhow.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
The first I heard of it was through the NYT via a leak, IIRC. Ongoing investigations, by law, are not public information.
"Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months. It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1547499/posts
Until the USA becomes king of the world that can't put a lid on the Yemen side.
Who came forward and acknowledged the truth or falsity of the alleged information?
How do you know that Bush himself did not engineer the 'leaks'?
Mostly impossible as these classified charges mandate a Kafka court.
I think the keystones really flatter themselves with this. The real deterrent is knowing that a war will come your way if you jihad the USA too much. As long as radical Islam still has a geopolitical vision this is their achilles heel.
They need to be found and tried for treason. Keep mailing the White House and VP office to make sure they get the hint that America will not let up on them.
As one of the radio guys said, "this is one way to get rid of the liberals"
This is the scariest part of the article:
"the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States."
Why should this be a problem with the courts?
Doesn't make me feel safe if this is who we have to ask permission.
The FISA court was set up under old technology, and probably has not kept up with the times of internet, cell phones, sattelite phones and encrypted messages. The way the Dem talking heads are speaking, you would think GW was only intrested in violating our rights, but this casts a whole new light onto the possible "why" of the Administration bypassing FISA. Hope this gets MSM attention, but we know the likelyhood of that is about as great as the Washington Senators winning a pennant. Where is Joe Hardy when you need him? LOL!
You're right there, I think. That is how past wars were fought. This one is a bit different, but it does seem that the same basic ideas must apply, and the ability of the enemy to strike must be destroyed in order to win. And certainly, knowing that you (and the country you in which you operate) will attract significant attention from the U.S. military has to be a deterrent.
Sorry, when the most reasonable and obvious answer is the one that makes the most sense, I don't go cooking up conspiracy theories.
What motive does Bush have to "engineer the leaks"? How was he helped? What good have those leaks done for the WOT? What good did those leaks do for Bush himself? Why did he do his radio address the Saturday after the leaks live and condemn the leaks? Why did he meet with the NYT repeatedly to ask them not to leak the info?
The Dems, on the other hand, have routinely leaked info in an attempt to smear the president. Sometimes (Abu Ghraib) it works for them. Sometimes it falls flat.
Certainly I don't know if Bush engineered the leaks or not, but it's pretty warped reasoning to conclude that he did, unless I'm missing something. The dems, OTOH, have obvious reasons and a track record that points to them.
Told the terrorists "we're watching you"
--you want thieves to think the police are watching them.
Too Machiavelian for Bush. Eisenhower maybe, not Bush.
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.