Yup...Bush was Right again

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
"Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located." [Andy McCarthy]

Another Friday night, another dump by the Obama administration of a report underscoring the vital importance of President Bush's post-9/11 national security tactics.

The above quote about Midhar and Hazmi and is from Gen. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director who was director of the NSA when that agency ran Bush's "Terrorist Surveillance Program." It is a bombshell mentioned in passing on page 31 of the 38-page report filed by five executive branch inspectors general (from DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) pursuant to Congress's 2008 overhaul of FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

I'll have more to say about the report this week, but it also contains some other interesting facts that the folks who drop these reports late on summer Fridays would rather you didn't linger over. For example:

* Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the "terrorist surveillance program" (i.e., the NSA's warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as "domestic spying"). In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.

* When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn't lying — but they also knew he couldn't discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.

* Before Gonzales and President Bush's then chief-of-staff, Andy Card, went to see Attorney General Ashcroft in the hospital (where he was being treated for pancreatitis), President Bush directed his administration to meet with top congressional Democrats and Republicans (Senate leaders Frist and Daschle, Speaker Hastert and House minority leader Pelosi, Roberts and Rockefeller from Senate Intel, and Goss and Harman from House Intel) to alert them that Ashcroft's deputy, Jim Comey, had refused to sign off on intelligence activities that Ashcroft had previously approved. Advised of the problem, the Gang of Eight did not agree to a quick legislative fix but, according to Gonzales's contemporaneous notes, agreed that the intelligence activities should continue. (Three years later, after Gonzales's testimony, Pelosi, Rockefeller and Daschle claimed that they hadn't agreed.)

* Only after this meeting with the bipartisan congressional leaders, and with the prior 45-day authorization for all the program's activities about to expire, did Gonzales and Card go to the hospital to visit the ailing Ashcroft — at the direction of President Bush.

* Between the time the time the collection intelligence activities that came to be known as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was first authorized after the 9/11 attacks until the warrantless surveillance aspect of the program was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, the Bush administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of the congressional intelligence committees 17 times about the activities involved in the program.

In sum, congressional Democrats knew about the program and knew that the dissent of the Justice Department's senior leadership in 2004 was not about warrantless surveillance. They knew that if they postured that the dissent was about warrantless surveillance, Gonzales — not an adept communicator — would not be able to rebut them in a public hearing because the details of the dispute were classified. Congressional Democrats also knew that President Bush agreed to make changes in the program in March 2004 to assuage DOJ's concerns, and they knew that the program activities continued thereafter for a year-and-a-half (i.e., until the Times blew part of the program) without incident and with bipartisan congressional leadership continuing to be briefed.

The politicizing of the nation's security that went on here was shameful.
The Corner on National Review Online (11 July 2009)
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
 

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
7,168
Tokens
"Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located"


He had seven months to get it started yet there was nothing "actionable"
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Let's see...the first attack on the Trade Center was in '93. Clinton had 7 years to monitor activity? Not to mention that Osama himself laid the blame for the second attack on Clinton.

But let's blame Bush in his first 7 months of a new administration...riiiight.

Lib logic...got to love it.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
39,612
Tokens
So by that thinking Joe, the current economic mess should still fall on the previous administration? If we are in fact invoking the 7 month rule.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
So by that thinking Joe, the current economic mess should still fall on the previous administration? If we are in fact invoking the 7 month rule.

I think if you were actually concerned...you would have posted to small daddy rather than me.

So in other words...you don't have a horse in this race bub.

I thought we were talking about security?

Apples, oranges Judge Hypocrite?
 

Banned
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
1,479
Tokens
if a coach is hired on to a shitty team, how long is he given? how long can he get by with saying it was the previous coach's fault? hell, even the first year fans want something they can point to and say, "well, we're getting better."

can we say that about obama yet in regards to the major issues we faced during the election? has the economy improved, or can we at least see definitive proof that the plan will work? or do we need another 6 months, at which point we ask, "are we still losing in the same manner, or are we actually seeing signs of hope for next season?"

can we look at our foreign policy and say, "he has, if not at least made our country more secure, maintained the integrity of our security? or do we feel that we are more vulnerable, and if so, what impact would another terroist attack have my country?"

when john blake was hired at OU i was optimistic as we had been stuck in mediocrity and scnellenberger had promised championships and delivered 5 losses and a tie. even after that first season i continued to have hope. but a few games into the second season and nebraska was racking up 60 points and we were struggling to beat the likes of baylor....
 

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
39,612
Tokens
I think if you were actually concerned...you would have posted to small daddy rather than me.

So in other words...you don't have a horse in this race bub.

I thought we were talking about security?

Apples, oranges Judge Hypocrite?

