Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm confused about this spying business.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:25 AM
Original message
I'm confused about this spying business.
I haven't had time to focus on it. I understand what was done and why it was illegal. Why did Bush admit to it? Why did they hide it on day one and open up on day two? Is it that they had no way to cover it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hate to say this
but I wonder if this is a smokescreen for something even bigger...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Hmmm possibly...
on the other hand subverting the constitution is pretty serious, if it's a smokescreen they are covering up something Hugh!!!!!!!!!11111
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. that HUGH stuff always cracks me up
I remember the original freak republic post :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. It could have been the NYT article, but I think they could have ignored it
Edited on Mon Dec-19-05 09:47 AM by bigtree
putting out a terse statement instead of Bush coming forward and seemingly spilling the beans.

Several things occur to me. Cheney is out of town. Bush is home alone. Did Cheney get some heat from Fitzgerald?

Bush signed the orders, but who really believes he knew anything about what was going on beyond what he was told by Cheney and others in the WH? He could have just found out that he's in jeopardy because of his sig and he's busy backpedaling from whatever Cheney, Hadley, Libby, or whoever did with the intercepted phone-call and e-mail dossiers. It's so likely that this is muckraking, obtaining files from a process that was intended for national security only.

Bush comes out to tell the world, and whoever will listen, all of the benign things that he got someone to tell him that he did. With Cheney out of town (Bush could have sent him out) Bush is free to attempt to separate himself from the more pernicious uses of the NSA records by his surrogates. It won't be enough to save him, but I'll give him credit for taking advantage of dick's absence to try to cover his ass.

Also, Fitz could already have access to whatever muckraking files the WH collected, Joe Wilson's perhaps. That would be enough to send Cheney into hiding, away from the Washington press gaggle, and enough to send Bush out to try to tell us that if it's broke, he had nothing to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randyconspiracybuff Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Because Bush Is Arrogant and Thinks The Media Is Under Control
Bush's free ride is over. Now the mainstream media has finally got a little of its cojones back. This is not a conservative-liberal issue- right-wing militia types don't like being spied on either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Hi randyconspiracybuff!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
randyconspiracybuff Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks
I made my donation but still I don't have a star next to my name...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. There is no defense to it really, except to come out and admit it
and then strenuously claim that you were doing it for "good reasons"

Which is bullshit I know.

They are still so damned powerful (so they think) that they throw it out there that the meeting will be done in secret because it is classified information and that no one will really know what happened. Like who exactly did they wiretap.

I believe they wiretapped political enemies as well as innocent americans whose spouses may have traveled overseas for business.

This is just sick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's just a game
They do what they want, admit to it or not, it doesn't matter, then go on to do whatever it is that they want to do next.

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice - "Resist the beginnings" and "consider the end." But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn't, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Jr. claims he has war powers authority--under the use of force resolution
that was passed by Congress (war in Irag). Gonzalos has been all over the tube backing him up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. You know, after 4/19/1995
Republicans were screaming about it . . . TOTALLY AGAINST . . . because they feared a Dem president doing it.

Now, with * in charge . . . :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kokonoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. They must admit their abuse and rein in excessive power
before democrats assume equal authority in the next election cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is their fight for EXECUTIVE POWER. They are trying to say
Edited on Mon Dec-19-05 09:31 AM by in_cog_ni_to
that Article II of the Constitution gives the IDIOT, IN A TIME OF WAR, the power to bypass Congress and the courts to do whatever the hell he wants. The problem is....he NEVER WENT TO CONGRESS FOR A DECLARATION OF WAR. The IWR is NOT a DECLARATION OF WAR. The IWR is a RESOLUTION to fight TERRA.

They decided NOW was the time to "go for it" and get the Executive power they have been seeking for 5 freakin' years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmakaze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. I believe it is a test...
Perhaps the FINAL test.

Commit an obvious, no doubt about it crime large enough to warrant impeachment yet not so large that if anything goes wrong you end up in prison for life, then go on TV and brazenly admit the crime and basically dare the American people to do something about it.

If they get away with this, they know that they can get away with anything. If they can suspend one amendment of the Constitution, they can suspend them all. It also highlights who needs to be watched, rounded up or otherwise dealt with for phase two - the suspension of the 2006 Congressional elections.

This admin has been breaking the law since before it was even "elected" but this is the first time they have come straight out and said "Yes we did it, we did it for security reasons, we will keep doing it, and nothing will change our minds." If that is not a 'dare' then I don't know what is.

The Bush cabal is DARING the people of the United States to do something about it, while obviously believing they won't. I fear the Bush cabal may be right, and this is the final nail in the coffin of democracy in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Spot on! and I love your screen name.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. Because He SIGNED an Executive Order
Edited on Mon Dec-19-05 03:40 PM by ThomWV
NSA did it, the NY times knew they did it, they would not have done it without something in writing directing them to.

This is not to say they (NSA) would require an order in writing to do their duty out of mistrust for the President, its just the way that the NSA, that most secrete and discrete of Agencys, works. It just so happens that the authorization to do it was readily available. So they (The Bush boys) could not deny he did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. He copped to it early because it's coming out anyway
Edited on Mon Dec-19-05 03:52 PM by kenny blankenship
and he needs to act like there's nothing wrong with what he did.

They've been damaged by a number of things they tried to sit on, deny, wait out & make disappear, but this episode isn't just another example of incompetence or bad policy like Katrina or missing WMDs. It's arguably an impeachable offense in and of itself. He can't shunt responsibility onto underlings. He can't deny the wiretaps took place. He therefore has to start the noise machine early with flat out rejection of wrongdoing of ANY sort and shut public comment down, or it could go all the way (I mean resulting in his trial and removal). If he tried to deny authorizing the surveillance of citizens, it would look like he knew how severe the crime was and tried to cover up his involvement: an impeachment express. Not even the Republicans would save him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC