Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Unlikely Co-conspirators

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted January 10, 2006.


At least seven House Democrats learned about the NSA's secret spying program four years ago. So why didn't anyone blow the whistle?
011006_story
Bush's Unlikely Co-Conspirators
Advertisement

President Bush deserves plenty of blame for secretly authorizing domestic spying by the National Security Agency. But some of the president's fiercest critics in Congress gave him the political cover to do so. The question why they did so says much about the nation's brittle democracy and how Democrats have covertly joined with Republicans to restore the imperial presidency and effectively remove any checks on the executive branch of the U.S. government.

The domestic spy scandal first looked like another unilateral move by a president bent on doing secretly what he refused to admit publicly. After 9/11, President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to surveil phone calls and emails of Americans in the U.S. In an amazing confession last month, Bush admitted disregarding the law in authorizing the spy program in 2002, opening himself to impeachment charges and NSA officials to criminal indictment.

Underscoring the gravity of the president's actions, last Friday the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, found that Bush apparently had no authority to bypass Congress in ordering domestic spying, saying in a polite understatement that the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well-grounded."

The congressional report is another blow to Bush's flimsy argument that his spying order is legal. But it is now clear that Bush has a second defense that is more difficult to dismiss: the claim that by briefing selected members of Congress on the program, he essentially sought and gained legislative approval for domestic spying.

Indeed, at least seven Democrats in the House were briefed by the Bush administration on the spy program as far back as four years ago. Among those briefed include Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader. Last week, Pelosi released a previously classified letter documenting some of her concerns about NSA spying. The question that went unanswered is why Pelosi -- and the other Democrats, including former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller -- never blew the whistle publicly on the program.

Pelosi, Daschle and Rockefeller each privately expressed dismay over the spying program -- in secret. They didn't go public with their concerns because they were bound by rules governing classified briefings of congressional members. These classified briefings were launched more than 20 years ago as a reform in the oversight of the nation's spy apparatus. But like many other reforms, classified briefings have become perverted and, in the hands of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, have become gags that prevent Congress members from doing their job.

In the mid-1970s, abuses by the CIA and the FBI led to a series of reforms that included the formation of House and Senate oversight committees. Members of these committees received classified briefings on secret operations conducted by the U.S. government. The briefings were seen as a way for Congress to exert some control over the president.

The concept is proving to be flawed, however. As a condition of receiving a classified briefing, the congressional member agrees not to disclose any of the contents. That creates a double bind. The member can object but only privately.


Digg!

G. Pascal Zachary is the author of "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Democratic Party MUST Be Overhauled
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 10, 2006 2:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep telling people "when the democrats take back power next year". And yes, I have no doubt that this is going to happen - But they have much work to do in the primary season. I say "them" because I'm not a democrat. I left that party six years ago in absolute frustration. Aftr they foolishly nominated Al Gore over the far-more qualified Bill Bradley. That was the last straw. I became a Green Party member and Ito my everlasting regret) supported Ralph Nader in the election. I figured at the time that I had plenty of cover. This is a protest vote, I thought, meant to send a message. George W. Bush was so gut-bustingly stupid, the American electorate would have to be brain-dead to send him to the White House, right? RIGHT??..Well, ahh, right. Apparently they are 'cause they did.

We democrats (OK, I'm thinking of re-registering) have to get their (our) act together and throw out the dead weight like Joe Leiberman and Hillary Clinton (Yes, Hillary Clinton) who have been dragging the party down. We have to nominate progressives. Real progressives. I can't use the "L" word because the right wing have turned THAT word into an expletive AND WE LET IT HAPPEN!

In the next year and a half, our most important goal will be a landslide victory in November followed by the impeachment and imprisonment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Let's just hand the hideous bastards over to the Hague. Let's face it; They've committed too many war crimes to count. On that happy note....

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wasted votes Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Wasted votes Posted by: Llama11
» RE: Wasted votes Posted by: ShaSpirit
» No vote is a waste Posted by: hanex
» RE: No vote is a waste Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: No vote is a waste Posted by: hanex
» RE: No vote is a waste Posted by: satyagirl
» RE: No vote is a waste Posted by: hanex
» RE: No vote is a waste Posted by: Lincoln fan
diogenes
Posted by: the republic on Jan 10, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those who would cover for Democrats with knowledge of wiretapping by claiming they were gagged by the law, I ask two questions.

