Nov 12 2008
Liberal Petty Vindictiveness Can Be Very Dangerous To America
What do the Democrats want to do for those who kept America safe from another terrorist attack on this nation over the past 7 years? Something no one would dare to predict after 9-11, that we could go 7 years without another attack on US soil. What is the gratitude to be showed to these critically important people we Americans owe our life to, and the lives of our families? The boot of course:
A number of influential congressional Democrats oppose keeping Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden in their posts because both have publicly supported controversial Bush administration policies on interrogation and telephone surveillance. One Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee said there is a “consensus” view on the matter.
Other Democrats and many intelligence experts, however, give high marks to the current cadre of intelligence leaders, crediting them with restoring stability and professionalism to a community rocked by multiple scandals in recent years. A government official who has closely followed the evolution in the intelligence leadership in recent years argued that it is important to keep at least a few “seasoned” professionals in place during wartime.
Obama transition officials, who have steadfastly declined to discuss the personnel selection process, said yesterday that no decisions have been made regarding intelligence appointments. McConnell and Hayden, both career intelligence professionals, interpret the Obama team not reaching out to them as a sign that they will not be kept on, intelligence officials said.
Indulging in petty vindictiveness is not a smart move by liberal democrats (of course using the term ‘smart’ with ‘liberal democrats’ is oxymoronic to the nth degree). There was stupid cries of dropping the ball by hallucinating radical democrats after 9-11. Their answer – do what they claimed Bush did, bungle an all important transition.
There is no rush here, and Obama needs to remember he needs people with opposing views to test and validate his orders, or else there is no feedback from the bureaucracy if he tries to execute a really dumb and naive action or order. No President worth their salt has only pandering yes-people echoing back how ingenious the President’s decisions are. A good President sprinkles his team with a range of voices and views and then selects which path to take.Â
And he has time. He can work up new leaders if he wants. But if the dems rush to move these proven heroes out of their positions before next summer, while al-Qaeda is planning to test this President (his VP even admits this), that would be a certain recipe for disaster. My guess is, knowing the petty thought processes of liberal democrats, is they will take the risky path and give al-Qaeda an opening to test Obama like Bush was tested.
This country has gotten very use to the idea again it is safe from attack. Democrats would be wise to not allow that mythos to be shattered early and abruptly as they try to wave those magic wands and bring about Utopia.
Cobalt,
What are you looking for – a 50 page thesis detailing all of the actions Bush could have taken? I provided you several obvious examples. I don’t have time or space to provide you details about each and every action Bush could have taken and justify them all. This is a freakin blog – nobody provides that kind of detail. Plus, you will dismiss anything I say outright because that is what you do everytime, even when I do provide details and links to support my point, simply because you don’t agree with my political viewpoints and therefore will NEVER admit when I’m right.
I’m also completely baffeled about the point you are trying to make. Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is NOTHING Bush could have done to possible prevent 9-11? Do you really think that the President is powerless to do ANYTHING if provided direct intelligence of suspicious activity from a known enemy? Maybe you ought to contact the intelligence agencies and tell them to stop wasting time giving intelligence briefings to the President because there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the President can do about it. Too funny.
Again, it amazes me what tortured logic you folks are willing to adopt simply to avoid admitting ANY possible responsibility on Bush’s part as President. As I’ve already said, I acknowledge that there is no way to know for sure if Bush could have prevented 9-11 had he acted more aggressively in response to the PDB. But I’m absolutely shocked that you will say with a straight face that there is nothing wrong with the fact that Bush was provided specific intelligence about Al Qaeda’s desire to attack us on American soil and a suspicious pattern of activity that was “worrisome” to the intelligence agencies and Bush did nothing. What is even funnier is that you give Bush all of the credit for the fact that there have been no repeat attacks since 9-11, even though you apparently think the President is powerless to prevent attacks. I’m sure you will apply the same tortured logic if there is an attack on Obama’s watch – “It’s not Obama’s fault, after all he is only the President of the United States and couldn’t possibly have done anything to prevent it”!
Shiva:
He didn’t propose that Bush do anything effective–anything that would actually hinder al-Qaeda’s operations.
