Limbaugh, Fox's Angle repeated misleading claim that NSA program targeted only terror suspects
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh and Fox News' Jim Angle both repeated the misleading claim that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeted only terrorists. In fact, the program has monitored the communications of thousands of people with no terrorist connection.
During the February 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program monitored Americans that "have to be getting or placing phone calls to terrorists overseas," while Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle similarly described the NSA program as "listen[ing] in on terrorists" during the next day's edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume. But as Media Matters for America has previously noted, media reports cite administration officials who characterize the wiretapping program as having cast a broad net, monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no terrorist connection.
Limbaugh criticized Washington Post staff writer Charles Babington while reading portions of Babington's February 15 article on the Senate Intelligence Committee's deliberations into whether to investigate the program, suggesting that Babington and the Post were not "accurately presenting the facts to the readers" in stating that the NSA program "eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court." In doing so, he repeated, along with Angle, the defense of the program advanced by members of the administration that it targets suspected terrorists and not ordinary Americans.
That defense, however, is undermined by numerous media reports. A February 5 Washington Post report quoting "current and former government officials" said that "[i]ntelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat." The New York Times similarly reported on January 17 that "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials," some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive." As the Post also reported, out of up to 5,000 Americans whose communications have been monitored by the NSA over the past few years, less than 10 per year have aroused enough suspicion that federal courts granted permission for monitoring of their purely domestic communications.
From the February 15 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: "The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a Democratic-sponsored motion to start an inquiry into the recently revealed program in which the NSA eavesdrops on an undisclosed number of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents without obtaining warrants from a secret court."
Why don't you finish the sentence and be accurate? Instead of acting like you're [CNN senior political analyst] Bill Schneider, Mr. Babington, Babington. Why don't you point out that these phone calls and emails involving U.S. residents also involve them getting or re -- placing phone calls to Al Qaeda or other terrorist members overseas? What's so hard about getting the story right? Oh, can't do that, because that would take us off the action line. The action line is Bush is spying on the American people. Bush is the greatest threat to national security. We've got -- Bush is a greater threat than bin Laden. Bush is a greater threat than any terrorist attack. Bush is who we gotta deal with. But in order to make that case, you have to lie about Bush and about what he's doing.
[...]
So what you have here -- the media creating another false action line, a false reality that this is all about domestic spying, just like this story leaves out the fact that the Americans involved here have to be getting or placing phone calls to terrorists overseas. Don't you think that's somewhat important here? Then -- to accurately presenting the facts to the readers of The Washington Post [laughter] -- it just -- it's just -- it's -- it -- this is -- I'll tell you what. The -- this is -- this is some of the most unprofessional work. The body of work that the mainstream press has put its name to in the last four years is some of the most embarrassing and unprofessional -- starting with Dan Rather and going through to this story and countless other examples.
From the February 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: The White House has been slowly warming to the idea of some legislation, and it embraced the [Sen. Mike] DeWine [R-OH] proposal [to authorize the NSA surveillance program and add congressional oversight] today as a good idea. DeWine even said White House counsel Harriet Miers called him at home last night to talk about it. Several Republicans indicated today they had made clear to the White House that it needs to cooperate on legislation so that whatever is passed will not jeopardize the program to listen in on terrorists.
From the January 17 edition of The New York Times:
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism -- case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.
From the February 5 edition of The Washington Post:
Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.
Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.
Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.
The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
You tell us, Rush.
Limbaugh and Angle HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING what or who is being wiretapped.
That information is held secret. The only "check" on who gets wiretapped has been left "out of the loop". The FISA requirement for a warrant is the only wiretapping "check" against abuse and misuse of the power of surveillance, so there is not even THAT secret limitation of executive power.
So, whenever Limbaugh, or Angle, or anyone else tries to tell you they know WHO or UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE the government is using wiretapping ... THEY ARE LYING. They don't know, they CAN'T know. They are lying.