What is more important; their careers or the Constitution and American citizens? Did they too, not swear an oath to uphold the Constitution?

A far cry from "Give me liberty or give me death."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: diogenes Posted by: Losthorizon
» RE: diogenes Posted by: the republic
Good little Democrats
Posted by: katinmn on Jan 10, 2006 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So they wait for an agency whistle-blower to expose it and take the fall?

They get a pass because they feared being arrested? Bah. They're elected officals. It is their job to provide OVERSIGHT on behalf of all citizens. I think they let the country down by playing CYA and being good little Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Need a new "Profiles In Courage"
Posted by: scohol on Jan 10, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are there any courageous polticians left in this country....sorry I forgot, that's an oxymoron

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In '08, I hope for Feingold. In '06, I'm looking Green!
Posted by: guijackb on Jan 10, 2006 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Bush holds a "confidential" briefing, in which he tells Democratic leaders that he is going to "illegally" use the military to take control of the nation, no longer pay any heed to Congress and will never hold another election, WILL THE SPINELESS DEMOCRATS TELL US???
I swear, when I first glanced at this story, weeks ago in other media, I thought "That F*&%^$! Joe Lieberman!" Because I assumed that it was a Republican in Democratic costume that would agree to conspire with Bush to hide the fact that our government decided that the 4th Amendment would join the other portions of our Constitution left on the cutting room floor [in Cheney's office].
But, NO!
It's so called REAL Democrats, even a Liberal [Pelosi] who decided that the illegal [warrantless] listening in on private conversations, as well as [warrantless] breaking and entering into American homes to sneak peek personal documents, would be allowed to go on in secret, WITHOUT THE TOTALLY USELESS DEMOCRATS WARNING US OF THE CHANGE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY TO DICTATORSHIP THEY ALLOWED!
I AM SO DAMN MAD AT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE COUNTRY I ONCE THOUGHT I KNEW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's called losing by fighting on your opponent's turf
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 10, 2006 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I told you that the Democrats were just as numb on privacy issues. Do you really expect these folks to address those concerns when their only concern is fighting the social issues on GOP turf? And if you add to it that these same Democrats rely mainly on what the rightwing media delivers, it should be no surprise that they're continuously being feeble and numb like an abused spouse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America needs a new 9/11 commission
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Jan 10, 2006 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There needs to be a transparent commission of people that are willing investigate what really happened to this country that has made this Presidency and Congress so willing to the most secretive in history. The American people can handle the truth and I am sure that appropriate action will be taken to reclaim this country as a free and open nation of good people and representatives that do the will of the people and not the K street lobbyists and foreign interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where Have All the Flowers Gone
Posted by: DCH on Jan 10, 2006 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having done the Green Party protest vote and acknowledging my stupidity, this revelation does not surprise me. We have a two party system in name only and if this Nation was ever ripe for a third party candidacy for President it is in 2008. As a Democratic Socialist, my view of the Democratic Party is of a cadre of spoiled, privilaged pretenders to being interested in the working class advancement of rights. The Clinton,Gore,Kerry privilaged class in adopting the foolish abortion issue that is, in fact, bad Constitutional interpetation, continue the stupid march towards more defeats at the ballot box. Feminist manipulation has replaced common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Staying awake
Posted by: Unbowed on Jan 10, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have nightmares of Hillary, no paper trail, and once again, defeat in 08. I'm trying to just stay awake now. It's to frightening to sleep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blame the perpetrators
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Jan 10, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok--we need reforms. Given. Ok, certain Democrats were placed in no-win-no-win situations. But--keep clear on this: Blame the perpetrators. Especially the perptrator in chief.

