I think that congressmen knew just as it stated in the Times report. I think that there is a system of checks and balances that allows for the proper legislation to go through. So yes, it does bother me but I don't think it's one person like you do.

The other aspect is that I worked with a couple former CIA guys who told me that no matter what, the NSA acts as a large global information vacuum. Whether or not we know it, I would think that all the emails and phone calls ever made have been sucked into that vacuum. They probably concentrate on certain emails and calls after leads come up. This coupled with the fact that it's not hard to get warrants for wire taps in the intelligence courts since 9/11 means there are 2 different problems. I may not like it, but I don't think it's possible to change it.

-Rudey

I understand your thought process, but I'm going to copy the following from your post above. The second paragraph may be telling:

"After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls."

So, the White House called in the legislators, but did they tell them everthing?

And, of course this is bigger than one man -- but he's the one with the final go/no go power in this case.

There was more than one man involved in Watergate, and several went to jail.

But only one was nearly impeached and resigned from the Presidency.

Actually, Nixon resigned before they could impeach him. The only presidents to be impeached were Jackson and Clinton.

However, back to the subject, I believe a quote from Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

You may be right. I thought he was impeached, but not convicted because he resigned, but it's been a while ago and my memory may be fuzzy. It may be that I'm confusing the Senate Watergate hearings with impeachment proceedings. In retrospect, that is probably right. I have amended my post.

Thanks.

For those who may not know, the point here is that impeachment does not mean removal from office, but rather the bringing of charges which are "tried" by the Senate. If the elected officer is convicted, he or she may then be removed.

With due respect to Mr. Franklin, to me it is a matter of how "a little liberty" is defined.

(ETA, and totally off topic, was it Jackson or Johnson, Lincoln's replacement, who was impeached? Damn, you forget so much. Didn't Jackson die in office? Or am I confused.)

They didn't return calls. I am guessing they knew quite a bit.

-Rudey

Could be.

Or they feel stupid because they didn't ask the right questions and were hoodwinked.

Quite a bit is relative. Quite a bit of a lot might not be that much. Quite a bit of a little may be most of it. How's that for convoluted?

You may quote it if you like.

I know you have a general bias against blogs, but this is pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/po...s-program.html

The general consensus on all sides seems to include anger about why the Times waited a year.

This sorta made me think about certain other things too:

This is a sick joke...
Submitted by Al on Fri, 12/16/2005 - 1:51pm.

First, I don't and wouldn't like being spied on and I'm weary of government spying, but this was hardly a secret. A few points:

1) They withheld it for a year because it's for the writer's new book! I didn't see this fact disclosed in the story. I saw that the book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke signed him to the publisher.

2) Then, the whole headline and tone is ridiculous. The article makes you think this was secret. Members of Congress knew about it. If Rockefeller knew about it, you can bet a lot of other Democrats knew about it.

"The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.”

“Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees.”

3) More quotes…

”After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law.”

“But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds ‘to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements’ protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, ‘is a very difficult one to administer.’
You’d think that this information should be near the top of the piece to help readers judge the merits of a program.

4) This is just a hit piece. Isn't it funny how it came out on a Friday, while the Patriot Act is being discussed and in time for dominating the Sunday news shows???? Dan is surprised; the people who watch the MSM operate aren't. I understand Dick Turbin used this hit piece in the Senate today. And you wonder why people think the New York Times and much of the rest of the MSM is in cahoots with the Democrats. The NYT should have come out with this a long time ago and in a way to foster debate on the subject.

5) Now, who leaked this? Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald should be given the additional task of tracking down who leaked this? Also, isn’t it funny how the author doesn’t seem to have any curiosity on who knew about this? Sure, the Administration knew, but who else? Again, this is just a hit piece on Bush. Thank you, Dan, for sticking to the template.

