Feb 14 2008
Can The Dems Lose Voters? On National Security They Do
Nothing has been predicted in 2008, and nothing can be predicted – except the year will go down as the one which was completely unpredictable. The reason? The war on terror. When making their prognostications pollsters and political talking heads are used to a level of broad and slow momentum in the culture that includes an undercurrent of unwillingness to make major adjustments. The kind of slow-go attitude you see in peace time, where rocking the boat is not considered sane.
In war time sitting still is akin to suicide. People are looking for bold, but they grasp the difference between a “reckless” bold act and a “courageously” bold act. There are conservative democrats who are bullish on national security and the war in Iraq. The obvious example from two years ago is Joe Lieberman AND the state of Connecticut. Both stood firm against a wave of surrender madness on the left.
In 2008 there are signs that these conservative Democrats have limits on what they will support in terms of suicidal rashness in the face of a real terror threat from Islamo Fascists like al-Qaeda. The Senate just passed making the changes to FISA – that have been in place via Presidential fiat and temporary legislation since 9-11 – permanent for 6 years. In this battle the suicidal rashness of the left has been tested and found severely wanting. They lost the Senate votes by large numbers. The battle moved to the House and the conservative “Blue Dog” democrats have once again decided that it is insane to give the terrorists openings to attack us here in America because of some fantasy threats that have never once been proven to exist:
House Democrats were unable to hold together their caucus on a key intelligence vote Wednesday, as a coalition of Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats and liberals helped defeat a temporary extension of the updated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as its expiration deadline neared.
The measure, which failed 191 to 229, would have extended FISA three weeks to work out differences with the Senate on granting immunity to telecom companies that aided the federal government in sweeping federal surveillance program.
The Democratic bill was undone by strong opposition from Republicans and 34 Democrats, including members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition who want to see a bill passed, and liberal members who oppose many other aspects of the program.
…
The vote was a personal defeat for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who worked furiously behind the scenes for an extension, charging the president was trying to “foment fear” by claiming that another extension would harm intelligence gathering capabilities.
Here is where the liberal purists run the risk of opening a schism in their own party – Bush is not the only supporter of the bill. Many, many democrats support it and Hoyer is either saying they are also fear mongers (though they tend to sit on the intelligence committees and see the detailed national threat assessments) or dupes. Either way he is making a serious charge on a serious matter. These people who want bold action to protect America, not insane actions to appease paranoid delusions about the second coming of Nixon, will hold together and pass this law that makes permanent the rules we have lived under for 6+ years now without any violations or attacks.
But that is not the only sign of where the people are. One GOP house member who has been in the Congress for almost two decades lost his seat in the primary because he was willing to Surrender Iraq:
A longtime GOP congressman who initially voted for the Iraq war but later accused the Bush administration of bungling it was defeated by a state senator, joining a Democratic House member in becoming the first incumbents to fall this primary season.
Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest was seeking his 10th term representing Maryland’s 1st Congressional District, which includes the state’s Eastern Shore and parts of the Baltimore suburbs.…
Gilchrest was one of two Republicans to vote last year for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, which became a cornerstone of Harris’ challenge. Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans in the 1st District, but Gilchrest’s moderate views have enabled the GOP to hold the seat for nearly two decades.
I would bet that this is not actually a vote over the cliff for the GOP. MD is blue, but it is not insanely blue. It is more like CT, democrat blue because of cultural attachment over many decades. MD doesn’t buy the far left vision of America – probably because it is home to the dreaded NSA!
Interestingly enough, Hillary was the tougher candidate on the Iraq war because she was more pragmatic and she understood the risks of a precipitous withdrawal. This is were her and Bill’s time in the WH actually worked because she was not willing to make insanely bold promises like Barack Obama is doing. Barack Obama voted against making the rules that have kept us safe since 9-11, so it is clear where he is heading. BTW, America does want change but it saw what unspecified change wrought in 2006 when it handed Congress to the Dems – it was a disaster. And if you don’t think the Dems are in big trouble look at the other race in MD where a long term incumbent lost (in the link above) – he was a democrat.