Keep the priorties straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: blame the perpetrators Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: blame the perpetrators Posted by: the republic
Squelling isn't very Congressional
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 10, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These bums deserve nothing less than a sound Tar and Feathering. Concealing NSA screwups and backing the Pres. only show that there is no diffrence between the two Parties.
We must shut this cesspool of idiocarcy down for the sake of all People,for the sake of the Nation and thr restoration of Libert and Freedom to the People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about tha bastion of democracy, leaking information?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 10, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, there are constraints on Congresspersons who sit in on classified briefings, and this can stand as a technical, legal reason why Ms. Pelosi and other Dems didn't blow the whistle. But why wasn't the information leaked several years ago? After all, our government has more holes in it than a rusted-out sieve, and the way we found out about the spying scandal NOW was throuugh a leak. So why did it take years? Integrity and courage are in VERY short supply in our "leaders" – but don't those two attributes DEFINE leadership?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jareilly
Posted by: jareilly on Jan 10, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zachary points out the example of the otherwise execrable Robert Torricelli in the Harbury case. Well and good I guess but he doesn't mention that Torricelli went down in a corruption case a few short years later. He deserved it of course, but you gotta wonder how it all happened. Nancy Pelosi is House Minority leader for one reason and it's not because the Dems wanted "a fighting liberal", whatever that means in our present context. It's because Pelosi raised more money than any other Dem in the House and threw a lot of it around. In other words, she bought the position. The player with the biggest bankroll is generally the one with the biggest record of corruption, at least on a dollar for dollar basis. Pelosi's been in the game since she was a kid working on her dad's campaigns. The woman surely has an army of skeletons in her closet bigger than the one that rose from dragon's teeth and attacked Jason and the Argonauts.

Sure, we should be pissed off at Pelosi, Rockefeller and the appalling wimp, Tom Daschle, but we should not be surprised.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Parable of the Goosefish
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jan 10, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a thing swimming around off the coast of Cape Cod. It is called the goosefish. It has a huge mouth but no teeth and weak jaws. It's attracted to flashy things; it will grab your foot, say, if you're scuba-diving with bright, colorful swimfins. But there's no danger from it; it is a predator with no strength.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the goosefish Posted by: vespasian01
the "L" word
Posted by: jwg on Jan 10, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'I can't use the "L" word because the right wing have turned THAT word into an expletive ', yes but the "R" word has just as many or more bad connotations. We could change it to Gee and Haw but I am not sure a elephant understands donkey language. ;)>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Ultimate Country Club...
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Jan 10, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had to hire a lawyer for the first time recently for an accident one of my sons had.The insurance company the the
"sited" person had wouldn`t pay damages.To make a long story short ..after the judgement was made and handshakes
were given...these lawyers practically slap each other on the
back ..ask how they`ve been...hows the family..ect. And as we reach our cars I ask my lawyer "whats with all that"? I`m paying (rediculous rates by the way)this guy to go to "battle" for me and afterword ..their all buddy buddy.Like that cartoon with the sheepdog and the wolf who are pals until they punch the timeclock and go after each other for 8 hours.Anyway....
thats excactly what we have down there in Washington! This
group of lawyers/doctors/exterminators...who party together,
visit each others families,send cards to each other/kids play with each other/ect. are just like that!! Then..they go to work in the morning...pretend to stand for us..rant and rave a little
bit...debate some....pretend to serve their districts...punch the timeclock...and they`re grabbin each others ass`s again!
At least ..that is what this government of ours appears to me to be.....the Ulimate Country Club !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the Ultimate Country Club... Posted by: starvinmarvy
How can they still be unlikely after 20 years?
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 10, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been almost 20 years since I started intelligence work. At that time it was already known that the NSA routinely monitored most or all telephone traffic in the US. And so now we're supposed to be surprised that both parties have been privy to this? And we're supposed to say, gee, maybe Bernie Sanders and the few other members of Congress who have steadfastly criticized the DoD and intelligence budgets were right? Why do you think they propose cuts in the DoD, because they want our country weak (as the critics say) or because they want our people free?

This information is available in the open press for those interested in looking. The pretenses about losing clearances is bogus. Aviation Week, Jane's Defense, and other publications have covered it. Yes, you have to pay for a subscription or go to a library for most of it, but much of it can also be found right here on the internet for free. Try searching for things like COMINT and SIGINT.

