BBJ said:
Disagreeable said:
Econ101 said:
If the information on the earlier NSA surveillence and this had gone through the proper FISA courts, I doubt we would have heard much about either of these cases. Not following the checks and balances in the processes set up is to blame as much as the reporter's stories.
The process was set up to protect the public from a government that misuses this information for political purposes as Nixon tried to do.
Both of these programs could have been very good intelligence programs if kept under wraps. If the programs had not been abused and the envelope pushed I doubt we would have known about either. This is as much an administration failure as anything.
The al quieda (sp?) network through bin laden was reportedly already aware of the 2nd program.
You're right. If the Bush Administration had not been outed as eavesdropping without a warrant, getting our phone records from the telephone companies, (and lying about it) this probably wouldn't be an issue. But they did and it is. I'm a great believer in what goes around comes around and in this case it came around and possibly bit us all in the behind.
So it's President Bushs fault for what the "media" :lol: and its' "journalist" :roll: reported???? I think you've lost it. :wink: I've always thought maybe you were a touch on the intellegent side but after your past few rants, I'm beginning to think, which most already know, that you are nothing more than a cindy shehan wantabee. You have nothing more to offer on this board than a blame America first and hate Bush agenda. Your efforts are a great waste of space.
No, I am totally for the war in Iraq. In ways it has been mishandled. That too is inevitable in any war. The problem is everything is getting mixed up with the individual policies. They need to be separated so that the policy can be the best and have the best results. The republicans are never always right and neither are the democrats. They both are prone to this lumping up of decisions and then saying it is all or nothing.
For example, Bush allowed the abu graib type blunders and these seem to have eminateded from the highest posts of government. When found out, he reversed the policy. It was an intelligent decision but the lack of that decision before it happened probably lead to greater loss of U.S. servicemen's lives than otherwise would have been the case.
The same can be said about troop levels and the wholesale dismantling of the security structure of the Iraqi army. Wouldn't we have been better off allowing the security forces to remain and assign them to some outpost in Iraq ostensibly for security instead of allowing them to disolve into an insurgent force (this was touted by Saddam before the invasion)? If they measured up, they could have helped stabilized the country. If not, they could have been kept in some remote part of Iraq to be dealt with later.
This dumping of every decision into one category of a democrat idea vs. a republican idea does not allow you to have anything but one category. Any in depth analysis should be able to break out these policies and determine each on its own merits. Just because you make a mistake on one, doesn't mean that you are wrong on all of them.
I can agree with Bush on going to war, support the troops, and critcize the failures so they are not repeated. Every war plan is made that way. Criticism of the individual mistakes should always be allowed and encouraged. If they were taken seriously before they are implemented, they could be avoided. Sometimes even with the best planning they can not be avoided.
The journalists would have less of a leg to stand on in regards to the leak being in the interests of the people if the interests of the people were represented in the process instead of the process being jumped over. The question the journalists bring up is how much liberty are we willing to give up to fight terrorism. Do we need to give up any at all? In each of these cases we could have accomplished the same goal without giving up on the checks and balances our legislature passed (talking about search warrants and FISA here). I don't give anyone a blank check with power. It is too seductive. Had the checks and balances been there instead of trampled on, you would have had no complaint by me.
How do you know govt. resources were not misused as Nixon did? That is what the checks are supposed to prevent.
This is a lesson I learned from the VP of Standard Oil.
It was also a lesson learned from a study of the Bay of Pigs Invasion under Kennedy and why policy decisions failed in that embarassment.
The U.S. is not to blame for the war in Iraq. If anything, I think they allowed Saddam to go on for too long. That conclusion does not dismiss all of the failures whether seen or unseen because of a reckless course of action.
If anything, the lack of support by everyone else in the world, including those at the U.N. Oil for food program, in some ways justifies the acceptance of some of these failures.
I admire GW for taking us into Iraq. I don't know that I admire him the way he did it or all the ideals he gave up to do it or the protections to our liberty that he so easily throws aside because he thinks he knows best.
It doesn't bother me what you think of me. You need to just think. Instead of being a follower of a person, try being a follower of principle. Every one will "sin", it is only human. You must not allow your drive for a principle be subsituted for a drive for a person. You will get it wrong every time.
Life isn't as simple as a two party system.