Obama has moved so far liberal he makes KoS and Democrat Underground look like his cousins. And that is Obama’s big mistake. He is starting to actually believe the Kool Aid hype he has spewed. He is getting carried away with his own rhetoric. He is beginning to believe in his own divine Nirvana. He is heading down a path of dismal failure because most voters know TV-Land, as espoused by “Big Bird” Obama and his Sesame Street world view, is a fantasy for children to protect them from the real challenges and evils in the world. Obama is going to lose the middle of America.
I am worried about this AJ.
You have been arguing RATIONALLY for some time,
assuming that when the Left saw that all the facts were arraigned
against them they would be forced to admit defeat,
BUT,
that is not how the Left operates. (The end justifies the means)
By all objective standards, the Left has overwhelmingly lost the
argument, yet the messianic obama campaign soars ever
higher, (hopefully but not certainly Icarus like).
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
should be enough to scare the crap out of any sane voter.
What once was liberal has become an act of devotion,
Jim Jones anybody? So the thing the pollsters need to be
asking: “If a new Savior appears before you, are you prepared
to give up everything you have and everything you love, to
kneel before Him and swear to unquestionably and unconditionally
follow Him to wherever He may lead you”.
The answer determines the ultimate success of the Obama campaign.
And you thought neo-cons, whatever they are, are scary.
It wasn’t simply Gilchrest’s war position that got him.
The Democratic party also includes many delusional people who believe they can “manifest” things from “the universe” by simply “believing”. And so there are quite a number of Democrat voters who seriously believe that if they just believe hard enough, there will be world peace. I don’t know if one must also click their heels together when they send these “vibes” to the universe or not.
And the odd thing is, I am really not kidding at all. There are thousands of such people in the San Francisco bay area that live in this fantasy world and share this sort of mass psychosis. Maybe it is due to so much pot smoke, I don’t know.
Getting these people to believe anything about defense realities is going to be a challenge because these people live in a fantasy world … but they vote.
Dave M,
I am not arguing the ‘left’ will become sane. I am arguing their continued drift into insanity will cause the moderate middle who lean their way now to reassess and move right. The fringes will always be the fringes.
A Democrat who supports the war is hardly “conservative”. It only merely makes him a sane American and only on this subject. Lieberman could hardly be described as a conservative Democrat. Again, I must ask “Is there such a thing as a conservative Democrat?”
This is classic AJ! In January, less than one month ago, you were predicting the GOP demise in 2008 based primarily on voter turn out. Despite the fact that the voter turn out continues to favor the Democrats, now you are completely reversing yourself. You sound just like the MSM – making a big deal out of every single issue that comes up so you can have something to talk about on your blog. For laughs, I went back and looked at your post for the 2006 election and saw the same exact dynamic – predicting a GOP victory in the last throws of a major butt kicking.
By the way, the rest of the country is not as supportive of the FISA bill as you suggest. The Mellman Group poll for January 2008 found that 63% said the government should get an individual warrant before listening to a US citizen’s phone call with someone abroad, 58 percent said they opposed “blanket warrants,” and 57 percent opposed telecom immunity, compared to just a third who supported it. I know, I know, you only believe the polls that support your preconcieved beliefs – blah, blah, blah.
Conman:
Your very statement is a point as to why the left is considered insane. Do you honestly believe that the FISA program is about listening in on US citizens phone calls without a warrant? Do you think it is that simple?
Was Atta a citizen? Has there ever been a case of an innocent American having their phone calls bugged when they call home to see if they need to stop at the store on the way from work. The question itself shows a bias.
Let’s ask this question: Two terrorists, one of which is in the US and is planning a terrorist attack on American soil are conversing on a cell phone. Should the NSA be able to listen to that conversation? Or should they hang up immediately, dump all the information, try to get a warrant on the throw away phone one of the men was using and when that fails just accept defeat?
