Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House kept "major program" secret
reuters ^ | July 9, 2006 | Alan Elsner

Posted on 07/09/2006 9:22:35 AM PDT by prairiebreeze

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: prairiebreeze
...until whistle-blowers...

They are not whistle-blowers. They're political hacks with an anti-America agenda, and unconvicted felons.

21 posted on 07/09/2006 9:56:04 AM PDT by Doohickey (Democrats are nothing without a constituency of victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Is it ANY WONDER Bush has to keep things SECRET?

Geesh!


22 posted on 07/09/2006 9:59:25 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
By law .....

That phrase has ceased to have any meaning.

BY LAW you cannot punch a police officer and walk away scot free.
BY LAW you cannot invade a country and assume all rights as a citizen.
BY LAW you cannot murder someone and walk away and occupy a seat in the US CONgress for life.
BY LAW as a US SINator you cannot warn other countries that the USA is about to invade and continue to hold your SINate seat.
BY LAW you cannot commit treason as an officer of the US Military and run for or hold an office in any government entity.
BY LAW if you drive under the influence of anything, there are consequences.
BY LAW you cannot leak national secrets and go unpunished.
BY LAW you cannot give nuclear technology to foreign hostile regimes and continue to walk free.

I don't have time for this. The LAW has become a joke.

23 posted on 07/09/2006 10:02:27 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: billbears

The congressman's letter says "may be a violation", yet you know that it has happened and the executive is guilty. I'm betting you know this without being able to show a shread of evidence otherwise.

The letter was sent in May. Maybe this program is already known in the public now.

I'm betting congress leaks this type of information within the day of receipt. At least the NYTimes showed the courtesy to give the executive several weeks of negotiation to convince them not to commit treason before thumbing their noses to that request.


24 posted on 07/09/2006 10:04:25 AM PDT by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Yep, the Bush Admin should have thoroughly cleaned house, starting with State Dept. I'm sure if the truth be known these whistleblowers are leftovers from the clintoonian administration.


25 posted on 07/09/2006 10:05:04 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Glad they briefed the SWIFT program to congress.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters


26 posted on 07/09/2006 10:08:48 AM PDT by bray (Jeb '08, just to watch their Heads Explode!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

I am late to this thread as I tape and watch this program after Church.

I am from Michigan and have followed Hoekstra for sometime. This is my take and it is complete conjecture.

Hoekstra and Goss were very close. Goss helped Hoekstra get the gig as Chairman of the committee. I think Goss was sick of getting stepped on by Negroponte and informed Pete of a program that he was not in the loop on. Pete goes to the administration and asked what is up and why is Negroponte not telling us about this stuff. Bush has to choose who to support. The resignation points to who he chose.

I would be very interested in the exact date that letter was sent and how close it was to the resignation.


27 posted on 07/09/2006 10:10:41 AM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
He said he did not expect to be briefed about everything intelligence agencies were doing but at least one of the secret activities was a major program which Congress definitely should have been informed about.

What the White House should brief on and what the White House has to brief on are two different things. Unless there is something that says when Congress has to be informed then I don't think Hoekstra has legal grounds to complain.

28 posted on 07/09/2006 10:14:04 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

"Imagine, a "penchant for secrecy" while fighting a war. Hard to believe, isn't it?"

Yeah, that d*mn Bush just insists on protecting the American people. What is that all about? /s


29 posted on 07/09/2006 10:20:56 AM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

This is silly...Congress has been signing off on "Black Budgets" for years.


30 posted on 07/09/2006 10:22:32 AM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

They can't be briefed on every program. Hoekstra obviously is aligning himself with the RINOs of late, so I am assuming that the program was a piddly program that only Hoekstra thought was "major."


31 posted on 07/09/2006 10:23:19 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I think Porter Goss is the one who leaked this to Peter to get Negroponte in hot water.

There is a very unhealthy war going on between Hoekstra and Negroponte that is hurting this country.
32 posted on 07/09/2006 10:36:37 AM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: billbears
How do you know Pres. Bush hasn't informed those in Congress whom he can trust? Only those who were out of the loop (and probably with good reason) were screaming when the NSA came to light. We are making some mighty big assumptions, when the President cannot defend himself without giving away even more national security secrets.
33 posted on 07/09/2006 10:43:17 AM PDT by skr (We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent.-- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
"To our nation's shame, there are too few Congress members who understand this concept."

Maybe they should be hearing a lot more from us. I hate when they always say "The American people Say - or "Want to know".

They sure don't speak for me!!

They seem to have no clue - or don't give a darn about what we think!!

34 posted on 07/09/2006 10:48:57 AM PDT by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
What part of "executive" and "legislative" don't you understand, Pete.

