idrankwhat

I really don't know how to reply to this question. You've got me on the ropes with my jaw hanging wide open in disbelief. I think I hear sheep.

You're making it sound like we're going to steal their oil. These guys are saying their keeping commerce lines open. BIG DIFFERENCE. "Keep commerce lines open". That's a nice way of saying "manipulating the political arena so that we can make sure that we have access to the oil and so that none of these countries gains any real power in the world community". If they're powerful, we have to negotiate with them. So the bottom line is, we're destabilizing the region because it's profitable for the US and it's multinational conglomerate buddies. Wouldn't you be pissed off and ready to attack if China forcibly came over here, broke up our infrastructure and exploited our......our......(what do we have again?) our corn? Damn right. Me too. I wonder if you'd see Chinese citizens carrying signs that read "No War for Corn"!!!

Don't take my word for it: Dick Cheney, USA Vice-President (from 2000) speaking in 1990: "Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." Reagan on Defending American Oil Interests in the Gulf Nov. 26, 1983 Reagan "...we should assign the highest priority to access arrangements which would facilitate the rapid deployment of those forces necessary to defend the critical oil facilities..." Brig. General Looney: We Own Their Country Jun. 24, 1996 US Brig. General William Looney, Washington Post "We dictate the way they live and talk... It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need." Chalabi on U.S Oil Companies in Post-Conflict Iraq May 2, 2003 Ahmad Chalabi, formerly of the Iraqi National Congress "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." Iraq battle: dead in the middle of the national energy supplies 04, 2006 four-star General Barry McCaffrey Still, McCaffrey says the nation must persevere, because the battle is dead in the middle of the national energy supplies for the U.S., the Europeans, the Japanese and others. For the next few decades, Iraq is our station in the Middle East. Feb. 2004 U.S. General Jay Garner "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East" The U.S. has an enormous stake in the Persion Gulf because of oil Mar. 1994 Paul Wolfowitz “The United States and the entire industrialized world have an enormous stake in the security of the Persian Gulf, not primarily in order to save a few dollars per gallon of gasoline but rather because a hostile regime in control of those resources could wreak untold damage on the world's economy, and could apply that wealth to purposes that would endanger peace globally.” OR you could recite the official line like a good American patriot. Rumsfeld: 'It has nothing to do with oil -- literally nothing.' Nov. 14, 2002 Rumsfeld "Nonsense. It just isn't. There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around. I'm glad you asked. It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

I don't know what happened. Maybe I metabolized some old recreational stuff I had stored in my lipids for a couple of decades. Don't worry, hopefully a little hypoxia this weekend will return things to normal.

I can't even begin to get into this thread. I'll just say that I agree with your above statement. These folks are bad. They assume massive executive power, they won't allow any checks and balances, and if you question them then you get attacked. There is no transparency. Everything has been reduced to "I can't tell you, just trust us. It's for your own good". These are troublesome times.

Wrong. This is not a Holy war but we're certainly doing a good job of starting one thanks to a commander in chief who thinks he's getting orders from God. The terrorists have told us numerous times why they attacked us. 1) Our presence on and manipulation of Arab soil. 2) Our lopsided support of Israel. Bush's answer to that was to increase our foot print in the middle east through a war of aggression (one could argue imperialism) and to steadfastly back the Israelis in their conflict with the Palestinians. Now if we're going to be imperialists then we need to quit f'ing around and say it. That way our leadership won't have to come up with excuses like "spreading freedom" or "liberating". Just call it what it is, a military incursion to secure a natural resource that we want and the cementing of our influence over the rest of the world so that we continue to remain in control. At least this think tank, the one that's actually running the administration right now, had the fortitude to put it in writing. www.newamericancentury.org We need to cut the bullshit and come clean with the American public. That way we can decide for ourselves whether or not this is the route we want to take.