That is a better question.
As far as telecom imunity, that is also loaded and I think your survey is bs. These companies were told right after 9/11 that if they cooperated with the government no yahoo idiot could come along years down the pike and sue them. Remember this was right after 9/11, and the Congress did not have a problem with it then. Now, years have passed and they want to punish these companies for cooperating with the government.
This is the problem with the left, when the President is a Republican they have a knee jerk reaction to anything he does. It must be bad. Even if it makes sense, even if there is oversight, even if they refused to kill it when they had the chance. They lie about the details of the plan, such as the NSA program, politicize it, make all sorts of groundless accusations, go out and do some push polls they know are biased and then demand that we go back right to where we were before the horrid Republican Nazi came along and started bugging all our phones.
But if there is an attack, these same people are going to be the first ones to make up conspiracy theories, blame the government and demand that heads roll.
As for the next election, we shall see what we see, but thus far it is not working out the way Nancy Pelosi planned.
Here are three links on the NSA polls questions over a period of time and they show that people are not adverse to the questions, but they do want to know what is going on.
link link link
The problem with people like conman is that they just assume the government is using the whole spying on terrorist thing as an excuse to spy on them. They are paranoid and have no evidence to show that any such thing is actually happening. Nor do they have any better ideas as to how to stop these people. But there job is not saving lives, their job is bitching about anything the Bush administration does. That means they have effectively tied the hands of their party leaders. They must either be prepared to kill these programs and return to the good old days of September 11, 2001 and before….or they have to tell their people they are being paranoid. Either course has its risks.
And you know what? I keep hearing how we have to be more like Europe, but the truth is the Europeans do a whole lot more bugging and eavesdropping and spying than we would ever think about doing. How do you think those British and Spanish and French authorities find all these people they round up all the time?
Terrye,
I appreciate you actually engaging me in a discussion on the issue rather than resorting to standard name-calling. So, I’ll respond to you posts with specifics about my position and what I base my opinion on. And then the rest of you can start calling me names.
I am supportive of reforming FISA and the majority of the provisions in the FISA Senate bill. My concern is about particualr provisions, most importantly the retroactive immunity for telecomm companies. That is the same position of virtually all of the Democratic Senators that voted yesterday. Democrats have long agreed to reforming FISA – the main battle was over the retroactive immunity provision. That didn’t stop the GOP and right-wing bloggers from distorting the Democrat’s position, but I guess that is politics.
My concern relates to undisclosed NSA programs, not the program that has been publically disclosed and addressed by the FISA legislation. Keep in mind, the FISA legislation is in response to the public disclosure/leak about a specific program. The White House has acknowledged that there may be other NSA programs and refused to discuss them for national security reasons. For example, when former Attorney General Gonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee this Fall and was repeatedly asked if there are any NSA programs that involve the interception of domestic communications, he refused to provide a direct answer and simply said that the program Bush had PUBLICALLY DISCLOSED does not involve such actions. When pressed by Senator Feinstein, he specifically refused to answer questions about any other possible NSA programs for national secruity reasons. Read the transcripts of his testimony – it is all there.
I’m concerned that these undisclosed programs are far broader and do involve collecting/listening in on domestic communications. AJ noted the FISA judge that issued an order noting concerns about the scope of the NSA program in his post yeterday. Whistleblowers from AT&T and Verizon involved in assisting the NSA program recently testified to Congress that the equipment set up by the NSA allows them to intercept and copy all communications, domestic and international. AT&T inadvertently confirmed the existence of the NSA facility in its San Fransisco regional headquarters in a legal briefing. See http://www.news.com/AT38T-leaks-sensitive-info-in-NSA-suit/2100-1028_3-6077353.html?tag=st.nl. And yet the White House is virtually silent on these claims. I’m also suspicious as to why Bush was willing to veto the entire FISA legislation if it didn’t contain retroactive immunity and jeopardize our security? Do you really think it was because he was so concerned about the unfairness of subjecting them to litigation that he was willing to put the entire country at risk? There are other examples, but I think that gives you an idea.