Joe, I see it from both sides on this forum. Just much more fun to call you on your bullshit. But certainly applies to many posts that have been made. As for you calling me a hypocrite, who the fuck cares? Kind of a compliment in a way.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
As for you calling me a hypocrite, who the fuck cares?

That's the problem with you Godless lefty moonbats...you don't believe in anything...so nothing matters...it's just infinite shades of gray.

Hey...who the fuck cares anyway?

Nice motto. :laugh:
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
That's the problem with you Godless lefty moonbats...you don't believe in anything...so nothing matters...it's just infinite shades of gray.

Hey...who the fuck cares anyway?

Nice motto. :laugh:

Define "Godless" @)
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
8,891
Tokens
Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran?Given the connections between Iraq and Iran, it's not as unlikely as it sounds.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 6, 2009, at 1:43 PM ET

The most exciting and underreported news of the past few weeks in Iran has been that the emerging challenger to the increasingly frantic and isolated "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. And Rafsanjani has recently made a visit to the city of Najaf in Iraq to confer with Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, a long-standing opponent of the Khamenei doctrines, as well as meeting in the city of Qum with Jawad al-Shahristani, who is Sistani's representative in Iran. It is this dialectic between Iraqi and Iranian Shiites that underlies the flabbergasting statement issued from Qum last weekend to the effect that the Ahmadinejad government has no claim to be the representative of the Iranian people.

One of the apparent paradoxes involved in visiting Iran is this: If you want to find deep-rooted opposition to the clerical autocracy, you must make a trip to the holy cities of Mashad and Qum. It is in places like this, consecrated to the various imams of Shiite mythology, that the most stubborn and vivid criticism is often to be heard—as well as the sort of criticism that the ruling mullahs find it hardest to deal with.

So it is very hard to overstate the significance of the statement made last Saturday by the Association of Teachers and Researchers of Qum, a much-respected source of religious rulings, which has in effect come right out with it and said that the recent farcical and prearranged plebiscite in the country was just that: a sham event. (In this, the clerics of Qum are a lot more clear-eyed than many American "experts" on Iranian public opinion, who were busy until recently writing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the rough-hewn man of the people.)

It's not too much to read two things into the association's statement. The first is that public discontent with the outrages of the last few weeks must be extremely deep and extremely widespread. Differences among the clerisy are usually solved in much more discreet ways. If the Shiite scholars of Qum are willing to go public and call the Ahmadinejad regime an impostor, they must be impressed with the intensity of feeling at the grass roots. The second induction follows from the first: It is not an exaggeration to say that the Islamic republic in its present form is now undergoing a serious crisis of legitimacy.

An excellent article by Abbas Milani in the current issue of the New Republic gives a historical and ideological backdrop to the discrepant forces within Shiism and in particular to the long disagreement between those who think that the clergy must rule on behalf of the people (the ultra-reactionary notion of the velayat-e faqui, which I discussed in this column) and those who do not. Among the more surprising members of the anti-Khomeini opposition is the late ayatollah's grandson Sayeed Khomeini, a relatively junior cleric in Qum about whom I have also written before. And among the best-known of those who think it is profane for the clergy to degrade and compromise themselves with political power is Grand Ayatollah Sistani, spiritual leader of neighboring Iraq. (To emphasize the cross-fertilization a bit further, bear in mind that Sistani is in fact an Iranian, while Ayatollah Khomeini did much of his brooding on a future religious despotism while in exile in Iraq.)

Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.

There are, no doubt, other determining factors as well. Contrary to the simplistic distinction between the "liberal urban" and the "conservative rural" that is made by so many glib commentators, Iran is a country where very rapid urbanization of a formerly rural population is being undergone, and all good Marxists ought to know that historically this has always been a moment pregnant with revolutionary discontent. In Saddam's Iraq, the possession of a satellite dish was punishable by death; everybody knows that the mullahs in Iran cannot enforce their own ban on informal media and unofficial transmission. And yet, precisely because they are so dense and so fanatical, they doom themselves to keep on trying. Every Iranian I know is now convinced that if this is not the end for the Khamenei system, it is at least the harbinger of the beginning of the end.

George W...you magnificent bastard. The history books will be kind to you.

GW's "Big Bang" Middle East Policy is working.

Remember when the lefties all scoffed and said the Middle East could never be transformed by such things?

Wrong. :toast:


 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,146
Tokens
let freedom permeate

9/11/2001 proved that the status quo was not acceptable





Of course Obama and the looney left will be taking all the credit by claiming it was about his speech and the people of the middle east taking back their freedom, ignoring the fact that they never had freedom in their history

see Obama and the cold war
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,867
Messages
13,574,378
Members
100,878
Latest member
fo88giftt
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com