Hmm. Well, okay – I think I disagree with the idea that concentrating on airport security (and more importantly, quirks in flight training, which would have pointed us straight to a couple of the terrorists) would have been ineffective. But you seem to be supporting Conman’s conclusion in his last comment: is it your opinion that nothing President Bush could have done would have possibly had any effect whatsoever on the 9/11 attacks? Are you completely exonerating him of any responsibility?
If so – will you extend the same courtesy to Obama if an attack happens in his first year as President? If not, why not?
I’m pretty sure that no one has “screamed bloody murder†for monitoring the phone calls of known terrorists.
Actually, they did.
Oh. Well, obviously, we are reading different websites, books and magazines. Can you provide an example?
If said “citizens†are chatting amiably with known terrorist scumbags, abso-damn-lutely.
Well, see – that’s the thing: how do we know who is being spied on, and who they are talking to? There is no oversight whatsoever on this program – there is no papertrail, and there are no records. Who do you know who they are listening to?
Do you trust your government implicitly to never abuse this kind of power? If so – have you ever heard of the Church Committee?
And how do you respond to the multiple NSA employees who have come forward recently and stated that they were ordered to eavesdrop on American soldiers and journalists who were calling back home from Baghdad? Were the soldiers all calling “known terrorist scumbags”?
Put it this way: are you comfortable with handing the reigns of a limitless wiretapping program, with no oversight from anyone, to President Obama? Are you okay with him having the ability to listen in on any conversation he wishes to hear, without anyone in any other branch of government having the slightest idea what he’s doing?
If not – then why are you comfortable with the Bush Administration being able to do so?
conguy,
First of all, you need to stop putting words in my mouth.
Hey, you need all the help you can get. Have you ever heard the saying “when you suspect people think you are ignorant, do not open your mouth and remove all doubt”? well, you are the perfect example that was written for.
As for what Bush should have done after the PDB, I’ll give you the shorthand response – SOMETHING! and.. If he is powerless to stop Al Qaeda attacks regardless of what policies or directives he takes, So you are saying that the day Obama takes office he is immediately going to do all these things you ‘think’ Bush should have done because there is absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that Al qaeda is planning a hit on US soil very soon. Actually Obama would be responsible, because Bush has proven for 7 years that it is possible to prevent them. Now if Obama comes in and changes things and ‘boom’; it’s his fault.
GUYFAWKES
I’m pretty sure that no one has “screamed bloody murder†for monitoring the phone calls of known terrorists. Indeed, what they (and I count myself as one of them) are concerned with is unsupervised, warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens…and..If you disagree with that, and believe the government should be able to spy on its own citizens as it sees fit – then just say so.
Shiva did a good job on this, I don’t need to say more. (are you and conguy the same person? kinda sound like two peas in a pod.)
Well, see – that’s the thing: how do we know who is being spied on, and who they are talking to?
Easy, when a call is between the USA and an identified terrorist overseas, it is monitored. Now if the US citizen is innocent, he shouldn’t be talking to identified terrorists while they are overseas. Simple enough even you can understand.
Oh. Well, obviously, we are reading different websites, books and magazines. Can you provide an example?
oh, for God’s sake. give me a break.
Redteam:
Well, see – that’s the thing: how do we know who is being spied on, and who they are talking to?
Easy, when a call is between the USA and an identified terrorist overseas, it is monitored. Now if the US citizen is innocent, he shouldn’t be talking to identified terrorists while they are overseas. Simple enough even you can understand.
Okay, that does seem simple enough.
Now, can you provide me with the list of “identified terrorist[sic] overseas”, and the people that they have been in contact with?
Because I agree with you: those people absolutely should be wiretapped. I’m just curious where we keep that list.
And let me ask you this:
Can you prove that ever single recorded, wiretapped conversations done by this government involved an “identified terrorist overseas”?
Redteam:
Oh. Well, obviously, we are reading different websites, books and magazines. Can you provide an example?
oh, for God’s sake. give me a break.
I’m sorry – why the exasperation? Like I said earlier -I know I’m new, and I apologize for that. Were there tons of posts on this website earlier that provided proof of people “screaming bloody murder” because the US government was listening in on conversations involving terrorists? Because if so – I do apologize. I just haven’t had time to go through the archives yet.
But, it is a fairly principle concept of debate: if one wishes to prove their point, they provide examples. I have not seen any examples of what Shiva described, and I cannot find any through a Google search. So, I simply asked for help in finding them
I do apologize if I offended you, Redteam – if this is a sore spot on the website, then I’m sorry. But in all fairness – if you had a FAQ that pointed me to examples of people complaining that we wiretapped known terrorists, it would have made this go easier.
Redteam:
are you and conguy the same person? kinda sound like two peas in a pod.
Well, no. I agree that we seem to share a few political points in common.
So, going by your logic: are you, AJ Strata, DJ Strata, kathie, momdear1, Cobalt Shiva, Frogg, OLDPUPPYMAX, joe Six-Pack, mike m, robert c verdi, lurk9876, and Sherman50 all the same person? Because some of what you all say sounds kind of similar to me too.
Granted, that will kill the site stats if if turns out only 2 of us actually visit it.
Now that the election is over, obamabots can be re-deployed.
I wonder if the few Republican Senators that are in the way of
a complete Obama dictatorship will begin to get murdered by Obama’s
brown shirts? Ditto for a couple of Supreme Court Judges.
They probably should increase their personal security.
I hope I am wrong, but I doubt that I am.
Here’s another thing I have noticed. Conservative or Independent
chat sites seem to have a few new people showing up, exhibiting
very strong troll behavior for “Obama”. This site for example has
picked up two newbies who know almost nothing of the site but
talk as if they are the founding fathers. A normal poster writes
a comment or two. A troll hangs around all day and attacks every
single conservative comment, relentlessly, asking for proof,
justification, and anything else the troll thinks can discredit
the comment. Don’t take the bait. I think these guys are being
assigned even as we type.
Atlas Shrugs commented yesterday on the phenomenon being designed
to tire out the opposition. She said she can spend all day finding
the documentation to discredit some leftist charge only to have
a brand new accusation immediately hurled at her. It’s just
a cyber war tactic. Be aware of it and don’t respond. Tell the
troll he has been spotted and have nothing further to do with it,
regardless of what it says from then on.
There are more serious battles that will need to be fought. Don’t
waste your time in useless cyber attacks.
Fawkes,
the report you mentioned is the equivalent of somebody giving a report in 1938 saying Hitler is interested in Poland. By the way Bush was trying to force rough regimes into line, not the likes of you.
GuyFawkes:
Now, can you provide me with the list of “identified terrorist[sic] overseasâ€, and the people that they have been in contact with?
check in the yellow pages under “CIA-local” that’s their business, I have no need personally to know who they have listed, I’m not talking with foreigner terrorists (unless you are), but even then it’s not secret and we’re not plotting terrorists or any illegal act.
Can you prove that ever single recorded, wiretapped conversations done by this government involved an “identified terrorist overseas�
Don’t quit your day job, you’re not very good at this ‘comedian’ thing.
but no, so while we’re asking preposterous questions, can you prove to me that any American that was innocently chatting with a foreigner (that is not a terrorist) has ever been arrested for that act?
But, it is a fairly principle concept of debate: if one wishes to prove their point, they provide examples. I have not seen any examples of what Shiva described, and I cannot find any through a Google search. So, I simply asked for help in finding them
the point you asked has been debated in the news for years. Many Americans (including me) want the country protected from terrorists attacks and if through the intelligence services they find the location of a terrorist and know what his phone number is, they want that phone number wire-tapped. If in that process they discover that said terrorists are regularly engaging in conversations to the US, then I want that conversation investigated. Now if I’m that party in the US, I should have no problem revealing the nature of my relationship to said known terrorist, if it is, in fact, completely innocent.
and, the fact is, I actually want to know myself what the hell a known terrorist is conversing with me for, I may be a tool in his operation.
You didn’t insult me, but you sure didn’t do yourself any favors.
about you and your alter-ego’s. You sound like only the most recent incarnation of several recent visitors: conguy, ken, ray in aus, bresch, dave m, most, or all of which are the same person. when the temp gets a little warm, we get the “I’m outta here” then almost immediately, ‘new’ guy shows up with the same BS that you are spouting, but I don’t really need to explain that, do I?
dave m?