Your claim that the telecomm companies were simply doing what they were told to do and got caught in the middle is wrong. FISA specifically addresses when and how telecomm companies are required to cooperate with the government and provide requested information. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii) provides:
“Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service. . . are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to . . . conduct electronic surveillance, . . . if such provider . . . has been provided with. . . a certification in writing by . . . the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required. . .â€
The problem is not that FISA prohibited the telecomm companies from cooperating with the government, the problem is that Bush and the telecomm companies didn’t follow FISA. The Attorney General did not provide them the required certified letter and the telecomm companies (except for Qwest) didn’t request/demand it. Qwest did demand it and the government wouldn’t/couldn’t provide it. Why? Because they knew there request was not legal and the AG wouldn’t sign such a letter. Also, this idea that they only did it in response to the fear and confusion around 9-11 completely overlooks the fact that they continued to cooperate until 2005 when it was publicly disclosed.
With that background, my problem with the retroactive immunity provisions is two fold. First, the I believe the pending cases against the telecomm companies is the last chance to find out how broad the NSA survellience program really is. Second, I think it is terrible precedent to let the telecomm companies off the hook in this instance when they so flagrantly violated the law. They could have and should have demanded the AG’s certified letter confirming that the request was legal. Do you want to encourage corporations with massive amounts of private information on Americans to willingly give it up to the government in violation of the law simply because the government asked for it? Well, that is definitely what they will do now. That is the part of the conservative’s position that I really don’t understand – I thought conservatives were suspicious of the government and were for limited powers. My guess is they will change their tune on this issue if a Democrat takes the White House in 2008.
I know conservatives think that people of my position on this issue are paranoid, but I think that reflects a poor understanding of history. While I don’t think it will be the “End of the World” as WWS likes to characterize my position, I do think it is a major concern for our country. FISA was created in 1978 as a direct result of our discovery that the FBI was spying on special interest groups the government didn’t like (anti-war protesters, MLK, etc.) for years. Nixon, a sitting president, spyed on the headquarters of the opposition party in order to gain an advantage in the election – that is straight out of the Kremlin playbook. FBI Director Mueller admitted just last year that the FBI violated the Patriot Act on numerous occassions and promised to make sure it won’t happen again (I feel better already!). So, I think my distrust of the government is valid based on their abuses in bothn the distant and recent past. Isn’t that the entire reason for our system of checks and balances?
Conman, let’s parse a key sentence in your argument:
Whistleblowers from AT&T and Verizon involved in assisting the NSA program recently testified to Congress that the equipment set up by the NSA allows them to intercept and copy all communications, domestic and international.
Yes, it does. That’s because these systems are technically capable of intercepting and copying all calls going through that switch. In order for these systems to work properly, they would have to be able to do this, no matter what. You are raising the question of intent while (deliberately or inadvertently) attempting to disguise it under the question of capability.
Let me make a parallel argument here. Law enforcement officers carry sidearms that allow them to apply lethal force against other human beings. These weapons are capable of applying lethal force against any human being, not just the bad guys. By your construct, the police should not be allowed to have these weapons, because they are capable of applying deadly force to innocent persons. Arguably, the prospect of being killed or severely injured by an agent of the state is a much more serious one than the prospect of an agent of the state listening to our telephone conversations, in terms of the harm inflicted in such an event. But we’re mostly unconcerned about this.
Why do we not worry about this situation?
We don’t worry because we trust that the intent of law enforcement officers is, in general, proper, and that the occasional negligent or criminal act will be dealt with through the justice system. So far, that has worked quite nicely.
