Here are some the conservatives forgot to add to his list...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-11-01
In Reply to: The Clintons had more scandals than fleas on a dog. - NM
The Shoelace Scandal - Clinton tied his shoe laces to loose and Monica had to tie them for him. Whoaaa!
The Walking the Dog Scandal -
Clinton was walking his dog and it exposed it's pee pee to a conservative's poodle. Whoaeee!
The Toothbrush Scandal -
Monica brushed her teeth with Clinton's toothbrush. Whoaaa!
Did I leave anything off!
Had to joke for a minute!
While some of the scandals during his presidency were very legitimate, more than a few of them were off the chain crazy during Clinton's time in office. Bush has had it very easy in this department, if you ask me. I think republicans are just better at digging up scandals.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You forgot to add Hitler to the list of Bush name-calling.
*
You forgot to add Hitler to the list of Bush hatisms.
*
No conservatives either
The last time I looked at cons board there were no conservatives there either, just extreme right-wing nuts.
I mean conservatives. sm
True conservatives. The ones who don't believe in abortion, believe our money should be ours to spend, are fiscally conservative, and believe in smaller government. The true conservative Reagan Republican. I seriously doubt any of them were there. And yes, libertarians are conservative as well, for the most part. I don't know if they were there are not. The conservative pundits I follow who are libertarian were definitely not there.
If the conservatives think SP is sm
so great, why does the conservative talk radio in my city basically treat her as a sex object, wanting to see her naked or in suggestive clothing, etc.? I even think they put a suggestive picture of her on their web site. I think its so disrespectful and I'm not even going to vote for her! Talk about sexist. Does this go on in other cities? I can understand ratings and revenue but we talking about possibly the second most powerful person in the country and they can't even be respectful!  A man isn't treated this way. Maybe conservatives are the ones afraid of a strong woman.
I just love it when Conservatives are
WOW the Conservatives are hateful here.
I was looking on the conservative board and there is so much aggression and anger there. What is up with that? WHY?
They don't call them CONservatives for nothing!
Con means to deceive or mislead. That's how they communicate, from Bush right on down to his peon worshippers. They deceive, lie, mislead, twist, manipulate. They do everything except speak the truth. This is a perfect example. You asked them above to see the post. You didn't get a response, did you?
Now they'll just continue to troll this board with more outrageous fictional tales conceived in their tiny little minds, all for the purpose of demeaning and attacking liberals.
It's really sad, irritating and definitely bothersome, but they are their own worst enemy because they are getting more and more out of control every day. In a way, I guess I will really be worried if it stops. If I no longer see those angry hateful posts here, I will fear that they finally snapped in real life and either hurt someone else or got hurt themselves. 
conservatives and stinks
Conservative and stinks..nah, at least not what the poster below stated..Dont ya know, Libby, per conservative post below, it is us liberals/democrats/anti war people who dont bathe and have a stench about us? Yeah, right.
The conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too...sm
It's OK for a church to be prowar and not lose their exempt status, but not against it. Hypocrisy is reeking.
Stuff like this is the reason there is a separation between church and state to begin with. Give it an inch and we all lose.
Maybe the FBI is preventing conservatives from seeing it.
LoL.
I doubt a lot of conservatives were there. sm
True conservatives would not have been caught dead there. Maybe some RINOS.
I hear, and I think most of the conservatives on these
boards...here what you are saying. We just do not agree with you, so we counter the points. That is what debate is. It is working just like it is supposed to. Do you consider debate to be working only if the other side capitulates and you *win?*
Why is it such a challenge for conservatives to
and take personal responsibility for their actions and their consequences? This has nothing to do with libs. It has everything to do with the connections between racial, bigoted hate speech, violence, crime and cold-blooded murder.
Yes. Do tell how conservatives would lead us
out of the darkness and into the light.
The conservatives should put down their martinis
and start smoking weed. Whole lot better'n being a mean drunk, and they might even start thinking clearly enough again to figure out what 'fiscal responsibility' really is.
Here are some celebrity conservatives.
