hahahaha, pulling rank on the outer boroughs huh? Well my downtown job trumps you on the danger scale, paper covers rock, 31 < 100. Blue states > Red states Say, when's the indictment of the Times coming down the pipe? This thread made me wistful.
But we shouldn't take the threat seriously when talking about a CIA agent monitoring Iran's nuke problem having her cover blown by the whitehouse. When it comes to that we should pretend like nothing happened. You take your security seriously in only selective circumstances it seems.
The threat of terrorism is deadly serious. I wish the president would take it more seriously and not use it as a campaign tool. My advice to you is to move to Utah. Far away from the threat and you'd probably have more in common with people there anyway. And I live in Astoria, not Jackson Heights you Manhattan snob.
Please, he lives in the UWS, he might as well live in Jersey. Mark have you ever been to the Bohemian Beer Hall? Have made a drunken pilgrammage out there ever summer for the past 4, great place.
Jack Cafferty didn't hold back today: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TSR-Cafferty-Dictatorship-5-11-06.wmv
Well the stuff I believe is supported with documents, statements by CIA officials who worked with her, etc. You selectively choose what you will and won't believe. That isn't bad, but it doesn't make sense then for you to criticize others for not taking security seriously.
May 11, 2006 The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Bush: Recent reports state that the NSA's domestic surveillance of Americans is much more expansive than you previously stated. You said that the NSA surveillance program only targets international communications between Americans and suspected members of al Qaeda. Now we learn the NSA routinely collects the call records of tens of millions of Americans from telecommunications companies collectively serving more than 200 million Americans. These reports also suggest that the NSA has equipment on AT&T's network to monitor all Internet data passing over it. If true, these reports are truly shocking. We urge you once again to direct the appointment of a Special Counsel fully empowered to investigate the NSA's domestic surveillance programs and report its findings to Congress. It is time the American public and the Congress had more than press reports to establish the facts about NSA's domestic surveillance programs. Several Members of Congress wrote to you nearly three months ago asking for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the NSA's surveillance of Americans. We still have not received your response. Every practical avenue for investigation has been stymied based on the feeblest of excuses. When Members of Congress wrote to the Inspector Generals of the Justice and Defense Departments, they refused to investigate. The Justice Department handed the matter to its Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation of professional legal misconduct, and then denied security clearances to its own investigators. The Defense Department handed the matter to NSA's Inspector General, who never responded and who approved the eavesdropping at issue. The Government Accountability Office refused to investigate, anticipating you would block access to records by designating them foreign intelligence or counterintelligence materials. While the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings, they have not issued a single subpoena for witnesses or documentary evidence. Instead of investigation, all that emerges is a pattern of resisting investigation into the facts that Congress and the public deserve. Given the Attorney General's authorization of domestic eavesdropping by the NSA and his highly public defense of it, a Special Counsel is needed to avoid any conflict of interest in investigating the NSA programs. The Attorney General's recent testimony in the House Judiciary Committee suggests he has much to hide. The Attorney General acknowledged under oath that the Deputy Attorney General initially disapproved of an NSA eavesdropping program separate from the warrantless eavesdropping you described on international communications with al Qaeda members. But the Attorney General refused to tell the House Judiciary Committee anything about that separate NSA eavesdropping program. If the news reports cited above are true, the Attorney General also provided highly misleading testimony when asked whether the NSA was eavesdropping on calls entirely within the United States. Without a complete and impartial investigation of the facts, Members of Congress are robbed of their Article I oversight responsibilities under the Constitution. The American public is robbed of its ability to hold Article II officials accountable for their conduct. While we appreciate the need to safeguard sensitive classified information, existing legal protections for handling of classified information would allow an investigation to proceed without compromising national security. Mr. President, both our Constitutional duties and yours are to protect the security of the nation from terrorist threats and to protect and uphold the laws of our nation. The NSA's domestic eavesdropping programs may fail in both. Without a thorough investigation into the facts, we can simply never know. We urge you once again to direct the appointment of a Special Counsel fully empowered to investigate the NSA's domestic eavesdropping programs and report its findings to Congress. Sincerely, Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Gary Ackerman, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Howard Berman, Rick Boucher, Robert Brady, Sherrod Brown, Julia Carson, Lois Capps, William Clay, John Conyers, Susan Davis, Peter DeFazio, William Delahunt, Rosa DeLauro, John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Eliot Engel, Sam Farr, Raul Grijalva, Maurice Hinchey, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Jay Inslee, Jim Langevin, Tom Lantos, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, (nice to see my congresswoman standing up!) Doris Matsui, Marty Meehan, Betty McCollum, Jerrold Nadler, Ed Pastor, Collin Peterson, David Price, John Salazar, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Adam Smith, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Bart Stupak, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Mark Udall, Peter Visclosky, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Maxine Waters, Dianne Watson, and Robert Wexler.
i think this is great, truly, and i say, by all means, let's turn the Hayden hearings into a referrendum on the various NSA programs, wiretaps, calling patterns, etc. The american people deserve to clearly see who takes their security seriously, and who does not. Members of congress, stand up and be counted!