Cobalt,
Your response is the classic example of the “government never abuses its power” syndrome that has infected the GOP since 9-11. Our entire democratic form of government is based on a system of checks and balances because the framers understood that power corrupts and that we cannot simply trust that our government leaders will do the right thing. Let me explain specifically what is wrong with your response.
First, your comment that there is nothing to worry about because these systems have to collect all of the data to work properly is mind-boggling. Even if your statement is true, why should that make us feel better? If they have the capability, how do we know that they are only collecting the international communications and disregarding the rest since there is absolutely no oversight? Keep in mind, the FBI admitted (after it was leaked) in 2007 that it violated the Patriot Act on numerous occasions by collecting and keeping information that was specifically prohibited under the Act. The White House will not even disclose information about the scope of the NSA program to Congressional leaders, ignoring their demand for information on the scope before voting on the FISA bill. Please tell me why I should trust them.
Second, your assumption that the system can only be designed to collect all of the data to work properly is wrong. You need to research the whistleblower Congressional testimony and related articles – they explain this point. The AT&T whistelblower testified under oath before Congress that the NSA security room has a “spliter,” a devise that is specifically used to copy ALL of the incoming communications data and route it to a secure NSA facility off site. It is not the only way to do it. They could use a system that limits the type of information collected and copied, but they CHOSE not to. That is why this information concerns me so much – if true, it demonstrates that the US government is deliberately collecting domestic communications even though it is unnecessary (and illegal).
Your analogy to the police officer is off base. It is not an issue of intent, it is one of oversight. The more apt analogy is if the police officer actually shoots someone, claims that it was done in self defense and the police department determines through a secret investigation that everything was above-board without any public disclosure of the facts. Is that okay with you? Wouldn’t you at least want some judicial oversight to make sure that the police aren’t simply covering their own asses? In fact, the oversight of the police is a fundamental and critical component of our government system. The 4th Amendment restriction against unlawful search and seizure is based on the principle that we need to have a system of checks and balances even against the police. While I agree that the vast majority of police officer are good people and attempt to do the right thing, certainly not all of them fall into this category. There is still police abuse – even with a system of checks and balances.
Your comment illustrates the fundamental difference between our positions. You trust the government to do the right thing and not ever abuse its authority. I don’t. I’m sorry, but the framers who created our governmental system and the history of past abuses support my position. Conservatives used to adopt this position, but 9-11 changed everything for them. Now fear of terrorism has caused them to be willing to grant the government whatever powers it tells them are necessary to keep them safe, even when the government cannot explain why because it is “secret”. Terrorism is a very real and serious danger that we have to combat, but I don’t think we need to give up our system of checks and balances to fight it.
The irony in all of this is that I suspect that conservatives are more trusting of the government because a Republican is in the White House. My guess is that their tune will change if/when we have a Democratic president. It is ironic because by then it will be too late because the system will already be in place.
Conman,
If you cannot read English, then please learn how to do so. If you are simply refusing to read English and instead intend to deliberately misinterpret my argument, then there is no further point to discussing this with you–I cannot argue with rank dishonesty.
Now, Let me start Fisking your post:
Your response is the classic example of the “government never abuses its power†syndrome that has infected the GOP since 9-11.
Manifestly not true. I pointed out that abuse requires intent, that intent is seldom manifested, and that there are mechanisms in place to deal with such cases as they occur. I did not say that government never abuses its power.
Our entire democratic form of government is based on a system of checks and balances because the framers understood that power corrupts and that we cannot simply trust that our government leaders will do the right thing.
Please, we are a representative republic, not a democracy. Kindly learn the differences between the two.
Let me explain specifically what is wrong with your response.
Actually, you seem intent on explaining specifically what is wrong with some response that was typed in a parallel universe that only you can discern.
First, your comment that there is nothing to worry about because these systems have to collect all of the data to work properly is mind-boggling.
Again, you seem to be either unable to understand English, or unwilling to accurately state my argument before addressing what you either believe I wrote due to your own technical illiteracy or what you wish I wrote in order to argue against a strawman.