I know that we all have a checkered history, but it's supposed to be history. The defense that "other people have done it" is simply not acceptable, however I hear it a lot these days. I mentioned it before but I absolutely HATE double standards and condemning countries for human rights abuses but still being friends with Saudia Arabia or breaking international treaties against torture is just plain wrong. It also does nothing except alienate more allies and make more people want to hurt us. Terrorists don't want to come after us because they "hate freedom" (quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard), they want to hurt us for what we do to them or their countries. Why pour more gas on that fire? Hmmm....maybe that should be "alcohol on that fire", gas is getting too expensive.

If we hadn't pulled our troops, supplies and money out of Afghanistan so that we could invade Iraq this never would have happened.

I remember when we used to impose sanctions on or invade countries who violated human rights. It saddens me that we've stooped this low. I kinda liked being the country with the white hat. But we've screwed ourselves over in a different way as well. By using these secret detention centers and employing torture (or sending them to other countries to be tortured), even if we wanted to bring those involved with 9/11 to court, we can't. No information obtained during that detention would be admissible, unless it was a secret military tribunal. But that doesn't help our image either.

Still looking for that emoticon. Help me out here. Ok, please do me a favor and look up who Charles Taylor is and what he was involved in. Dont click on any pictures unless you have a strong stomach. Then ask yourself why Pat Robertson thought he was a good Christian. And that calling for the US government to assassinate another person? Is that doing God's work? When the time comes for Pat to sitteth on the right hand I'm pretty sure that God's going to have his thumb sticking up.

Any issue. Hippie? LOL Zipp0 OK lets discuss how the Left is destroying this country. Sure. That's probably a better approach. Listing how the right, excuse me, the new right (only God know what happend to the old right) is destroying our country would take all day.

Are there supposed to be some emoticons in that statement somewhere?

Pat's my favorite! I especially liked it when he got busted and fined for using his charity's plane to haul his diamond mining equipment to Africa and then when he came out in defense of Charles Taylor in Liberia because of the gold mining interests that they share. I think it's called "Freedom Gold" or something like that. I also kinda liked the commandment breaking call for the assassination of another world leader. Good stuff! The Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not use your national resources in a way that doesn't benefit God's favorite country!!

"Family togetherness plan"? Isn't that the same program as the "Patriotic Fiscal Responsibility Plan for Freedom and Liberty"?

So illegal NSA spying/record collecting, which you vigorously and very specifically defended in THIS thread is off topic (and boring) and the discussion is limited to the newspaper articles themselves? Wow. That's pretty narrow. It fooled a lot of us.

"Joe Wilson's wife" comes to mind. Sounds like Dick Cheney without the wardrobe. By the way, before you write your letter to the editor notice that it's dot com, not dot org.

I've seen this assertion enough that I need point out something. Yes, we had medicare under Clinton and Bush. But under Clinton did it include a massively expensive drug program that legally prohibits the federal government from bargaining for bulk pricing? So yea, the programs are still there, Bush just makes them cost more.

What was off topic? You posted a law that the Bushies are supposed to abide by and you stated that it was pretty obvious that they were adhering to that law. I countered with that time honored tool of the liberal devil, the question. And by asking the simple questions like "did they actually fully brief the committees that were listed in the law" the answer turned out to be a resounding NO, as evidenced by Bush's promise yesterday to finally comply. Sorry if you feel that sinking your legal compliance assertion is off topic. If CNN and USA today is the topic then maybe we should change the name of this thread.