Too bad it will never happen because the republican majority will continue to cover the ass of a failed president.
Again I have to ask what criteria counts as taking security seriously? Does exposing the identity of a classified CIA agent working on the nuke program of Iran for pure political purposes and revenge still enable one to be seen as taking security seriously? I think we have seen that political revenge takes precedence over security for this administration. I think we should see who takes the ideas of our freedoms seriously, and I agree with you that this will be a good thing, because it will help to show us.
Of course we wouldn't need Hayden Hearings at all had GWB29 not appointed an incompetent whoremonger to be the CIA head in the first place. Who's taking security seriously again? The party of the Dukester, Dusty Foggo & Nine fingers?
democrats, once again, backing a winning issue...oh, wait, th epublic, by a two-to-one margin thinks it's ok? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464 -- Phone-Records Surveillance Is Broadly Acceptable to Public By GARY LANGER and DALIA SUSSMAN May 12, 2006 — - Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized. Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified. Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS. Indeed, 51 percent approve of the way President Bush is handling the protection of privacy rights, while 47 percent disapprove -- hardly a robust rating, but one that's far better than his overall job approval, in the low 30s in recent polls. NSA Phone Records Program Yes No Is collecting phone records acceptable? 63% 35% Would it bother you if there was a record of your phone calls? 34 66 This doesn't mean privacy intrusions aren't a concern. Nearly half the public, 45 percent, say the government is not doing enough to protect Americans' rights as it investigates terrorism. This concern is far higher than it was in 2002 and 2003, closer to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- but slightly down in this poll from its level two months ago. Despite such concerns, however, the public continues to place a higher priority on terrorism investigations than on privacy intrusions. Sixty-five percent say it's more important for the government to investigate possible threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy, than for it to avoid privacy intrusions if that limits its investigative ability. It was the same in January, although higher still in 2002 and 2003 polls. The phone-records program, moreover, is not broadly seen as intrusive. Two-thirds of Americans say it wouldn't bother them if the National Security Agency had a record of phone numbers that they had called. A third would be bothered; fewer, about a quarter, say it would bother them a lot. The intensity of sentiment on this issue is in the administration's favor as well: Substantially more people, 41 percent, feel "strongly" that the program is acceptable than the number who feel strongly that it's unacceptable, 24 percent. The public previously has come down on the government's side on NSA surveillance. A previously disclosed NSA program of wiretapping targeted phone calls and e-mails between the United States and international destinations has been rated acceptable by more than half of Americans in ABC/Post polls this year, including 54 percent in March. At the same time most don't endorse criticism of the media for disclosing the secret NSA program. Fifty-six percent say disclosing the program was right for the news media to have done; 42 percent call it wrong. PARTY/IDEOLOGY -- There are partisan differences in views on the program: Eighty-five percent of Republicans call it acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Democrats. Crucially for the administration, six in 10 independents say the program passes muster. Similarly, eight in 10 conservatives call the NSA program acceptable. Six in 10 moderates agree, as do more than four in 10 liberals. There are even sharper differences among these groups in ratings of Bush's and the government's performance in protecting privacy. On both of these, independents and moderates are somewhat more skeptical. However, six in 10 independents and half of Democrats also say that investigating threats currently is more important than protecting privacy; among Republicans, that jumps to 84 percent. Some of these differences also are reflected in sensitivity about personal records. Just 12 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of conservatives say it would bother them to learn that the NSA had records of their calls. That rises to about four in 10 independents and moderates -- and half of Democrats and liberals. Republicans and conservatives are much more critical of the media's disclosure of the program -- nearly six in 10 say it was wrong, while, among other Americans, six in 10 or more call it the right thing to do.
*sigh* Once again you miss the point basso. No one has a problem with wiretaps or data mining. The problem comes when you circumvent law to do so. [edit] But I'm sure Jr is ecstatic that he finally is polling in a majority on SOMETHING!
George W Bush is less than half as popular as illegal spying, HAHAHAHA. Next stop: root canals and Milli Vanilli Tribute Albums.
