Government spying

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by ed martin
Yes children, play by the rules! Fair is fair! Just what the elected Commander in Chief needs in a time of crisis is defer judgement to some appointed official. Yes children, more bureaucracy! More pretty red tape!

If it's valid, what's wrong with obeying the law? And it's certainly not "more" anything....it's the law, it's always been the law. And it's the law for a REASON.

"I think there's too much "petty" red tape in reporting my investments...so I'm just not going to report them..."

Is this how you live?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Interesting number that you throw about, as freely as the far left, that "Bush has killed 30,000"...Would you know, my dear friend, how many of those were innocents?...What makes you think that it was American forces most responsible for those deaths?...It is more than obvious that the greatest number of civilian casualties are taken out by the Islamofascists, or as you would offer, "the freedom fighting insurgents." (not to put words in your mouth, but you implied it)....That said, there is no doubt that this is the most surgical and humanitarian war in the history of mankind. This limp-wristed warfare, like in Vietnam, is what is dragging the operation out and resulting in amplified American casualties.

FYI, the American military believes in the operation, so it is less than meaningful that you swing their dead bodies over your head and use Bush for target practice.

You are the illegal invader, you are the aggressor, you are setting up shop in their country. What right do you have to go over there and cause so much death and destrcuction over presidential lies? Those "insurgents" as you call them are just protecting their country the only way they know how. they don't have large bombs or tanks. In ancient Greece, during the Turkish war, the Greeks, knowing that the Turks were coming to enslave them, danced hand in hand, next to a cliff....as each approached the edge, they would jump to their death. Better to die than to be enslaved. but you are the typical fat lazy arrogant American who thinks it's ok to bully the world... so you wouldn't understand this. go back to Walmart for some great deals.
i'm proud to be US citizen but have different vision than you.

[t951]

on_ramp,

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Rodeo]

I half agree with on-ramp. The only thing is, I don't take such a benign view of the "insurgents." I'm sure some are defending their country, or getting back at the Americans for killing their mother, brother, sister, or whole block.

But I suspect a large number are simply trying to grab power in the time-tested Middle Eastern way, and an even larger number are trying to cause chaos in the hope that an Islamic theocracy will come out of it at the end.

[on-ramp]

rodeo, you're right, "insurgents" come with all different motives....i should have clarified before.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by on-ramp
You[/I] are the illegal invader, you are the aggressor, you are setting up shop in their country.

No, that is where you are quite obviously wrong. We ARE the illegal invader if we had no justification. We had justification from just about every angle: (1) We are not bound by the UN, as our invasion uncovered endemic corruption and profitteering at the expense of starving Iraqis. This corruption was more than evident pre-invasion. (2) Humanitarian reasons (used to be a good excuse some years back, but I suppose legitimate humanitarian reasons are not, apparently). (3) Violation of resolutions and a corrupt organization unwilling to enforce the resolutions (see #1). (4) Most importantly a direct relationship with al qaeda that made this invasion as important, and obviously more important, than our invasion of Afghanistan.

We were not the aggressor, we were the responder. Saddam was the aggressor, pattern aggressor at that. He was funding and harboring al qaeda. He was fueling the problem and we were the solution. We were and are the peacemakers. We are the liberators.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by on-ramp
rodeo, you're right, "insurgents" come with all different motives....i should have clarified before.

Interesting definition of "insurgents." One would think that "insurgents" would care for their people and protect them from a monsterous and unjust "invader." This is not the case. These "insurgents" target their own people and kill them in higher numbers than the "invading aggressor's" numbers. They ARE terrorists, mostly imported or Saddamese Baathists.

The Iraqi street wants us there, the world needs us there. This is the only viable solution save turning the ME into glass.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
***We were not the aggressor, we were the responder***

It is not possible to have one's head any further up one's a$$ than is demonstrated by this assertion.

[gaijindabe]

Who is being enslaved over in Iraq? I would say millions have been freed and two of the three major ethnic groups have just had the jack-boot removed from thier necks..

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
It is not possible to have one's head any further up one's a$$ than is demonstrated by this assertion.

We are in total agreement.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No, that is where you are quite obviously wrong. We ARE the illegal invader if we had no justification.

There is NO lawful justification for the US government to enter into hostilities without a credible military attack or an eminent attack upon America, or those with which the US government has a mutual defense treaty. Since Iraq had done neither, the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, and is an ongoing war crime under US and International law.

We had justification from just about every angle: (1) We are not bound by the UN, as our invasion uncovered endemic corruption and profitteering at the expense of starving Iraqis. This corruption was more than evident pre-invasion.

Please state the Constitution article or Amendment that authorizes unilateral aggression based on the above. I'll save you some time, there is no such Constitutional provision. Nor will there ever be such a provision.

(2) Humanitarian reasons (used to be a good excuse some years back, but I suppose legitimate humanitarian reasons are not, apparently).

There is no lawful method to stage an invasion of a sovereign nation for any reason; humanitarian reasons are nothing more than a sop for guys like you. Socialist to the core.

(3) Violation of resolutions and a corrupt organization unwilling to enforce the resolutions (see #1).

You just stated above that the UN resolutions has no binding force upon the US, but now you're invoking said resolutions. Which is it, M-dose?

In point of fact, any dealings between Iraq and the UN are the business of those two entities; and not the business of America unless they pose an overt or imminent threat to America. All of your rationales for war, so far, are nothing more or less than hard core socialist activities. Only a socialist wants to kill others for their own good.

(4) Most importantly a direct relationship with al qaeda that made this invasion as important, and obviously more important, than our invasion of Afghanistan.

There was NO direct or indirect relationship between the government or agents of the government of Iraq and the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There never was such a relationship, in point of fact the Iraqi government interdicted numberous Al Qaeda attempts to kill or disrupt the Iraqi government or members of that government.

We were not the aggressor, we were the responder.

Typical socialist ploy; playing at word definitions to attempt to hide the truth. Fat chance that will work. The invasion of Iraq by the Bush'ists and the US military in March 2003 was naked aggression, pure and simple. It was no more justified than the Soviet Union's attack on Finland, or the German invasion of Poland. In fact, the rationalizations used by the Bush'ists, like M-dose here, are nearly the same as the German's used verbatim.

Saddam was the aggressor,

A third world country, almost, and a 5th world military, and M-dose calls them the agressors against the most powerful and agressive military on earth. The above statement by M-dose would be hilariously funny if it weren't for the murders being committed by the US government as we speak.

pattern aggressor at that. He was funding and harboring al qaeda.

No, we've already established beyond doubt that that is a lie, a damnable one at that.

He was fueling the problem

There was no problem between America and Iraq, period. While there may have been problems between Iraq and the UN, those aren't our business.

and we were the solution. We were and are the peacemakers. We are the liberators.

Yeah, liberating just like the Soviet Union did when they invaded Afghanistan and the Germans did when they invaded Czechoslovakia; the US government is liberating Iraqi's from their lives, and their treasure. Additionally, the Bush'ists are liberating some 500 billion tax dollars from Americans and working on liberating 2300 young Americans from their lives as well.

If we Americans don't stop him.

[on-ramp]

Pat,

couldn't agree more with everything you stated. Invading Iraq was worse than when Iraq invaded Kuwait....the Bush regime used lies and fear mongering to support a cause that was on the drawing board ever since his administration took office.
Too bad a weak Congress at the time used their power to give him authority for war.

[speeder]

Pat, You are a great American. How do you like that 6.0 Powerstroke?

[Mulhollanddose]

You have some fair weather friends Pat, they will gladly stab a knife in your back once your teets have dried up and your usefulness to them has subsided.

I am presently BlackBerry bound, I will dissect you when I get back to my native terra firma.

[snowman]

Originally posted by on-ramp
Pat,

couldn't agree more with everything you stated. Invading Iraq was worse than when Iraq invaded Kuwait....the Bush regime used lies and fear mongering to support a cause that was on the drawing board ever since his administration took office.
Too bad a weak Congress at the time used their power to give him authority for war.

Whats really sad about your statements is that they are simply assinine, unbelievable horse pockey. Bush jr was just cleaning up the mess that the Bush elder left behind. Never should have listened to those state department weenies to begin with, they always make bad things worse, just like you would if people followed your way of thinking.

[RoninLB]

Going to war is difficult for any democracy. Preemption just complicates a complicated matter.

meanwhile I can't figure out or even guess what's the behind the scenes story on Iraq's captured documents. Rep Pete Hoeksta demands access to the documents. He's Chair of House Intelligence Comm.

Here's an old piece

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1223fri2-23.html

"What really went on in Saddam Hussein's Iraq prior to the invasion that ousted him?

What did the dictator really do with the weapons of mass destruction that United Nations inspectors knew he had? Did Saddam serve up his country as a training ground for al-Qaida and other terror groups? Did Saddam instruct foreign terrorists in the uses of weapons of mass destruction?

At least five postwar analyses of pre-war Iraq - from the Duelfer Report on Weapons of Mass Destruction to the Senate Intelligence Committee report - have failed to satisfy war critics on these questions and many others. And for good reason in one important respect: Virtually none of the postwar reports have provided any sense of finality.

Are the questions, then, answerable? Perhaps they are. It may be that the answers are right within our grasp.

The U.S. Department of Defense is in possession of more than 2 million documents captured after the fall of Baghdad, many of them from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. They include handwritten documents, audio and videotapes, formal documents, photographs and other data captured off computer hard drives that Saddam's bureaucrats failed to destroy in time.

Soon after the fall of Iraq, the Defense Department established a "document exploitation" program known as DOCEX, headquartered in Doha, Qatar. Translating, organizing and, above all, authenticating these millions of documents has proved extraordinarily difficult. So much so that despite employing more than 600 translators working round-the-clock shifts, no more than 50,000 documents thus far have been fully "exploited," in the military's lingo.