It's all well and good for the President to keep Congress informed if he wants to in order to foster good relations and to ensure funding of programs that he wants. But he doesn't have to, and Congressional comments that imply that it is his job to bring them into the loop on administrative matters should be shot down.

Contrary to what the press says, Bush is ceding a ton of executive powers during his administration, not enlarging them. He has acquiesced to a number of judicial decisions that are patently without merit and which attempt to insert the judiciary into the commander in chief role. He has let the legislature force him to make them "co-executives". He has let the MSM pressure him into appointing a special prosecutor that is not authorized by law and who has since gone off on a wild goose chase. He has left Clinton holdovers in office far too long, and let them wage war against the civilian leadership (Tenet at CIA and all the careerists at State). He has refused to enforce laws that make criminal the disclosure of secrets. He has refused to fight back when people called him a liar and misrepresented the basis for the Iraq war. He has refused to use the veto pen once, even signing the unconstitutional campaign finance reform, which only the O'Connor court could have found constitutional. He smirked "I have political capital" and then proceeded to waste it on a failed SS reform that had no political support from day 1.

This is the incredible shrinking presidency. It will take a strong personality to restore the powers of this office, to tell someone like Hoekstra what's what, to tell the Supreme Court to go to hell when they try to interfere with the conduct of a war, and to assert the will of the president over the bureaucracies. Future presidents will have people saying, "but Bush never did that...you tyrant!"

35 posted on 07/09/2006 11:01:34 AM PDT by Defiant (MSM are holding us hostage. Vote Dems into power, or they will let the terrorists win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crosslink
Porter Goss last day at the CIA was May 5th -- around the same time of Hoekstras letter to the President. Hoekstra was very upset when Goss was fired and came out strongly against Hayden at the new CIA director. Today on Fox New Sunday, Hoekstra stated that the purpose of the letter was to 1)ensure that the intelligence agencies were staffed with the best and most appropriate leaders; 2)reign in the power of the director of intelligence (Negroponte); and ensure congress is briefed in all important programs.

In reality, Hoekstra was miffed that Goss was fired and appears to have a running feud with Negroponte. Hoekstra wrote this letter as a means to vent and to dirty up Negroponte. Also, Hayden's nomination was still in the preliminary stages and maybe Hoekstra was trying to get Bush to withdraw it. In any case, it was dumb move because Hoekstra had to know this would end up on the front page of the NYT. After all the other recent leaks related to intelligence matters, Hoekstra and the NYT get the black eye on this one.
36 posted on 07/09/2006 11:22:48 AM PDT by double_down
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

We are not a monarchy. The President's powers as Commander in Chief are extensive, but even Washington had to beg from the Continental Congress under a more makeshift law -- and when General Washington could have construed his power as dictatorial, monarchial. He did not and set a standard which is in the law today -- that law is called the Constitution.


37 posted on 07/09/2006 11:27:22 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"We are not a monarchy. The President's powers as Commander in Chief are extensive, but even Washington had to beg from the Continental Congress under a more makeshift law -- and when General Washington could have construed his power as dictatorial, monarchial. He did not and set a standard which is in the law today -- that law is called the Constitution."

What happens when we have a traitorous underground in high places whose only agenda is to bring this president down?

38 posted on 07/09/2006 11:34:36 AM PDT by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"We are not a monarchy. The President's powers as Commander in Chief are extensive, but even Washington had to beg from the Continental Congress under a more makeshift law -- and when General Washington could have construed his power as dictatorial, monarchial. He did not and set a standard which is in the law today -- that law is called the Constitution."

BS.

Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies is the bastard child of the Church committee and others who wanted to neuter our intel agencies. (And they did a good job accomplishing that.)

The law everyone is referring only was enacted in 1980. Somehow this country made it through many crises and wars and years without it -- and without becoming a dictatorship.


39 posted on 07/09/2006 11:42:34 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LADY J
Arrrr you saying, Milady, that's we becomes a monarchy to meet current extreme situation? I hope not, for there's no situation imaginably more extreme than those had by Commander Washingon. Not only had he traitors and spys, and at times perhaps as much as 75% of the public against his war -- but he had no "nation" fully formed to back him. He commanded in rebellion, as a Rebel, yet he called his cause "patriotic" and his soldiers his "countrymen".

If George Washington could sustain and win under more adverse situation, Mr. Bush, Commander, can do so in his turn, without putting on the robes of a monarch, or flying a standard of a dictator, a good one, like a Cinnciatus, yet still a dicator. As George Washington, first amoung men and Father of our Country refused that historically proven role of benevolent dicator and/or monarch, and by so doing created a New World, so to should all Presidents of this Republic continue that legacy.

40 posted on 07/09/2006 11:46:25 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson