Truth be told

All stories, magazine articles, speeches are edited to reflect a point of view. That's the whole point (like inhaling). To condemn 60 Minutes which has been on for how many years and known as a vanguard of hard-hitting journalism as biased is facile.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Bush�s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times� eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper�s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn�t just out of concern about national security.

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president�s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden�s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists�in fact, all American Muslims, period�have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that �the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.� But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a �shameful act,� it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story�which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year�because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had �legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.� But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing �all necessary force� in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow�as the president seemed to claim in his press conference�or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason�and less out of genuine concern about national security�that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

I was politely asking that you call us crooks and criminals on your board, where it will be better received and I was nice about it too.

As far as Foley goes, you will excuse me if I don't think running off to a secret rehab when you have been busted is an honorable thing to do. He got caught and he ran. Simple as that. Then blamed alchohol and a priest for his behavior. That doesn't fly with me. And he has not been convicted of anything, so I guess that makes it okay....neither have OJ or Robert Blake. They, let's see, how should I say it, got away with murder. And, last but not least, are you not the one who posted awhile back quite a sermon on passing judgement. I seem to remember Bible quotes and all sorts of Christian-esque cliches about judgement being God's to pass. Then, I hear McKinney is a joke, Jefferson is a bigger joke and Kennedy is the biggest joke of all. Yet they still get elected (by Democrats) which makes us all guilty of what...depraved indifference??? Judge not lest ye be judged. I believe you quoted that but here you are, on the liberal board, belittling Democrats, stating you don't care how we think or feel and that our Democratic senators are jokes. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to try to pin wrongdoing on one party, everyone included, you do it here on this board. All I asked was that you cease and desist with the mud. I do care what people think and feel and have tried to write respectfully keeping that in mind. It is not a bad practice and it is a practice, takes a looooong time to think before speaking or to filter through your heart first what comes out your mouth (or keyboard).

because for some people....they just cannot seem to post anything worthwhile. All they do is repeat the same stuff and call people names. If you have nothing of value to bring to the table....please feel free to shut your trap as well. I know what our country is facing and I stand by my decision of picking John McCain. I believe him, what he stands for, and what he says. I do not believe Obama. If you differ in that opinion....that is your God given right. But bring something to the table other than insults.

You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.

their believing this because they are experiencing it. You all honestly think everyone is stupid. All you have to do is step into a Wal-Mart, a Target, or have your kid come home and tell you that if you wish people Merry Christmas or bring any Christian symbols to school they will be sent home and/or punished.

I don't have a problem with the other holidays, but it is discrimination when you can post the other holiday symbols in the public, square, businesses, or schools but you cannot post anything about Christmas or the reason for Christmas which is Christ.

I say drill now too. Be truly energy independent. Explore and develop other energies, wind, solar, clean coal, etc. Why are all the oil sheiks so rich? Our hard-earned dollars are pocket change for them. I dont have $5,000 to heat my house this winter, and today it's snowing already.