Looks like ol'Markdelphia is right again. And all it took was a little time...The Ex-CEO of Qwest, Joseph P. Nacchio (left), has alleged that the United States Government, specifically the NSA (National Security Agency), withdrew a 200 million dollar contract because Qwest refused to participate in a surveillance program. Now I know you must all be thinking that yours truly is caught in a time loop. Didn't we already have long and hard debates about this many moons ago? Wasn't Qwest the only company out of all the tele-communications companies to say NO to the NSA back when they wanted to listen to our conversations? Didn't Dave and Crabmaster Scratch argue vociferously that, because of the 9-11 attacks, these programs were needed?
And wasn't I told I was being "paranoid" and "libelous" by insinuating that our government wanted to use the NSA program for things other than protecting our nation from terrorism?
Well, the answers to all these questions is YES, of course but the current allegation by Mr. Nacchio is not being made in regards to surveillance programs since 9-11.
No, sir.
Then CEO Nacchio was approached by the NSA on February 27, 2001, A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE 9-11 ATTACKS!!!
That's right, folks. It comes as no surprise to me, but possibly to others who read and post here, that Herr Cheney wants to be up all of our collective asses with tweezers-you know, to make sure that we are all good little followers of the state. I'm sure that our beloved Fuhrer also wants to keep an eye (or ear in this case) on any dissenters and political enemies that might be plotting against him. And if anyone gets too powerful....or steps out line......
Ah, less government....you gotta love it.
Could any of this be true? As this story comes out, neocon pundits will point to the fact that Joe Nacchio has been found guilty of insider trading and will say anything to beat the rap. But a recent article in the Star and Tribune describes Nacchio as vainly attempting to tell the court that his sale of stock couldn't have been improper due to the fact the NSA cancelled the contract. Of course, this is proving difficult because all references to the NSA program have been redacted from court papers for "security concerns."
So that's what the kids are calling breaking constitutional law these days. Cool!
My questions are these: why did the Bush administration, who has stated repeatedly that the NSA program is necessary because of 9-11, want to bypass the courts and warrants back in February of 2001, well before the attacks? Have other companies complied? If so, why didn't this "necessary" surveillance prevent 9-11?
And why exactly did they want American's phone records again?
20 comments:
"has alleged"
Amazing what and who you pick and choose to believe.
Well, that's why I wrote alleged. We don't know for sure yet but if you think that Dick Cheney has our nation's best interests at heart, rld, than I have some beautiful beach front property in Florida I'd like to sell you :)
I don’t recall if I said that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was required “because of” 9/11 specifically, because, you see, I don’t have a problem w/ surveillance of people talking to terrorists in the first place. So, to me, it’s perfectly logical (and preferable) for this program to exist now, yesterday and 50 years ago. …in fact, for those who claim this administration did too little to thwart the attack, doesn’t this fly in the face of that?
…And if VPOTUS Cheney doesn’t have the best interests of the US at heart, what does he want w/ this program? Democrats have a greater history of spying on political opponents. If he’s money hungry, he’s not going to get much information valuable for Halliburton from some low-life splinter cell member… Ditto, the power mad angle; can’t really see how listening to these low-lifes is going to bolster his resume. And he doesn’t strike me as a wide-stance kind’ve guy, so I don’t think he’s getting his jollies from it.
…has there been a legitimately documented case of this program being used for anything other than the stated purpose? I might take you up on that Florida property.
Dave, please. Cheney is the most secretive, manipulative, and dictatoresque leader we have ever had. His goals are so clear that it's hard for me to understand why you can't see this. Show me where the Democrats have a history of spying on US citizens in the same way this administration has...they cry of politics is no excuse the scrutiny they deserve at present.
Maybe we'll show you after you show us the people convicted of misusing the program we have today.
Oh that's right, you people don't have any actual proof, just allegations. Mark says "that's why I wrote alleged", then later on in the post he calls it "breaking constitutional law"...spoken as if the "allegations" are now all of a sudden, 2 paragraphs later, 100% factual.
For the record, FDR talked openly about his enthusiasm for wiretapping.
I asked first...