Kelsey Grammer
Gary Sinise
Stephen Baldwin
Patricia Heaton
Dennis Hopper
Craig T. Nelson
Ben Stein
Tom Sellek
Kurt Russell
Ted Nugent
Elizabeth Hasselbeck
Angie Harmon
John Ratzenberger
Are they blaming conservatives
and pro-life people for one person who lied? It seems to me like these pro-life people were trying to be supportive and be there for someone that they really thought needed them. How where they supposed to know that they were being lied to? Instead of blaming conservatives as a whole on this one, why aren't they placing the blame on the ignorant woman who was addicted to blogging and made all of this up? I just don't get the logic some of you people have. One person lied and so all these pro-lifers came to her aid thinking she needed it and somehow it isn't the liars fault.....it is the pro-lifers. Yeah...makes perfect sense.....sheesh
because conservatives stick to the old,
boring stuff and it is the independents and liberals that breathe fresh air into life.
And Google also has 896,000 entries on conservatives and
Excuse me while I take leave to invent some "facts" based on that.
You have demonstrated why conservatives cannot post here. sm
Are you schizophrenic. Your posts are some of the some inflammatory, hate-filled screed it has ever been my displeasure to read. Wishing people to burn in hell? Calling children of the president ugly and alcoholics? THAT is debate. You don't fool me. I didn't say she COULDN'T come here. I said ther poster demonstrated why she would not want to. Get a little insight into your bizarre behavior.
And that is largely due to the fact that the conservatives SM
have afforded them the courtesy of not posting here, as has been said before.
That's why there are 2 boards for the conservatives who like the "yes man"
debates. I suggest to the people who don't like liberal ways go there. They will be able to high five and keep hope alive with the Bush yeppers and congregation.
Conservatives don't care about the poor...
NOT!
America and the Poor... |
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly 
|
PHOTOS |
 |
VIDEO |
ARCHIVE |
|
SHOW INFO |
|
America and the poor, that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
The aftermath of Katrina has produced a debate over poor Americans. There are about 37 million people living below the poverty line right now. The issue was described this way by Newsweek (search) reporter Evan Thomas (search), a liberal guy but not alone, who writes, Liberals will say [the authorities] were indifferent to the plight of poor African-Americans. It is true that Katrina laid bare society's massive neglect of its least fortunate.
Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office in 1996, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent. Halfway through President Bush's tenure, the rate is 12.7 percent, a full point lower.
In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget and a whopping amount of money. That's why Bill Clinton (search) was called the first black president by some.
However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget, a huge increase over Clinton's spending on poverty entitlements.
|
It's more like that the conservatives know history and are better informed.
I am amazed that you people are not challenged more. I don't care about the political aspect but this is just ridiculous. Capitalism is superior to socialism in every way. Socialist societies have never prospered. Never. Socialism remains a failed experiment. Capitalism was implemented in West Germany and West Berlin following World War II. West Germany and West Berlin prospered and living standards became much better. Socialism was implemented in East Germany and East Berlin following World War II. East Germany and East Berlin stagnated and living standards deteriorated. The split turned German into an experiment that could be observed, studied, and used to show the differences of how capitalism and socialism affect a country. This is a matter of fact. Anyone who opts for socialism is a fool.
Starcat, they are not true conservatives.sm
We do not support Bush. I wish everyone would just take the time to do some research on these political candidates, not only would you not vote for them, they would scare the hell out of you. I can tell by some posts on here that some have. We need to be united to get our country back, not fighting.
Your statement was *they* are not true conservatives.
I was merely asking who *they* are.
Yep those mean conservatives are over there helping Israel
Yep, they'll be back when all the Lebanese are dead, because all us conservatives are evil like that.
Don't think you can blame it all at the feet of conservatives....
runaway social programs are certainly not the fault of conservatives...raiding of social security was not done by conservatives...Democrats did that. You can't blame the moral relativism of today on conservatives either. Pre-emptive war was also something started by Democrats (Viet Nam). Democrats kept blacks from having the vote until the 1960's. So please...let's not try to blame EVERYTHING on conservatives...because that is a crock. No one group of people got us where we are today. It was definitely a combined effort.
