Jump to content


MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Melody

  1. My point precisely! What IS the point of regurgitating news from 2003. Frankly, people made their minds up then which side to fall on, nothing new has come to light. Why then is the press covering this stuff like it's new information? (I was laughing at your, "so?" by the way. Just struck me funny. No insult intended.)
  2. LOL!!! I guess what goes around comes around. I'll have my turn at rewarming the hash if Hillary runs. Start studying up!
  3. It isn't evident that it was a lie. The official published report issued jointly by the CIA and DIA on May 28, 2003 advised that these were mobile weapons laboratories. This was based on a consensus of two of the three teams who had examined the equipment, but also on the identification of an Iraqi intelligence source who claimed that he had worked on the design of the facilities. That report stood as the official CIA stand on the matter for quite some time afterward. I remember all the hoopla at the time, and it was well reported that there was a dissenting view as to whether these were bioweapons labs or facilities for hydrogen balloons almost from the first. It was argued ad nauseum on cable news with various "experts" who hadn't examined the equipment issuing opposing views. The debate continued well into 2004, with Tenet continuing to assert that these were bioweapons laboratories. Ultimately (and I don't remember when) it was decided that this was a scam by Chalabi et al. If I had to guess, I'd say it was probably in the spring or summer of '04. Making a statement on incomplete or erroneous information isn't the same thing as lying. And this is another example of no new news, but rewarming old hash. Every single bit of information in that Post report can be compiled by reading old newspapers from 2003.
  4. Actually a post I agree with! Did you read this article in today's Wall Street Journal? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008226 So weird that I'm ending up an apologist for Bush so often here. The truth is that I'm right ticked off at him, and at the GOP. I guess I'm just ticked off for different reasons than you guys are. I've actually signed the petition to get Kinky Friedman on the ballot for governor. I may even vote for the dude if the GOP in our state doesn't pull its head out of, uh, the sand. http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/2006/03/why_the_hell_not_vote_for_kink.html (Original post edited to fix bad link.)
  5. Right. I was responding to Bill's post about the law relating to planting phony information; if there was such an incident and such a law passed, it would be irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
  6. Now bill, you expect me to dish up links to support my contentions. I want to see the law you are talking about. Nevertheless, there is no accusation in the cited article that anything FALSE is being passed on. The bad guys are getting their message out, and it DOES include fabricated information. It needs to be countered. (BTW: I found the Powerline article through a link from Glenn Reynold's website, which I read daily. I found it concise, well organized, and sourced. Do you dispute the facts presented, or just the site? It has more than one writer, evidently.)
  7. Geez. I've lost track. Was WHAT the original question. And you do remember that the incident that was the subject of this thread was an incident several years ago, yet is being identified as a "trend". Are you asserting now that leaks are acceptable if there is no "damage" and what do you define as damage? Valerie Plame hasn't been assassinated yet, so the case should be dropped? Re citing conservative sources: I will occasionally link to a SOURCED article by a conservative writer in the interest of efficiency. If someone is interested in knowing the facts and evaluating the evidence, they will follow the trail.
  8. You may have been kidding, but that's absolutely true! I wouldn't have believed it until I saw all the posters during those student protests a couple of weeks ago.
  9. *sigh* http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0829/p01s02-uspo.html Hardly a bastion of conservatism. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50614FA34580C738DDDA90994D9404482&fta=y&archive:article_related New York times, again not a Bush mouthpiece. There's an ongoing FBI investigation relative to this incident. Pat Leahy ended up getting kicked off the Intelligence Committe because of his big mouth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy See above. Do you need more links? PS: I didn't see a Kos article when I googled, but you probably would have enjoyed it, whatever it was about. Markos Zuniga is noted to be a liberal leftist kook; he even went too far for Kerry with his comments about the deaths of those civilian contractors in Fallujah and Kerry ended up distancing himself and apologizing for linking to his site. I read his site occasionally for entertainment purposes.
  10. Timeline re mobile weapons labs here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013742.php I'm noting that the news papers aren't reporting news lately. They're rehashing old stories from several years ago with nothing new to add to it. What's up with that?