You're wearing me down on this one. Stick a fork in me, I'm done. It's the same freakin' story! Illegal wiretapping. The story first appeared, Bush said "so f'ing what? I can do whatever I want if I want to" regardless of the written law, Gonzales says "he can do what he f'ing wants and besides we're only targeting overseas conversations with terrorists, then it's pointed out that Gonzales was a liar, you quote a law in their defense about who they have to report to, I point out that they didn't report to them and that members from both sides of the aisle don't think what Bush is doing is legal. These people have repeatedly said things, been called on them, and then changed their story. I'm tired of it. By the way, didn't Bush say that he was going to fire whoever leaked the Plame information? I guess that means that he needs to fire not only Rove and Libby but Cheney and HIMSELF now that he's ADMITTED that he started the flow of that information release. These people are so full of crap it's unbelieveable, but not so much so as my complete lack of comprehension as to why the general public took six years to figure out that they're full of shit. History won't paint this era too nicely for us, unless of course it's printed by the Limbaugh press. One last question, do you think the Romans saw it coming? end rant

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for proving the point that I've been trying to get across!!! All of these "gates" and investigations. And what were they about ? Fucking nothing other than trying to badger the guy and waste tax payers dollars for political gain. Yet the current administration shoves scandals *in your face*, leaks classified information, deliberatly misinforms the public to get us into a voluntary war, kills thousands, endangers our troops and citizenry, spys on them, sells out our treasury to corporate interests, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, torture, defrauds the taxpayer (that was Cheney)and there's no investigation of any of them because his conservative buddies have circled the wagons for him even thought he's not even remotely a conservative or even a republican for that matter, except for tax cuts. Absolutely amazing. Is it raining? Sure smells like pee.

Thread stealer Ok, agreed good move. But the fact remains that he's apparently broken the law. Just because he's decided that he's going to abide by it now doesn't change that fact. As for press leaks, what if the committee members are briefed and they find out that the NSA has a huge database of all of our calls and they've been tracking war protesters and moveon.org members? To leak or not to leak?

Yea, because consensual sex between adults defiling your own body with drugs is sooooo much more immoral than killing thousands of men, women and children in a pre-meditated war of choice.