Who gives more to charity? Liberals or conservatives? sm
Charity's political divide
Conservative give roughly 30% more to charity on average.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Who gives and who doesn't
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Who gives to charity:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
Conservative philanthropists are more generous, experts say...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
Conservatives give more to charity:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080327/news_lz1e27will.html
It seems to me that this study shows that conservatives (sm)
are MORE concerned about others than democrats. They see a picture of SOMEONE ELSE who is hurt or dead and they react more than the democrats. I used to think of myself as being fairly liberal, but if that means being associated with the type of people many of the democrats who post on here appear to be, then no thanks, I'll call myself conservative. Actually I always vote for the candidate I agree with most, regardless of party.
History of liberals and conservatives
I posted this on the comedy board too - its half political/half comedy.
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to the man.
These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals & 2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to barbeque at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jack@ss.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most are social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood, and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history.......
It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.
A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers, and to more liberals...just to yank their chain.
Have a great day!
and here I thought conservatives had the market on
x
Conservatives better pray that regulation will be ENOUGH.
swift and smart, it probably won't be enough.
"Bashing"? All you do is bash conservatives,
nm
My, we sure are painting all conservatives with a broad brush...
I have criticized Bush on numerous thing, including this pandering to the Mexicans in regard to our border control. Please don't assume every conservative is just a lock step mindless zombie. Lots of people say that about liberals, but I disagree with that too. There are a million shades of gray, across both sides of the political aisle.
Slandering someone who doesn't agree with you is what conservatives do best.
Please tell me what personal knowledge you have about gt's drinking history, if any such history actually exists.
The administrator should ban you for this kind of personal slanderous assault on a poster.
Conservatives, please post on conservative board. Thank you. nm
.
Conservatives, please post on the Conservative board. Thank you. nm
x
Conservatives, please post on conservative board. nm
/
Conservatives, please post on the conservative board. nm
xxx
Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives sm
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you unpatriotic simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be different or immoral. Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs (Blessed are the poor, Blessed are the peacemakers, Love your enemies, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
What makes you think that most of America is sick of conservatives....?
where on earth do you get that? A level head calm thinking Democrat? Is this tirade supposed to be evidence of level head calm thinking Democrat? "rash testosterone so out of touch with reality dangerous republican" ahem. no offense, that doesn't sound real calm and level headed. And what Congress has is not government controlled health insurance. They are insured privately, the government just picks up the tab just like employers pick up the tab for employees...as they are in fact federal employees. I don't like the fact that they have the plan they have...in fact, when we were debating expanding SCHIP I suggested that all of Congress should just forego their own policies and put those premiums toward private coverage for children. Not one Democrat thought that was a good idea. you are right...WE pay taxes. ALL of us. Liberals, Democrats, the left, et al; Republicans, Conservatives...we ALL pay taxes. If you on the left want to expand programs higher up the income ladder, then why don't you let the government raise all your taxes by say...3%. You are such strong believers in it, you take care of the increase. 3% from each of you, since there are so many more of you than us anyway, should take care of it. I would be all on board for that. That would be fine with me...because 35-40% of my paycheck off the top is ENOUGH. If the government you so want to take care of you with programs can't take care of it with 35-40% off the top of every American's paycheck, then something is seriously wrong in Denmark, friend. And throwing even more tax money at it is not going to help. Soooo....all on the left, the liberals, the Democrats, who think the government needs to take care of people higher and higher up the income ladder...pony up. Have that extra 3% or whatever the government thinks it will take to take care of you...since there are so many more of you than us...makes sense to me.
Baldwin: Conservatives Lost More Than an Election sm
Conservatives Lost More Than An Election
by Chuck Baldwin
November 7, 2008
That Barack Obama trounced John McCain last Tuesday should have surprised no one. In fact, in this column, weeks ago, I stated emphatically that John McCain could no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton. He didn't. (Hence a vote for John McCain was a "wasted" vote, was it not?) I also predicted that Obama would win with an electoral landslide. He did. The real story, however, is not how Barack Obama defeated John McCain. The real story is how John McCain defeated America's conservatives.