  11. Propaganda according to Merriam-Webster the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect By that definition, persuming that there is such a law (which I doubt), practically every time one of our congresscritters open their yaps, they have committed a crime. I started to write a post to remark on this Post article specifically, but found that Powerline had already covered most of my points much more eloquently and had some information that I wasn't aware of or had forgotten: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013729.php
  12. Man, tough choice for y'all. Remains to be seen what choices we're given over Delay's seat, so Texas may soon be in the same boat.
  13. Now if our schools would hand out ISS for playing hooky. During that first wave of student protests in our area, there were kids roaming around all over the neighborhood; they had left class but had no place else to go until the school busses ran.
  14. Electoral vote 2004: Bush: 286 Kerry: 251 Edwards: 1 Popular vote: Bush: 50.7% Kerry: 48.3% That's not considered close. It's about the same majority Carter had over Ford. Now, I read that statement differently as saying he wouldn't rule it out for the future. So now it's time for congress to duke it out. Personally, I would prefer that the enemy -- we are at war, after all -- not be told in advance exactly how to evade detection. Re specifics on congressional leaks: You might google the FBI investigations of Rockefeller and Durbin re the leaks on the CIA satellite program. That's just one example. I seem to remember another earlier incident where the entire congress was asked to submit to polygraphs relating to a leak relating to some NSA documents not long after 9/11. Pat Leahy is notorious back to the Reagan administration for manipulating programs with leaks. He had the nickname "Leaky Leahy."
  15. Publicizing who the bad guys are and that they do bad things. Oh, the humanity! If they weren't conducting some sort of propaganda campaign, I'd be ticked.
  16. We're getting coverage of that down here. Did that really happen as reported by the kid's lawyer, or is there more to the story?
  17. I loved Glenn Reynolds suggestion about barging in to the capitol building wearing t-shirts proclaiming themselves "undocumented congressmen, here to do the work that congress won't." LOL
  18. Actually, my last exposure to classified information was over 20 years ago. I have an idea of how security works generally, but am not and never was an analyst or technician. My role was strictly administrative, and I usually didn't even knew the contents of the documents I handled. But I understand why this stuff isn't to be published on the front page of the Times. What I'm saying is that we don't know specifically what was being monitored, and how it was being monitored. I don't know. You don't know. I suspect it was likely more along the lines of data mining such as you might find google doing with your e-mail, but much more sophisticated and perhaps even involving voice recognition technology. I suppose this sort of capability MIGHT have been available in 1978, but I rather doubt it. That was the same year my dad retired from his military intelligence career, but I don't even remember hearing him remark on the changes or what impact they might have on the agency. Because of national security concerns, it's probable that we won't ever know full details. But it certainly doesn't keep people from making assumptions about it that may or may not be correct. We are being told that the monitoring involved strictly communications where at least one party was outside the United States. I don't have a problem with that, and since the point of the operation isn't to bring criminal charges but rather to interrupt terrorist activities, I want them to do it. Bush was briefing a committee from congress, so I would tend to believe that he genuinely believed he was acting within his powers as a wartime president. If congress wants to investigate, and can find enough congressmen who have an understanding of what "secret" means, then they should do so. But let it be done in a way that does not endanger the mission of keeping the American people safe.
  19. Half a million at that rally. The part I didn't get is that they are blaming Bush, when in fact he's probably closer to the democrats' stance on this issue. It's his own party that has the beef with Bush on immigration. I'm ticked that they still aren't taking the border situation seriously. We've had multiple incidents of Mexican military vehicles with men in Mexican uniform escorting drug dealers over the border. I seem to recall a WAR that started with one of these types of excursions about 150 years ago. I'm ticked that my son's friend, a USMC war vet, has been waiting TWO years to get his British wife whom he met while on active duty into the U.S. by legal channels, while a criminal element comes up over the border unrestricted along with those simply seeking work. I'm ticked that they find truckloads of dead refugees at truck stops where their coyote has just left them to suffocate; those trucks should never have made it over the border. Can any of us have any assurance that terrorists haven't already driven nuclear weapons and missiles up from the south? I think that Ted Kennedy should be forced to live and work in Larado, Texas for a minimum of one year without secret service protection.