Here’s another thing I have noticed. Conservative or Independent
chat sites seem to have a few new people showing up, exhibiting
very strong troll behavior for “Obamaâ€.
actually dave baby, it’s the strong exhibition of ignorance that is objectionable, has nothing to do with “Obama”.
and davie, what’s all the talk about “trolls” ? is it your goal to achieve that status?
Better Red Than Dead Team and Guy Squawks,
You have just proved my point better than I could have done.
You are both trolls.
Goodbye.
Many Americans (including me) want the country protected from terrorists attacks
I don’t understand – are you trying to imply that I don’t want the country protected from terrorist attacks, simply because I don’t believe that the government should be allowed to spy on its own citizens with no oversight? Didn’t the Nixon Administration do a fairly thorough job of exposing the problems with that?
I mean, isn’t there some sort of middle ground here? What was wrong with using the FISA court?
about you and your alter-ego’s
I found this site through a link at Memeorandum, and was curious about the motivation behind some of the postings and comments, since they were at such odds with what I had been reading elsewhere. I have to say, I am somewhat bewildered at the hostility I’ve received simply for asking questions, or stating a different opinion, when I have endeavored to be nothing but polite to everyone here. Some of you don’t seem to be very nice people, and I don’t know why you think rudeness is an effective tool in convincing others of what you believe.
davie
Your second goodbye, already?
guyfawkes”
I have to say, I am somewhat bewildered at the hostility I’ve received simply for asking questions, or stating a different opinion, when I have endeavored to be nothing but polite to everyone here. Some of you don’t seem to be very nice people, and I don’t know why you think rudeness is an effective tool in convincing others of what you believe.
oh please, you come here spouting liberal obamaisms and act like we’re all fools for not being enthused brainwashed supporters,, then act surprised because you didn’t find a kool aid swilling party. Keep drinking.
Redteam:
A belief in the 4th Amendment is a “liberal obamaism”? You have a unique perspective on the definition of “liberal”, if you mean it to include anyone who believes in the Constitution, or the rule of law.
I’m a registered Independent. I came here to try and understand why you all believe what you believe. In return, you’ve insulted me, and ignored anything I’ve said that has questioned anything you’ve said.
The GOP was just trounced in two consecutive elections. President Bush has the lowest approval ratings in the history of poll-taking. Do you think it’s a wise decision to shrink your party even further by squashing any attempt at debate or discussion?
And I note that not a single one of you has been able to supply a single example of someone “screaming blood murder” over us wiretapping known terrorists. That’s not doing much for your argument either. Simply stating “1 + 1 = 3” does not make it so.
Oh, there is definitely kool aid here – you seem to be swimming in it.
What are you looking for – a 50 page thesis detailing all of the actions Bush could have taken?
No, I am looking for specific actions with real-world effects that would have impaired al-Qaeda’s operations between August 6th, 2001 and September 11th, 2001. Said actions would need to be within the legitimate scope of the President’s authority as defined in the Constitution of the United States and the United States Code as it existed on August 6th, 2001.
I provided you several obvious examples.
You seem to be one of those idiots who equate holding a meeting with doing something useful. Newsflash: holding a meeting is usually counterproductive.
I don’t have time or space to provide you details about each and every action Bush could have taken and justify them all.
I didn’t ask for that. All I asked for was a specific set of actions that would have accomplished your desired goal (which, presumably, would be to prevent the attacks from occurring.)
I’m also completely baffeled about the point you are trying to make. Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is NOTHING Bush could have done to possible prevent 9-11?
Not really; you seem to arguing that there are some apparently quite obvious things he could have done between August 6th and September 11th (i.e., 37 days) that would have prevented 9/11.
I am merely asking you to provide support for your claim, with specific and measurable goals that your hypothetical actions would need to meet.
Thus far, you have yet to accomplish anything aside from emoting.
Do you really think that the President is powerless to do ANYTHING if provided direct intelligence of suspicious activity from a known enemy?