This just in. Bush *says* that now he's going to comply with the law. Clinton should have tried that sort of delayed compliance thing. "Ok, you got me. I won't lie about knob jobs under oath anymore". From the Los Angeles Times President Backs Off Wiretap Secrecy The White House will brief more members of Congress on the program, a move meant to boost the chances of CIA nominee Hayden. By Greg Miller and Joseph Menn Times Staff Writers May 17, 2006 WASHINGTON — Reversing a position it has held for months, the White House on Tuesday agreed to brief all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on a controversial domestic wiretapping operation — just as the architect of the program is facing a contentious confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill. In making the concession, the Bush administration is seeking to improve the prospects of the president's nominee to be the next CIA director, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, by preempting attacks from lawmakers angry that they have been kept in the dark on domestic spying activities. Meanwhile Tuesday, Verizon Communications Inc. became the second phone company to deny that it gave customer calling records to the National Security Agency as part of a separate program in which the NSA is accused of assembling records on tens of millions of U.S. citizens. BellSouth Corp. issued a similar statement Monday, leaving only AT&T among the three companies named by USA Today as having granted access to electronic databases. Ever since news reports revealed last year that President Bush had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. residents without court warrants, the White House has insisted it was too risky to reveal details of the program to more than a select group of lawmakers. The decision to abandon that position came after the White House received warnings from prominent Republican lawmakers, including Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, that Hayden would face a hostile hearing if members voting on his confirmation were not trusted with information on the most controversial program he ran. "It became apparent that in order to have a fully informed confirmation hearing, all members of my committee needed to know the full width and breadth of the president's program," Roberts said in a written statement. Hayden served as director of the NSA for five years, and played a major role in designing and overseeing the program, which involved intercepting the international communications of thousands of U.S. residents in an effort to identify and track terrorist suspects. Hayden now serves as the deputy director for national intelligence, but was tapped two weeks ago by Bush to take the helm at the CIA. Bush addressed the controversy again Tuesday, defending the program as necessary to fight terrorism, but also repeating his earlier statements that the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the decision to expand the briefings reflects frustration within the administration with how the domestic surveillance programs have been portrayed. "I do think there has been ongoing distortion about the scope of the terrorist surveillance program," said Perino, using the administration-coined term for the operation. "Dispelling those myths can help us as a nation to keep the program intact." The impetus for including more lawmakers, she added, "was broader than Gen. Hayden." The White House has said that Bush, in his role as commander in chief, had the authority to allow the NSA to bypass laws passed in the late 1970s requiring the government to secure permission from a special court before placing U.S. residents under electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes. Bush launched the program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and the White House has said it is limited to international calls between U.S. residents and individuals overseas suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. But critics have called the program illegal, and also have argued that the White House was required by the 1947 National Security Act to provide a full briefing on all aspects of the program to the full House and Senate Intelligence committees. The first of the expanded briefings is to take place this afternoon, when Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who succeeded Hayden as director of the NSA, is scheduled to discuss the operation in closed session with all 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The House panel will get a similar briefing at a later date, officials said. Hayden's first confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled for Thursday morning. Republican lawmakers cited ancillary benefits to the expanded briefings. The White House had previously expressed concerns that details of the program might leak out if more lawmakers were briefed on it. But senior congressional aides said that because of the rules of handling classified information, members who are briefed will likely have to be more circumspect in their public discussions of it, blunting their ability to criticize it. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity, citing a lack of authority to address the press. "When they know about it, they are obligated to be quiet," said one senior Republican Senate aide. The White House and Hayden also face risks in disclosing information to more members. Lawmakers who previously would have had a limited understanding of the program now may learn enough from their briefing today to pose more detailed and difficult questions to Hayden. "It could defuse the ability of the Democrats to complain about White House stonewalling," a senior Democratic aide said. "But it could ignite a line of questioning [in closed session] that would otherwise not have been part of the confirmation hearing." The domestic eavesdropping program is one of two NSA operations that have been the subject of political debate in recent weeks. The other involves the effort, reported last week by USA Today, to collect millions of customer telephone records. Verizon on Tuesday denied having turned over its records, including what numbers its customers dialed and when. Verizon, which acquired long-distance carrier MCI Inc. in a deal that became final in January, didn't deny that MCI had provided such data. Long-distance records are generally of more interest to intelligence agencies. USA Today spokesman Steve Anderson said the newspaper "will look closely into the issues raised by BellSouth's and Verizon's statements." The paper relied mainly on unnamed sources for its assertions that the NSA had compiled databases of domestic calls, but the government hasn't denied the claims. "We will continue to investigate and pursue the story," Anderson said in a statement. "We're confident in our coverage of the phone database story." In BellSouth's statement Monday, the company didn't rule out the possibility that its records found their way to the NSA indirectly. AT&T, the country's largest long-distance company, has not denied involvement. AT&T is now owned by the former SBC Communications, another regional phone service firm. The former chief executive at the one company said to have refused an NSA request, Qwest Communications International Inc., has confirmed the newspaper's account of his role.

I'm sure that's one of the issues the Committee will determine. The law calls for the Committee to be informed on a semi-annual basis. I have no evidence to suggest this isn't being done. Did you read the thread I posted that said Bush is informing them? Ignorance, politics and/or both. Do you not believe CNN has a very slanted bias? Do you not believe many politicians will use any issue to try to gain power? [ - Well, Arlen Spectre is on the Judicial Committee and he's not convinced. And neither are members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Whether or not they have "D" or "R" behind their name doesn't seem to make much difference. http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-i-spying.pdf The "D"s are using this because it's just another example of the over reaching executive power that this administration has cultivated, along with it appearing to thwart civil liberties AND provide another hammer with which to hit this presidency. The "R"'s that question this are concerned for civil liberties as well as realizing that they aren't always going to be in power. Even Grover Norquist has figured that one out.

Two questions: Does the law apply to a blanket gathering of the entire call database or is it limited to individual requests? Were all of the appropriate committees FULLY informed of the scope of the program as required by the law you posted? And if so, why are some members of those committees and many other members of Congress questioning the legality of the scope of the NSA's spying? Ok, that's three questions.