..and based on Cheney's pronouncement that "we could get hit again" it's easy to see how they could have rationalized wire tapping the Kerry campaign.
...if any conservative can answer these questions to convince anybody that the wiretapping is above board:
who is the trusted entity determining that the individual on one end of these calls being tapped really is a terrorist?
without oversight, who can assure us that only international calls are being subjected to these wiretaps?
Probably no need to check back here for an answer from any of you mindless administration apologists. Doubtless you can't see the link between these questions and the unlimited power you wish your hero Bush had.
Hayden said that terrorist experts monitor the calls and make the decision of who to wiretap. We should trust them because they are the top in the their field.
Well, if so many leads are dead-ends, shouldn't those "experts" be fired? If they can't tell the difference between a teacher and a terrorist then they have no authority to issue wiretaps.
... why haven't they been arrested? That'd be about 5,000 Al Queda sympathizers; we can't make a case against a hundred or so?
I know the illogic of this claim would never occur to Rush, but...
Do you think Jim Angle ever misses being a real journalist? He was pretty good on Marketplace on public radio, but I'll bet the money's a LOT better at Fox.
But is it enough to make it worth selling your soul?
- But as Media Matters for America has previously noted, media reports cite administration officials who characterize the wiretapping program as having cast a broad net, monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no terrorist connection. -
In May 1999 the NYT reported that the NSA was monitoring MILLIONS of phone calls and emails and claimed that the program was necessary to apprehend spies, drug traffickers and terrorists.
The NYT also reported that under the Clinton adminsistration the wiretapping operation was indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world.
You can be for or against the NSA operation...but stand on principle...not just partisan politics.
MMA cites:
"media reports cite administration officials who characterize the wiretapping program as having cast a broad net, monitoring the communications of thousands of people with no terrorist connection."
"That defense, however, is undermined by numerous media reports."
"Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000." _____________________________________________
WOW! You've got credible sources! Let's see some names please. It's easy to throw around left wing paper reports, but you have to back them up for credit. You have a case if you can name names. I doubt though you will come through on this one. More red meat for the masses. This looks like more left field conspiracy theory to me. How often DO you have to change the tin foil in the hat?
Russell Tice. No, he's not one of the sources above, but everything he's said so far confirms this allegation.
Look, NSA operatives aren't going to be giving their names publicly, and they shouldn't: aside from the obvious retribution coming from this incredibly vindictive White House (just ask Joe Wilson), they may put assets at risk if they reveal themselves publicly. I don't know that for certain, but it seems possible.
When two major papers write separate stories, I think we can attribute a high degree of credibility to the sources.
all communication that travels through the air is picked up by a listening station, right? A computer searches the conversation for key words, right? If none exist, the conversation is scrubbed, right? If some exist, the conversation is tagged for human interpretation, right? If the conversation warrants further review or closer scrutiny, the government has 72 hrs to get a warrant, right? I guess there is a possibility the information could wind up in a government file somewhere and be used inappropiately in the future (as it has in the past). Has anyone come forward and said they have been unrightfully targeted by this surveilance? I don't think Joe Strayingeyes or Wanda Desperate have anything to fear from this program. And of course, with the revealation of the details over the past several weeks, it is very doubtful any useful intelligence will be gathered either.
all communication that travels through the air is picked up by a listening station, right?
If that's true, it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, end of story. I do not cede my right to have conversations with whomever I choose without the government listening in. If you have probable cause to monitor me, fine: go to FISA and get a warrant.
A computer searches the conversation for key words, right?
Programmed by whom? Searching for what?
If none exist, the conversation is scrubbed, right?
So just say all the right things, and Big Brother will leave you alone?
If some exist, the conversation is tagged for human interpretation, right?
Again, by whom? Under what criteria? If I call Bush a terrorist (yes, it's hyperbole), am I "tagged"? You're OK with that?
If the conversation warrants further review or closer scrutiny, the government has 72 hrs to get a warrant, right?
NOT if you bypass the FISA court. That's what this is all about!