He has a great deal less power than you believe or might wish. So, all I’m asking is for you to demonstrate how he would have used his (rather limited) power as the chief executive to accomplish the goal of shutting down a major terrorist operation in 37 days, from a standing start, with very little data available to intelligence agencies as to who is involved . . . oh, yeah, and it’s illegal for the intelligence agencies to pass what little information they have to law enforcement.
Well, see – that’s the thing: how do we know who is being spied on, and who they are talking to? There is no oversight whatsoever on this program – there is no papertrail, and there are no records. Who do you know who they are listening to?
If there’s no paper trail and no records . . . then it never happened.
Are you frequently outwitted by inanimate objects?
Shiva:
So, we should just ignore the NY Times article that originally exposed it, the multiple articles/books written about it since then, and the NSA employees who have come forward recently and talked about it? Despite your obvious aversion to reality, it’s a sad fact that the government of this country illegally spied on its own citizens. This is something I would have expected from the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War – not from the U.S.A.
And you all are perfectly okay with our country acting like the Evil Empire. Simply amazingly. Don’t you have any love for the principles this country was founded on?
What is your next step – sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!”?
So, we should just ignore the NY Times article that originally exposed it, the multiple articles/books written about it since then, and the NSA employees who have come forward recently and talked about it?
Before you cite the New York Times as any sort of authoritative source, I’ve got two words for you:
JAYSON F***ING BLAIR!
As for your silly argument that we engaged in a massive intercept project without any paper trail:
Governments live, breathe, eat, and s*** paper in astonishing quantities, and the US government, to borrow a hoary old phrase from the USSR, “actively exceeds its norms.”
Either those activities were recorded to a fare-thee-well, with lots of paper trails . . . or they weren’t.
If the former, then we do know with a high degree of precision who was surveilled and why. If not, we don’t, and no one’s rights were violated even if there was interception of conversations that shouldn’t have been intercepted.
(Information, in case you didn’t know it, is utterly worthless unless it’s recorded in a fashion that allows its retrieval.)
Despite your obvious aversion to reality, it’s a sad fact that the government of this country illegally spied on its own citizens.
Just because you think it’s illegal doesn’t mean that it is.
This is something I would have expected from the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War – not from the U.S.A.
Mind showing me the Democrats locked up in mental wards, or sent to forced labor camps, for the crime of disagreeing with the GOP?
I didn’t think so. Thank you for demonstrating that you are, without a doubt, a complete f***ing idiot.
Forward rest position, MOVE!
Now start doing pushups until I get tired.
Cobalt,
If your looking for proof about the surveillence, what do you say about the sworn Congressional testimony of former Assistant Attorney General James Comey and FBI Director Mueller who told the infamous Ashcroft hospital bedside story? Maybe you can explain why they testified that the entire US law enforcement agency leadership (Attorney General Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Mulluer, etc.) threatened to resign en masse if Bush continued operating a component of the surveillence program without DOJ signing off on it as legal. That was why Gonzales was trying to get Ashcroft to sign off on it at the hospital when Ashcroft was drugged up from his emergency procedure – Comey wouldn’t do it as acting Attorney General. Bush eventually back off. It is all sworn testimony by life long Republicans formerly serving under Bush, so it is as credible as you get. Gee, I wonder? I’m guessing we will find out more in the next 4 years.
Shiva:
My dearest hope is that one day, sometime in the future, people like you will finally develop a level of self-awareness that allows you to realize that the reason the GOP has become a marginalized, politically powerless minority party is because it is filled with ignorant, obnoxious, clueless assholes such as yourself.
Welcome to 8-16+ years of irrelevance. It couldn’t happen to a nicer group of people.
GuyFawkes
So, we should just ignore the NY Times article that originally exposed it,
We always ignore the NYT, it hasn’t been right in 50 years and is not going to start now.
it’s a sad fact that the government of this country illegally spied on its own citizens.
No it’s not, only in the mind of the lefties. they only listened in on overseas terrorists phone calls, if they were talking to an US citizen, then that is legal.(moral of that story, don’t talk to terrorists in foreign countries)
self-awareness that allows you to realize that the reason the GOP has become a marginalized, etc….
and the left has become…..? I can tell you, it ain’t complimentary.