Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
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