I stated that, in order to work correctly, the capability of gathering data from all calls going through the switch. This is because the data may be coming from any source connected to that switch.
Even if your statement is true, why should that make us feel better?
If they have the capability, how do we know that they are only collecting the international communications and disregarding the rest since there is absolutely no oversight?
A moment’s common sense (which you seem unwilling to utilize) would demonstrate that the amount of data that would thus be collected would be far beyond the capacity of the NSA to record, let alone even begin to analyze. But do go on.
The White House will not even disclose information about the scope of the NSA program to Congressional leaders, ignoring their demand for information on the scope before voting on the FISA bill.
It comes down to whom I trust. I do not, in any way, shape, or form, trust Democrats with access to sensitive material, as they have demonstrated that they will abuse that access without fail. (Hillary Clinton and the 900+ FBI files–that we know about; Senator Leahy; Senator Rockefeller; et cetera).
Maybe that’s the reason for the fears. It’s a reflection of what you would choose to do with even a smidgeon of access.
Please tell me why I should trust them.
Please tell me why I should trust Congress, given that Senator Rockefeller is on record as favoring the selective unauthorized disclosure of classified information in order to provide political benefit to the Democratic Party.
Second, your assumption that the system can only be designed to collect all of the data to work properly is wrong. You need to research the whistleblower Congressional testimony and related articles – they explain this point. The AT&T whistelblower testified under oath before Congress that the NSA security room has a “spliter,†a devise that is specifically used to copy ALL of the incoming communications data and route it to a secure NSA facility off site. It is not the only way to do it. They could use a system that limits the type of information collected and copied, but they CHOSE not to.
The system you describe would be, to put it mildly, an INFOSEC nightmare. Because it would be onsite AND connected to the network backbone, it would be vulnerable to being hacked by third parties–including, incidentally, those same rogue government personnel you’re so damn paranoid about–and being used to collect that data illegally without any possibility of being detected. But you would be content with the fiction you just laid out–that it would somehow, magically, not collect data without authorization. That’s why there’s a splitter and a filter to prevent communication back into the network.
That is why this information concerns me so much – if true, it demonstrates that the US government is deliberately collecting domestic communications even though it is unnecessary (and illegal).
You’ve now magically morphed from capability to intent. I am beginning to doubt your sincerity.
Your analogy to the police officer is off base. It is not an issue of intent, it is one of oversight.
And it’s there to a fare-thee-well.
Consider this: the majority of NSA employees who would be involved in this work are . . . wait for it . . .
Democrats.
You can rest assured that you would’ve heard of politically-targeted intercepts by now. The prosecution smugly rests.
Your comment illustrates the fundamental difference between our positions. You trust the government to do the right thing and not ever abuse its authority. I don’t.
Again, you are either unintentionally misrepresenting my position–i.e., you’re too stupid to have a worthwhile opinion–or you are deliberately doing so–in which case, you’re too dishonest to have a worthwhile opinion.
Take your pick–you’re either dimwit or a liar (or maybe a dimwitted liar). I don’t give a damn which one it is.
Cobalt,
Impressive!
Cobalt, I can’t respond to all of your points because I don’t have all day, but I can’t resist a few of the classic ones.
“I pointed out that abuse requires intent, that intent is seldom manifested, and that there are mechanisms in place to deal with such cases as they occur. I did not say that government never abuses its power.”
How can you possibly say that mechanisms are in place to deal with this situation when you don’t even know if the program exists, let alone what safeguards are in place? What is it – maybe you can provide at least one example? Neither the judical nor the legislative body has oversight or any knowledge about the program. Is there some secret fourth branch of government looking out for all of us? Oh wait, I know what the mechanism is – wishful thinking. Yet another example of your I trust the government – I know there are safeguards in place . . . because the government told me so. Yeah, just like they said their were safeguards in place for the Patriot Act which the FBI admitted violating.