  20. Huh? Where did I call somebody uncivilized? Couga and I were having a very polite discussion. He's mistaken *S*, but he was being very respectful to me. A few of our liberal senators could take note. Most of them, in fact. In fact, our discussion seemed polite as well until this last flurry of of posts.
  21. They believe that God has given Christian men dominion over the earth. They believe that their responsibility is to prepare a kingdom by subduing the earth and setting up a theocracy which subjects the entire world, believer and unbeliever alike, to portions of the old testament law. When that has been accomplished, Christ will return to earth and rule over this kingdom. It's a bit more complex than that, and there are shades and flavors of the teaching, but that's the jist of it. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html is a fairly accurate summary of the more hardcore leaders, Rushdoony and North. Here's the website of Chalcedon http://www.chalcedon.edu/ which is Rushdoony's outfit. Now, I'm a fairly fundamentalist believer. But this teaching is heretical, and portions of it are infecting mainstream churches.
  22. Can't resist one more post because I'm honestly interested. Presuming new technology with the highest level of secrecy about its capabilities and scope, do you believe that it is possible to tailor a new law according to constitutional guidelines for making law without revealing information that might damage the effectiveness and secrecy of the program? Again, it has not been established that a law was broken. Bush's legal counsel says, "no." Last I heard, even Rockafeller wasn't willing to categorically state anything firmer than that he had "concerns." But I haven't kept up closely with his rhetoric in the past month or so. Nah. I remember the Carter administration.
  23. You're not considering the technology involved here. FISA predated cell phones, the internet, and frankly most of the technology in use today. Obviously, you're determined to presume that Bush is the antichrist, so nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Thanks for a civilized discussion, though. *S*
  24. So what you do is call the press? As noted, I grew up in the NSA community. I also spent some years with a Top Secret clearance doing work for a DoD contractor. (I don't think I knew any secrets, though LOL My work was related to recruitment, and I was the affirmative action/equal opportunity administrator.) I know that there are ways to blow the whistle on perceived irregularies that do NOT involve notifying the press. I sure hope we don't know the details, because if we do our enemy does as well and a viable program, not yet established to be illegal, would be useless. It's a darned shame when we have to turn to allies to get needed information on what the enemy is doing inside our own borders. If we have the capability to listen to satellite communications (cell phones and the like), it's a sure bet that the Aussies, Brits, etc. do and most likely the Russians, Chinese, etc. as well.
  25. I'm not going to do your homework for you, Bill. If you are legitimately interested in seeking truth, you'll look for it. If you aren't, I don't want to waste my time. Re FISA: Do you really think that, if Bush was trying to pull a fast one or establish a kingdom with himself as ruler, or any of those foolish accusations against him, that he would have been making regular, detailed reports to the Senate Intelligence Committee? And why didn't any of them raise a legitimate objection through the channels available to them? I think that Rockafeller pulled a Leahy. And why is it that a slimeball like Wilson (even the most leftist democrats openly acknowledge this) is a hero and whistleblower when he misrepresents the intelligence data, yet the White House releases information to refute it and they are manipulative? Who CARES that some of this was released in advance to give a friendly reporter the "scoop"n and get people talking about the most relevant parts in advance of the official release. I believe that people have their minds made up about Bush, the war, etc. and just don't want facts interfering with their fantasies. People are still citing Wilson's report, in spite of the fact that documentation has been declassified and released. They are blinded by Bush hatred. I could smack him upside the head myself on many issues, but he's not the stinking antichrist. And let me say it again: NONE of the investigators, etc. are asserting that Bush (or even Libby for that matter) leaked Valerie Plame's name and identity. Having been raised in the mililtary community during wartime (including most of the cold war), and a dad who served 22 years in military intelligence (ASA/NSA) the cluelessness of the American people and even our elected officials about the necessity of confidentiality during wartime is absolutely beyond my comprehension. You don't tell the enemy what your plans are. Duh! You don't tell them what your capabilities are, and you don't tell them how to legally evade detection.
  • Create New...