Almost none of these documents have been circulated among policymakers in the Bush administration, according to the lone wolf seeking the public release of the DOCEX documents, journalist Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard.

If it is difficult to imagine that the truth behind Saddam's biggest secrets remains tantalizingly just out of our grasp, well . . . the story gets worse still.

According to Hayes' report in the Dec. 19 issue of the Standard, the entire deciphering program may be shut down at the end of this month if certain officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency have their way.

Hayes has launched an ardent editorial campaign in his magazine to save the deciphering program. Likewise, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as other members of Congress, has argued to continue this program.

The Bush administration has long claimed that it is unafraid of the truth regarding Iraq. While that argument may have been largely validated by the after-action analyses, they have not convinced many critics.

Would Saddam's own words make a difference? Maybe. Maybe not. But it is absolutely imperative that we find the truth.

Especially those truths well within our grasp."

[RoninLB]

This is current


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/521glhiv.asp?pg=2
Did Saddam Hussein destroy stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in February 2003, as an internal Iraqi Intelligence document captured by the U.S. military seems to suggest? What happened at the "Secret Meeting Between Taliban Representative and Iraqi Government" in November 2000? Were France and Russia actually providing satellite images to the former Iraqi regime on the eve of war?

If Rep. Pete Hoekstra has his way, we may finally begin to get answers to these questions and others. Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, like our colleague Stephen F. Hayes, is pushing the Bush administration and the intelligence community to release documents captured in postwar Iraq. Writing last week in the Washington Times, Hoekstra demanded access to this "vast array of foreign papers, documents, electronic media and other materials." Hoekstra continued: "These documents, stored in more than 35,000 boxes in a warehouse in the Persian Gulf, could constitute a treasure trove of intelligence related to Saddam Hussein and actions taken by his regime prior to the war in Iraq. Despite the possibility that these documents may contain critical information, a vast and untold amount dating back to Operation Desert Storm in 1991 still remains untranslated."

Hoekstra, along with Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, called on Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to declassify and release all of the documents. They further recommended creating an international commission of experts and academics to study the documents. The proposal is also being pressed by Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Dana Rorhabacher.

Negroponte, The Scrapbook has learned, is not enthusiastic about this idea. His boss, George W. Bush, should be. ?

[speeder]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
You have some fair weather friends Pat, they will gladly stab a knife in your back once your teets have dried up and your usefulness to them has subsided.

I am presently BlackBerry bound, I will dissect you when I get back to my native terra firma.

Why would you say that? I'm ready to drive to SC and help this guy clear brush or build a fence on his property if he needs it. Maybe stop in Georgia on the way and chop some fire wood for Randy, just to thank them both for their service to this country. After that, wind up in R.I. and thank Rodeo for his prior service to this country, as well as just being an unbelievable friend and great gearhead.

I'm really hurt by that, Jason, have I ever been a fair weather friend to you? I always thought that I go out of my way to let people here know that you are my friend, at the risk of alienating some, which of course I could care less.

[ed martin]

To answer Cool Chick's question, I'm not advocating anarchy. All I'm saying is that in the face of an unseen adversary intelligence gathering is of the utmost importance. The fate of nations, armies and the lives of many have been decided on the basis of either accurate or faulty intelligence throughout history. Keep in mind had we have had accurate intelligence we may have never even invaded Iraq.
Like it or not GW was elected president and has been cast into a leadership role, and as such the ability to obtain timely and accurate information for the security of our nation is of paramount importance. He has, by the virtue of having been elected, been given a mandate to exercise this authority in a sound and reasonable way, to exercise common sense and make the tough decisions. This is after all a time of crisis, a time of war. Let's not be too quick to forget the lesson of 911.
As far as laws existing for a reason, yes it is true. The law currently drawn into question was enacted in response to the Nixon wire taps. It didn't always exist. Keep in mind that laws are man made, not ordained by God, but who really listens to him/her anyway?
As far as how I manage my own affairs, I mean, nobodys perfect, even Martha Stewart's not perfect! I have been ticketed jaywalking a few times.
In response to Fastpat, what incoherent rambling jibberish. Once again comparing Bush to Hitler, once again again deffering moral or legal authority to the do nothing UN. Where was the UN when children were macheted to death in Rowanda, or populations were systematically slaughtered in Bosnia? (that is until the US took leadership initiative under the Clinton administration) Where is the UN in the current Sudan genocide? You're so convinced there is no connection between AlQueda and Iraq. How do you know? Where is YOUR proof?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
There was NO direct or indirect relationship between the government or agents of the government of Iraq and the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. There never was such a relationship, in point of fact the Iraqi government interdicted numberous Al Qaeda attempts to kill or disrupt the Iraqi government or members of that government.

Clinton 1998 indictment of Usama Bin Laden:

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Lee Hamilton, DemoRAT(9-11 Commission):

Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who is the commission's vice chairman, said: "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

More on connections:

Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
WeeklyStandard (stop Pat!...the messenger is unimportant!)