I guess there is a possibility the information could wind up in a government file somewhere and be used inappropiately in the future (as it has in the past).
So you admit this has been a problem in the past, but you're not worried about it now? Do you trust Bush more than other people?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a reason why the framers put checks and balances into the Constitution: they didn't want to live under another monarch.
Has anyone come forward and said they have been unrightfully targeted by this surveilance?
How would they know?!?
I don't think Joe Strayingeyes or Wanda Desperate have anything to fear from this program.
Why does it always come down to sex? This isn't about giving people the right to have phone sex; it's about whether you think the 4th Amendment is a good idea. It's about whether you think the president is a servant to the people or their king. It's about whether the War on Terra will be used to erode the rights our forefathers faught and died for.
And of course, with the revealation of the details over the past several weeks, it is very doubtful any useful intelligence will be gathered either.
Then why do it?
I ask this seriously - why do it? What did Bush gain from this?
The media needs to ask this question.
I agree that absolute power corrupts, therfore, I am skeptical that this program was of much benefit in the beginning. However, the Constitution does charge the Commander-in-Chief to protect and defend the citizens of this country. Would you rather have a program that scrutinizes all communication, looking for word patterns, etc, or a system of random focused wire taps that might actually target you? I still remember the case several years ago of the "accidental" ovehearing (and recording) of a private conversation of public official that was taking public by another public official. And there were certain FBI files........ With the right equipment anyone (not just the government) could be listening to your conversation (or reading your email) without your approval and could use that information in ways a whole lot more harmful to you (or me) than what NSA is doing. And, BTW, did I mention sex? or are you reading something into my message that I didn't say.
Oscar - I agree with your basic sentiment. However, the notion that the wiretapping is in some way protecting us (maybe) and is less bad than other possible ways of evil-doers listening in seems a little thin.
Yahoo and AOL, etc already use our personal information to "help us" buy more of their crap. And, that's one of the "good" ways, I guess. I still think all this revolves around the basic right to privacy and abuses of that right (no matter how bad or not-so-bad).
And, BTW, did I mention sex? or are you reading something into my message that I didn't say.
You said "Joe Strayingeyes or Wanda Desperate." I assumed you were talking about people having affairs. If I missed the reference, I apologize.
I agree that absolute power corrupts, therfore, I am skeptical that this program was of much benefit in the beginning.
I'm sorry, Oscar, but I am really missing your point here. Are you saying Bush had ulterior motives? That this grab for power was never about stopping Al Queda? If so, I think you're probably right, although it could be Bush started this because he was nervous that he would pay a political price for not getting Osama. All of his efforts so far have been failures; maybe this was a Hail Mary pass.
In either case, it is a power grab and clearly against the law.
However, the Constitution does charge the Commander-in-Chief to protect and defend the citizens of this country.
It does not, however, give the president the right to unilaterally suspend the Constitution if he deems it necessary. That is what happened here: Bush overstepped his authority by ignoring the FISA law, and he trampled on our 4th Amendment rights.
And if Bush can't protect the USA without breaking the law, I suggest he is unfit to be president, and should step down.
Would you rather have a program that scrutinizes all communication, looking for word patterns, etc, or a system of random focused wire taps that might actually target you?
That's a false choise - we don't need either. I'd rather have a president who thinks about Osama day and night, puts boots on the ground in Afghanistan - not Iraq - to kill him, allocates money for searching port containers and airplanes, develops humint, funds a program to get thousands of college students speaking Arabic, etc.
With the right equipment anyone (not just the government) could be listening to your conversation (or reading your email) without your approval and could use that information in ways a whole lot more harmful to you (or me) than what NSA is doing.