As I said, I don't like government spying, but if someone is calling Al Qaeda in southern Afghanistan, then maybe it's okay. As we all know, these terrorists are bent on blowing us up and crippling the economy. The Democrats have got themselves in a position where they a) offer no ideas on how to protect us, b) are against a war that is going well and c) attacking just about everything that we do. Look at this. Basically, the Democrats are proud that they don't have any solidarity on the war. These people are sickos.

We should be celebrating the historic election in Iraq. You know the other Arab peoples' who have never really voted are watching what is happening very closely. Even the recently oppressed people of Europe are watching. We’re at a very important point in Iraq (haven’t we always been at one?) and we should be doing everything humanly possible to help these people. With our help, the Iraqi’s are progressing nicely. All we get are defeatists and a phony piece from the New York Times.

-Rudey

Somerset Maugham summed it up better:

"She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit."

I'm not sure that Franklin's statements from over 200 years ago should be considered factual or even applicable to current times . . . not that I even disagree, I'm just saying.

First, Impeachment is not throwing them out of Office. It is a tool trying to show just cause. This is the way for the Legislative Branch to show disdain for The Sitting President.:(

Nixon did Resign and The Chinese Loved Him!:rolleyes:

Now, there is a Super Computor that is Keyed into Certain Hit words or phrases that will Red Flag and check to see who made the comment whether it be Computor or Phone, it is monitered. They/You will be monitered to make sure You are Not One Of Those Bad People!

Is this right to do under The Risk Management Laws of the USA?:mad:

FBI, CIA, NSA, and who ever else that We have no damn clue about are becoming more and more Big Brother!

Sublimial Messages on TV? Tell Me that isnt true!

Advertisers were doing this and The Federal Govt stepped in and said A Fowl/Foul or stinky chicken!:rolleyes: Cease and Deceast now!

Shits and Grins isnt it?:confused:

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" Ben Franklin.... I think he makes a very good point; in that you can't sacrifice your principles to perserve or save them.

Johnson and Clinton.

Haven't a clue why I typed Jackson. The nation tended to love Jackson, maybe as part of the "Hero of New Orleans."

Back to the subject, I don't think the age of a quote alone should determine its relevancy. I think that this quote sums it up perrfectly.

That said, I ordered a "disapearing Bill of Rights mug." It's awesome, you fill it up with hot water and your civil liberties disapear. Just like in real life, the US is in a bit of hot water, and we lose rights.

Those of us who live in remote Oklahoma would consider it "a bit". This is you.

Those of us who live in metropolitan cities that are hubs in all regards for this country, consider it "a lot". This is me.

The people loved Jackson not just because of his "Hero of New Orleans" background but because he was a man of the people. There are anecdotal stories of how he brought "lower class" people into the white house and destroyed the furniture. The people rewarded Jackson for the fact that he brought wholesale slaughter to thousands. He decimated Indian populations (Creek and Seminole), stole land without government approval (Creek and Cherokee), and murdered free blacks (Florida) and then enslaved the remaining blacks. The Trail of Tears (Cherokee) was Jackson's doing. So for that the American people rewarded him. Congress didn't; they censured him and it led to the elimination of certain radicals that would later allow Grant to win over Wade. The censure was almost as bad as impeachment. The hero lost a lot of popularity in New Orleans after he jailed some people under martial law. Johnson had doubts about reconstruction which went against pro-reconstructionist congress. But the doubts weren't the reason; Johnson decided to sack certain people like the secretary of war (tenure of office-later found to be unconstitutional after repeal) and increase the power of the President at the expense of Congress.

-Rudey

Doesnt it first start with Subversive Groups and then lead to a larger Population such as You and Me?:(

You're correct about Jackson. He was a bigot, pure and simple, and his antics would have driven him from office in our time, assuming he'd have had the temerity to even run. We've had political figures whose careers have been ruined for plagiarism in recent years, and I can only imagine what someone with Jackson's beliefs would suffer today.
On the other hand, we do have Harry Byrd...:confused:

Being of Cherokee Ancestry, I'm not much of a Jackson fan, but in the early years of our country, military leaders were held on pedestals.