...but since you asked so nicely:
a) The Clinton's file-gate scandal comes immediately to mind.
b) The Kennedy's...pick any of them. ...how 'bout Bobby (because we're on a first name basis) spying on Dr. Martin Luther King.
VPOTUS....so you say...but show me what he's done. If its so clear, surely you must be able to produce examples.
Here, let me show you how. You want examples of secretive? How 'bout Mrs. Clinton (while First Lady) closing the doors on her health care forum because it was generating too much heat for her. There is a well documented, verifiable example of secretive. Now, it’s your turn.
"you show us the people convicted of misusing the program we have today"
Yeah, like that's going to happen. GB, do you have any idea how powerful these people are? They don't mind inuendo or heresay but people who have information that could convict them end up dead--or railroaded into prison like Nacchio.
True, plenty of Democrats are secretive as well. LBJ used to have the bathrooms wired for recording...mostly so he could playback embarassing noises for people when they were in important meetings.
But Cheney? I would start with the 2005 film Why We Fight on where his ethics stand. His goals in that film are very clearly stated and one of the tools he uses to achieve that goal is wiretapping.
He's very clever so being "clear" is difficult. One definable example I can think of Cheney breaking the law is outing Valerie Plame. His handwriting is on the column that Joe Wilson wrote-cathing Cheney in one of his bullshit lies--saying "Did his wife go with him?" Now, this is not coming out and saying "Valerie Plame works for the CIA" but it does insinuate it...in a subtle enough way where some folks might not think anything of it.
Is it illegal? Oh yeah.....
"Yeah, like that's going to happen."
Yeah the chances of you posting any proof is about as great as you posting your health care plan on here. Nut up sweetheart.
Now feel free to post the names of people who have ended up dead because they "knew too much". I'm not the one making the accusations here, you all are.
…as always, just when I think I’ve heard all the whoppers from the left; in comes Torch or Eddie. Brilliant guys! Just brilliant!
Today's debate:
Right-wing nut jobs: 1
Commie pinkos: 0
Actually, I'd like to see dave, gang's or rld's answer to Mark's questions...especially the last one.
Why would the NSA want American's phone records in Feb of 2001?
If you re-read the 1st paragraph of my first post, you'll see my response. Contrary to popular belief, rather than sitting on their hands prior to 9/11, perhaps, just perhaps, they were looking for terrorists? Hmmm? Maybe?
Dave, that can't be the case! That won't allow them to say the whole "Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11" mantra.
Well, actually he didn't. Because Cheney was too busy spying on people that might interfere with his chances to be Supreme Chancellor of Corporation Inc. rather than listen to Al Qaeda.
...and those people he 'was' spying on will of course never come forward out of fear of death so we'll just have to take your word for it...
Actually, Dave, if you'd like some insight into how things work these days, start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
I'm fairly familiar w/ Operation Able Danger but I'm not sure what your point is with it in regards to the the thread...
Able Danger was shut down by Dick Cheney even though they had made serious headway into Al Qaeda. It was shut down because Cheney himself wanted to control a terrorism task force inside the White House. This new task force never met a single time which I find odd considering the mountain of evidence that supported an attack inside of the US.
What it shows is Cheney's need for complete control and dominance over the issue of intelligence gathering-it all goes through his office and is tightly guarded.
I’ve not heard that from even the most liberal of sources; which isn’t to say that it’s not true, but I would be highly skeptical...but hey, I can talk about 9/11 and Able Danger’s roll in it all day long and in the end, it was a colossal failure of many areas and administrations… But it doesn’t make people who claim this administration is killing people any less moronic.
Here’s a timeline of the program… (Can’t say I’m familiar w/ the source, but it looks pretty well documented and critical of both administrations…not much about Cheney, there either.)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=ableDanger
Here are some links to check out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/05/08/national/main290081.shtml
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=tp-108-2-78
http://prairieweather.typepad.com/big_blue_stem/2006/01/cheneys_persona.html
The last one contains several quotes from the president leading up to 9-11.
Dave, you made my day with the cooperative research link. That is "commie-liberal" site, don't you know??!! Now, in addition to voting for you next year, I will have to find ten others to vote for you.....
Has someone transported me to a parallel dimension?
Post a Comment