“I stated that, in order to work correctly, the capability of gathering data from all calls going through the switch. This is because the data may be coming from any source connected to that switch.”
I understood your point exactly. If they have the capability, then there is a potential for abuse. Do you get it? Let me spell this out for you since you don’t seem to understand simply concepts – capability + bad intent = abuse. Without some oversight, you are completely dependent on the government choosing not to abuse the power. Your naive belief that they won’t abuse the power ignores the history to the contrary.
“It comes down to whom I trust. I do not, in any way, shape, or form, trust Democrats with access to sensitive material, as they have demonstrated that they will abuse that access without fail.”
This response is comical. Do you not realize that a Democrat could be President? Do you not realize that a Democratic President would have the same power and potential for abuse? Then what? I don’t care if it is the Republicans or the Democrats running such a program, I don’t trust either of them to police themselves. You seem to be under the misconception that only the Republicans get these powers.
“The system you describe would be, to put it mildly, an INFOSEC nightmare. Because it would be onsite AND connected to the network backbone, it would be vulnerable to being hacked by third parties–including, incidentally, those same rogue government personnel you’re so damn paranoid about–and being used to collect that data illegally without any possibility of being detected.”
Oh yeah, our government would never be so stupid as to create a system that would be vulnerable to attack by hackers without even being able to detect it. Pure fantasy on my part right? Maybe you can read this article describing the exact same thing happening to the Department of Homeland Security network in a 2006-2007 investigation. See http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199906038
Here is the key part of the article:
“Within the past year, a hacker secretly broke into the Department of Homeland Security network and deleted, updated, and captured information — all without anyone knowing he was even in there.
Luckily, the hacker was Keith A. Rhodes, chief technologist at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Rhodes, considered to be the federal government’s top hacker, has a congressional mandate to test the network security at 24 government agencies and departments.”
Who looks stupid now? I can give you more examples of these same network security problems if you are a glutten for punishment.
I at least provided you some facts and references to support my opinion. Your comments are devoid of both – they are pure opinion. If you want to convince me that you are right on this issue, can you at least cite to some authority other than yourself.
Cobalt,
Thought you might find this interesting. And of course, I’m not the least bit surprised.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/02/13/obama,_hillary,_dems_take_fisa_trial_lawyer_cash
That was quite the undressing! 😉
I almost feel sorry for Conman — NOT.
Conman should do himself a favor and read thru AJ’s impressive postings on FISA/NSA surveillance. He’ll get educated.
Conman,
Are we going to have to expose your ignorance again on all things scientific and technical? I fisked your so called whistleblowers many years ago – they are not engineers, they are technicians (one I don’t think has a 4 year college degree). He is almost as incompetent as you are.
There are of course NSA systems at AT&T – for the US government secure communications. And yes, these system can record all traffic -as can the public ones. These system are the US government lines – not listening posts on public lines. That is why they are in separate secure rooms on distinct and separate com circuits.
You and the other buffoons have discovered the fact the US has secure communications! Brilliant! What’s your next trick Einstein?
Did you know command and control traffic between Houston and the Shuttle or Space Station is on NSA approved secure lines? For all you know you imbeciles just discovered the communication channel for NASA. And yes, they record everything – for the record, to detect intrusions and to support accident investigations.
What a bunch of techno-morons you people are.
The point is the Democrats are not trying to protect the American people, they could care less about the safety of the American people, they are raising hell about this because they think that they can use lawsuits to dig up dirt or the appearance of dirt against the administration. The American people are not the issue.
Pelosi refused to bring a vote on the compromise bill that cleared the Senate, because she knew the blue dogs would not vote the way she wanted them to.
Both sides made concessions in that bill, but that was not good enough for Pelosi. This is not about protecting the American people from abuse of power, this is about partisan warfare. That is all these people care about.
I think it was Kit Bond {R} who said that if AlQaida was on steroids, then Congress might act.