Pelosi is a liar, she keeps voting YES on the defense appropriations, instead of voting NO until they axe out the funding for domestic spying, uranium artillery and bullets, chemical weapons, and MK77 napalm. She pretends that the defense bills need to be approved as-is for national security, when in fact wars of aggression, torture, and napalm all decrease our security and are only done for the benefit of her robber baron masters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: links Posted by: ScottP
» RE: How could I? Posted by: ScottP
The problem with the Democrats is their inability to frame and think outside the "news" box
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 10, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article once again proves that the Democrats refuse to get out there and fight fiercely and independently. Why is it that they are so deluded into believing that even to be a true whistleblower they need a fucking permission slip from the rightwing press. Tom Daschle sure did a perfect job of embarassing himself by pretending to be an angry opponent but nonetheless not only not doing anything about it but instead caving in. That's the main reason South Dakota kicked him out in 2004. And Pelosi is no better. You don't see her holding the turncoat Democrats who voted yes on CAFTA even being reprimanded much less being held accountable. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.

The main problem is that the Democratic Party relies on soundbites and polls rather than an ideological infrastructure or they wouldn't be this far behind already. And let's not forget what Lakoff meant when he talks about how "conservatives" respect their intellectuals and keep their rotten ideology amazingly alive while there is no progressive infrasture to counter it because of the way they misunderstand the true meaning of nurturance. Think about it. A rightwinger can make voters feel like he or she is one of them even though in reality that same rightwinger maximizes their self-interest, much of it through robbing what's left of their voters who gave up their trust. A leftwinger/centrist on the otherhand gives a weak speech about helping the poor but for all their records, they cave in to the right and even disrespect their intellectuals. For example, a typical California "liberal" who calls himself or herself an environmentalist would make fun of children in North Dakota who choose to ride an animal to school. Remember, it's the IDEOLOGY stupid !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You are all Rove, Libby, Limbaugh, Cheny like ideologues
Posted by: jamesr on Jan 10, 2006 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the people who responded to this article (as well, apparently the author of it) are babbling monkey ideologues as bad as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Cheny and the like. I am a life long LIBERAL and have spent 30 years in politics trying to elect good people from our side--and actually accomplishing quite a bit in spite of the cesspool that all politics has become. And I will go to bed tonight happy that people like you will never be in charge of anything but your own room at the asylum.
I wouldn't respect a political leader who would break their oath--reqardless if to the Senate for a security clearance or the Constitution. They were right in not releasing confidential information they had sworn to protect--this exact opposite of which all of you gleefully point to Libby Rove etc in the Plame case. You are just like the worst of the Right Wing--your ideology is first and you are mighty happy to be a hypocryte on this issue for it's sake. They did better for continuing to have that security clearance over the last three years and be able to see more of what the white house was doing. I know most of these folks personally--and none of you could hold a candle to their ethics. Torrecelli--your hero--on the other hand is just what he is--corrupt pond scum.
Why don't you guys stop trying to out Nazi the Nazi's and do some good in the country for a change?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Gma part 1 of 2 Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: Gma part 2 of 2 Posted by: vespasian01
Co-Conspirators...
Posted by: Gma1 on Jan 10, 2006 1:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The concept is proving to be flawed, however. As a condition of receiving a classified briefing, the congressional member agrees not to disclose any of the contents. That creates a double bind. The member can object but only privately."

With the Bush administration who can say whether one would receive "censure" for breaking the law. (As I understand it, this is not an "agreement" but a "law". ) Under Bill Clinton one might receive censure. However, all of the briefed Democrats most likely assumed that Bush would go to the secret court for permission, which he did not. Did they not just learn that he did not do that? It's so easy to write about something like this, but, indeed, being the person on the spot is something entirely different. The fourth estate is the best answer, and that's what happened. You might be asking yourself why the NYTIMES held the story up for so long. National Security is not a game. One has to be very careful as the laws protecting it may not always be correct but they are serious.

After reading this essay, I asked my husband, who had a double major in college one of which was English, what does one call an idea put forth in a piece that one then proceeds to totally discredit. He thought for only a moment then replied, "Stupidity." I have to agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you G-mal
Posted by: bookwoman on Jan 10, 2006 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You took the words out of my mouth. Two years ago, Bush and his boys were riding high. The poll numbers were out of sight, and everyone loved and believed in him. Even the members of Congress who were moderate Republicans were afraid to go against the Bush boys in the House and Senate. There is no question in my mind that any member, who was privy to the wire taps and spoke out about it, would have been indicted more quickly than blinking. After all, these are pretty much the same people who tried to impeach President Clinton over the definition of the word, "is". Even as Senior a Senator as John Rockefeller was so cautious about discussing his doubts about the program as to hand write his letter to Vice President Cheney. I always wonder at people who have twenty twenty hindsignt and think someone else should have done this and that and put themselves on the line when there is little or no hope of winning. Talk about pyrric victories.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And after Daschle lost?
Posted by: jtrout on Jan 10, 2006 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why couldn't he blow the whistle?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And after Daschle lost? Posted by: jtrout
» RE: And after Daschle lost? Posted by: ftorres
Paging William of Ockham, you are needed
Posted by: VoiceOfReason on Jan 10, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, this is rich. We're given the information that certain Democrats were briefed on the NSA's surveillance activities, and that they did not go public with that information. What conclusions can be drawn? Apparently Zachary sees only two alternatives:

1. The Democrats involved were miserable cowards who valued their own political careers ahead of the good of the country.

2. The Democrats involved were conspiring with Republicans to restore the "imperial presidency" (which, incidentally, would dilute their own power.)

Missing from this exhaustive list of two, of course, is the simplest and likeliest explanation:

3. The Democrats involved, who received detailed briefings and therefore knew a lot more about the program than you or I or Zachary or for that matter the New York Times, concluded that it was legal and that its status as classified was necessary and appropriate.

But of course that possibility didn't even enter Zachary's mind. President Bush approved the program, therefore it must be illegal, right?

Zachary does deserve kudos, however, for his suggestion that classified briefings should end. Inanity on that scale is truly rare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suprise, surprise, surprise!
Posted by: texshelters on Jan 10, 2006 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May I point out the obvious here: the Democratic party leadership and most Democrats support spying on its citizens just like the Republicans and also support other conservative positions. They just lie about supporting us as part of the good politician, bad politician game they play on us. The real questions is why so many people think the Democrats are on our side.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Suprise, surprise, surprise! Posted by: texshelters
» RE: Suprise, surprise, surprise! Posted by: texshelters
What's a co-conspirator?
Posted by: zoomwide on Jan 10, 2006 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is a co-conspirator? Is that different from a conspirator? Before the Columbine massacre, people who conspired were merely conspirators. That deadly event gave birth to the hyphenated abomination "co-conspirator," whatever that means. It is hard to take this piece seriously with a headline like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's a co-conspirator? Posted by: Lincoln fan
rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 11, 2006 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey politicians, figure out who you're actually working for yet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NSA gathers info for NSC osg murders.
Posted by: jimmytwotimescoffee on Jan 12, 2006 5:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who outed BUSH and forced him to disclose secret violations of the federal criminal code?! Does BUSH and the NSC and NSA engage in political spying and use that info to set up murders?!


1) You can't really set up a murder, unless you do some surveillance. When the Secret Government kills people, they use all of their technical skills and access to electronic surveillance to set up the murder.



3) The CALEA was passed after the OK CITY Bomb fiasco when our intel community (CIA, NSA, NSC, FBI, DOJ) all aided and abetted the conspiracy to commit this act of domestic terrorism. This was an "Operation Northwoods" type false flag operation in which a patsy is set up and sheep dipped as a militia member...so that the political dividend leads to fear of patriots acting as terrorists.

4) CALEA required all telecom providers to install computerized switching that allows the secret police to "wiretap immediately" after the computerized switch connects the phone line to another phone line. This info is catologued on the hard disk computer at the main terminal of every telecom provider.

5) This CALEA hard disk info...captures evidence of all warrantless wiretapping by law enforcement, the NSC, NSA, etc. Mossad hacked it with entry into the back door...and used it to protect their ecstasy rings in America. No charges or news of these conspiracies have ever been given any attention.

6) So...if a guy wanted to...he could have the demonstrative evidence showing political spying by the NSC and NSA...and compare that info to some of the political murders that have benefitted notable GOP politicians like JOHN ASHCROFT benefitting from MEL CARNAHAN'S airplane going down. And NORM COLEMAN benefitting from PAUL WELLSTONE'S airplane going down. Who benefitted from JFK Jr's airplane going down, after the intel community found out that "John John" was gonna run for the presidency under the Democratic ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NSA gathers info for NSC osg murders. Posted by: jimmytwotimescoffee
» RE: NSA gathers info for NSC osg murders. Posted by: jimmytwotimescoffee
» RE: NSA gathers info for NSC osg murders. Posted by: jimmytwotimescoffee