For all intents and purposes, conservatism--as a national movement--is completely and thoroughly dead. Barack Obama did not destroy it, however. It was George W. Bush and John McCain who destroyed conservatism in America.
Soon after G.W. Bush was elected, it quickly became obvious he was no conservative. On the contrary, George Bush has forever established himself as a Big-Government, warmongering, internationalist neocon. Making matters worse was the way Bush presented himself as a conservative Christian. In fact, Bush's portrayal of himself as a conservative Christian paved the way for the betrayal and ultimate destruction of conservatism (something I also predicted years ago). And the greatest tragedy of this deception is the way that Christian conservatives so thoroughly (and stupidly) swallowed the whole Bush/McCain neocon agenda.
For example, Bush and his fellow neocons like to categorize and promote themselves as being "pro-life," but they have no hesitation or reservation about killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in reckless and unconstitutional foreign wars. By the same token, how many unborn babies were saved by six years of all three branches of the federal government being under the control of these "pro-life" neocons? Not one! Ask the more than eight million unborn babies who were killed in their mothers' wombs during the last eight years how "pro-life" George W. Bush and John McCain are.
As a result of this insanely inconsistent and pixilated punditry, millions of Americans now laugh at the very notion of "pro-life" conservatism. Bush and McCain have made a mockery of the very term.
Consider, too, the way Bush and McCain have allowed the international bankers on Wall Street to bilk America's taxpayers out of trillions of dollars. Yes, I know Obama also supported the Wall Street bailout, but it was the Republican Party that controlled the White House for the last eight years and the entire federal government for six out of the last eight years. In fact, the GOP has won seven out of the previous ten Presidential elections. They have controlled Supreme Court appointments for the past thirty-plus years. They have appointed the majority of Treasury secretaries and Federal Reserve chairmen. They have presided over the greatest trade imbalances, the biggest deficits, the biggest spending increases, and now the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression.
Again, the American people look at these so-called "conservatives" and laugh. No wonder such a sizeable majority of voters yawned when John McCain tried to scare them by accusing Barack Obama of being a "big taxer." How can one possibly scare people with a charge like that after the GOP has made a total mockery of fiscal conservatism? That's like trying to scare someone coming out from a swim in the Gulf of Mexico with a squirt gun.
Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as John McCain.
But the worst calamity of this election was the way conservatives--especially Christian conservatives--surrendered their principles for the sake of political partisanship. The James Dobsons of this country should hang their heads in shame! Not only did they lose an election, they lost their integrity!
In South Carolina, for example, pro-life Christians and conservatives had an opportunity to vote for a principled conservative-constitutionalist for the U.S. Senate. He is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-traditional marriage. He believes in securing our borders against illegal immigration. He is against the bailout for the Wall Street banksters. His conservative credentials are unassailable. But the vast majority of Christian conservatives (including those at Bob Jones University) voted for his liberal opponent instead.
The man that the vast majority of Christian conservatives voted for in South Carolina is a Big-Government neocon. He supported the bailout of the Wall Street banksters. He is a rabid supporter of granting amnesty and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, this man has a conservative rating of only 29% in the current Freedom Index of the New American Magazine.
Why did Christian conservatives support the liberal neocon and not the solid pro-life conservative? Because the conservative ran as a Democrat and the neocon is a Republican. I'm talking about the race between Bob Conley and Lindsey Graham, of course.
Had South Carolina's pastors, Christians, evangelicals, and pro-life conservatives voted for Bob Conley, he would be the new senator-elect from that state. In fact, Bob was so conservative that the Democratic leadership in South Carolina endorsed the Republican, Lindsey Graham! No matter. A majority of evangelical Christians in South Carolina stupidly rejected Bob Conley and voted for Graham.
Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.
Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.
And since it is unlikely that the Republican Party has enough sense to understand any of this and will, therefore, do little to reestablish genuine conservative principles, it is probably best to just go ahead and bury the scoundrels now and move on to something else. Without a sincere commitment to constitutional government, the GOP has no justifiable reason to ever govern again. Therefore, put a fork in them. They are done. Let a new entity arise from the ashes: one that will stand for something more than just "the lesser of two evils." As we say in the South, That dog just won't hunt anymore.
Conservatives that I meet are common sense
nm
Wrong. Rightwing Extremists, not conservatives.
Like hate groups and neo-nazis. If you are a member of one of those type of groups, then yes, this report is about you.
Add this to the list
Remember a while back when this story first hit the fan and the cons from the other board came over to tell us we are paranoid? Boy, life sure is simpler if you drink the Kool-Aid, isn't it?
A representative from Qwest just told me they have had lots of calls switching their service over to them.
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program
It's the largest database ever assembled in the world, said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is to create a database of every call ever made within the nation's borders, this person added.
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made across town or across the country to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.
The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.
The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.
In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. In other words, Bush explained, one end of the communication must be outside the United States.
As a result, domestic call records those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders were believed to be private.
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide, he said. However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law.
The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. There is no domestic surveillance without court approval, said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.
She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists. All government-sponsored intelligence activities are carefully reviewed and monitored, Perino said. She also noted that all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States.
The government is collecting external data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting internals, a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for social network analysis, the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.
Carriers uniquely positioned
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services primarily long-distance and wireless to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.
Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for No Such Agency.
In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named Shamrock, led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.
Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.
Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of data mining sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.
Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn't necessary for government data-mining operations. FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining, said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.
The caveat, he said, is that personal identifiers such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses can't be included as part of the search. That requires an additional level of probable cause, he said.
The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.
The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.
Ma Bell's bedrock principle protection of the customer guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. No court order, no customer information period. That's how it was for decades, he said.
The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation's top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of violation. In practice, that means a single violation could cover one customer or 1 million.
In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.
Companies approached
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.
The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their call-detail records, a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law.
In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.
Verizon, the USA's No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers' privacy.
Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: We can't talk about this. It's a classified situation.
In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.
Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales' reply: I wouldn't rule it out. His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.
Similarities in programs
The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA's procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation's citizens.
The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. ... I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.
One company differs
One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.
According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order or approval under FISA to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.
Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.
The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information known as product in intelligence circles with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.
The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them, one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.
In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.
Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.
Contributing: John Diamond
Posted 5/10/2006 11:16 PM ET
Wow. That is quite a list
you've got there. It sounds like you would be happiest in another country and I am not being a smart aleck here. There are countries where your list is pretty much real life. Cuba, Equador, Paraguay, Uruguay to name a few. I know a man who just moved to Equador and he is quite happy. He went for many of the reasons you state. He really just wanted to be left alone. Besides, it is beautiful there...the Gallapagos Islands...the best mangoes in the world. I have given a lot of thought to moving out of the U.S. for a time anyway to try to gain some perspective. Just a thought.
P.S. I don't have a list
of bottom feeders. In this world of ever worsening crises, misery, pain, hunger, intolerance, etc., I am trying more and more to avoid what I consider to be the ugliness that I cab avoid; meaning I don't have to listen to, I don't have to read, etc. There is enough sadness that I cannot turn my back on but I can turn my back on bottom feeders.
List what he's done, please
Sean Hannity has been asking people all over the place, to no avail. I'm guessing you saw Newt & that NBC guy, who couldn't provide an answer?
At least you posed your piece in a respectful tone. The tone on this board has become so obnoxious that I could be in DailyKos Land and not even know the difference.
Sally Quinn even went on O'Reilly Factoid to admit she had been wrong about Sarah. That's impressive.
Acc. to your list......
almost everybody is then a natural-born-citizen.
Then no need to change the constitution.
Thank you for proving again that Obama is a natural-born American citizen.
I hope that the Republicans put this issue FINALLY to rest.
|