And that justifies the program?
is to believe that ridding the world of Osama the Boma is going to free us from the threat of terrorism. I'm all for letting the courts decided whether the NSA program actually violated the laws of the land, as I have heard/read arguments on both sides that can be very compelling. I am not a fan of big goverment, governed by either party, because it is too big to be efficient, however I am not looking for a conspiracy theory in everthing that comes out from the Beltway. If you want to feel your rights are violated by a government surveilenc program and not be your supermarket, your credit card company, Google, AOL, your bank, your ISP, (and the list goes on), that's ok with me, but it is a fact of life, and life will go on.
might have too much information about me. They are NOT however listening into my phone calls. That is a whole new level of intrusion into my privacy. It is also ILLEGAL
The private sector's impingement on privacy rights is serious, but it is not even in the same league as the government's actions in this case. If Google monitors my phone calls, they can't hide behind the facade of claiming they are acting in the interests of national security - the Bushies can.
Furthermore, there are protections I can take as a consumer to guard myself; if, for example, Google monitors me, I can stop using them. I can't stop "using" the federal government.
As you admitted, there are dark chapters in the history of this country where men abused the powers given to them - or the powers they took for themselves. Often, those powers where justified in the name of "national security." We have an obligation as citizens not to let their fearmongering allow them to seize powers that are not theirs.
As to bin Laden:
No one said Osama is the alpha and omega of terrorism. However, if we had killed him back at Tora Bora when we had a chance, it would have sent a signal that if you screw with us, we will take you out.
Terrorists now know that if you kill 3,000 Americans on our own soil, you will be allowed to live for at least the next 5 years. Is that helping our national security?
Oscar, our forefathers put their lives and the lives of their families on the line to protect our inalienable rights to be secure in our persons and possessions. Men died on the beaches of Normandy and the sands of Iwo Jima to protect those rights. Men and women today are putting their lives on the line to protect those rights.
We do them a great disservice if we casually say, "Hey, no biggie - life goes on."
...but, is likely changed irrevocably.
I work (like many) with a self-proclaimed "moderate" conservative who used the tired line "...it doesn't affect me.I'm not that worried about it!"
But, as ELLINGTON implies... it affects us all -- no matter how small or large the offense. In 10 years, we won't remember what all the hubbub was about because ALL of our conversations will be monitored. Slippery slope.
...your supermarket, your credit card company, Google, AOL, your bank, your ISP, (and the list goes on)...
None of those entities has the legal authority to arrest me, put me in jail, and otherwise deprive me of my liberties, up to and including putting me to death. The government does. That's the difference.
However, the Constitution does charge the Commander-in-Chief to protect and defend the citizens of this country.
No it doesn't.
To protect the Constitution, not the people that is part of article two but the OATH he takes is to protect the Constitution which directly obligates him to see the laws are faithfully upheld. It is beyond belief that anyone would say his implied obligation to protect Americans trumps his OATH and explicitly directed obligation to FOLLOW THE LAW. It doesnt, he must protect the citizens of this country WITHIN THE CONFINES AND CONTEXT of the law, if he is too incompetent to do so he should resign and allow someone competent enough to do so take office.
Rush needs a rehab program.
Does he actually want America to subscribe to the notion the the NSA actually knows who IS on either end of the phone line?
Plenty of people have been "dropped-in-on" only later to be determined that they pose no threat. However be it by machine or human ear, the presumption that the NSA actually has a precognition as to whom is calling makes me want to believe that the NSA might just employ "MENTALS" as the agents that determine "on-the-spot" who is and isn't a potential terrorist.
Does Rush actually still call the Psychic Hot Line for his advice? And does he actually want us to consider that the NSA might be involved in rerouting all international calls through the Psychic Hot Line?
There is an easy way the president can stop the discussion of his illegal spying program by Americans who still believe in the Constitution and the Law: Have the FISA Court review the 5000+ cases where “terrorists” were put under surveillance.
And since Rush is so unconcerned with his privacy rights, why doesn’t he release his medical records to the prosecutor in Florida who is investigating him.
."Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court "Where inthis statement does it mention "President"?The AG is responible if it is done thru Justice Dept.The survaillance was done thru DOD and NSA.So I donT see where FISA ,AG and the President have any disagreement.In fact the AG can"t act thru the Pres. w/ out a Dec. of War.Congress hasn't done this.(1811)Now as far as the Fourth Amend. -,I don't consider elect. surv. unresonable search-Hell you credit card companies keep a better dats base on what your doing .Who's stopping yourISP from monitoring you?If your rights are going to be violated its not w/ a broad brush like the one implied. Their trying to FIND the dots first let alone connect them.Ayyeayeayea
About whether electronic surviellance is an unreasonable search or not. THIS has absolutly been decided by the Supreme Court which is why not even the administration is making this ludicrous defense. It IS a search that requires a warrant. One of the articles of impeachment of Nixon was EXACTLY warrantless wiretaps and that was PRE FISA
Rush is such a ...well, LIAR! He has no idea that anything he said above is true... But, if you say things in a faux-newsy-like voice and in a very definitive manner... well, it must be true (to the listener)?
The bottom line is, this administration has done NOTHING at all to allay the fears or suspicions that this illegal (yes ILLEGAL) wiretapping program is anything but spying on everyday citizens.
Oh right... can't give us common folk any information... that would threaten nat'l security. LIARS!
I love FOX's tactic of finding the ugliest, decrepit appearing "news" casters and putting them in shiny suits... (i.e. they must be legitimate newscasters, they're too unappealing).
Cowards of the Republican Congress & Senate still have not seen the extent of the “domestic surveillance program,” now named in our Republican newspeak as the “terrorist surveillance program,” have chose not to hold hearing in private or not, to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. The best answer so far from such heroic figures as Torturing A.G. Gonzalez or our new presumed Bubbling King & Bushwhacking Co-King (Bush/Cheney) is that our duly elected Congress and Senate cannot be trusted with the information.
Tell me; since when did a sitting President’s Administration presume to tell a Congress that it didn’t need to know, and just sat and took it like a muted baby in a dirty diaper??
Tell me, if this Congress, or a newly elected Congress does not investigate the litany of lies, deceptions, and outright criminal behavior of this government, what hope is left for our future Democracy??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Obviously your confused again-its Ok take a deep breath-With little or no knowledge of how the survaillance is conducted its easy to to make statements which are less than credibleDid you ever consider DOD and NSA are workin w/ other foreign powers-you see its not a Domestic issue-you see the intercept can be done by an allie-the data is then linked -in other words were keeping track of what an allie is keeping track of-Were not going to turn down credible data , irellevant of where we get it-What YOU fail to understand is one, the libearls lost the election,the Kerry ,Clinton , Gore, Reno crowd set us up-No one is spying on you uinless you provide a reason--Where have you been harmed?You can post this crap you post -who's knocking at the dooor ?
You dont, you pulled that directly out of your ass. The NSA and DOD have ADMITTED spying on a retired Quaker group and the Catholic workers union. Thats an assertion without merit. Take a deep breath and reread the fourth amendment. Your saying it is NOT a domestic issue when Americans IN America are being listened in on shows you have no idea what you are talking about. You also do NOT know exactly how this is done dispite your hypothetical what if appology. I understand this might be a problem for Bush idolotors such as you but the President is actually bound by the law like everyone else. Dont belive me? Google Watergate
What do you think the object 0f the excersise is?DOD and NSA have said nothing-There's a guy running around who got tossed if he's saying it -go get in his face for doing it -maybe they why he got tossed.Try Whitewater you want to see a scam.The Billing records showed up in the White house-are you Moronic.They're trying to find the dots before they can be linked-ITS survaillance not spying-Based on what your saying 5000 more people would be in GITMO -thats not happening-Stop whining or prove its affected you.
Ever notice that when a conservative is confronted with a superior arguement, they will often tell you to "Relax," or "Take a breath," or "Change your meds," or "Switch to decaf," etc.?
Is passion for justice a bad thing? Should Martin Luther King have taken a chill pill? Should Ghandi have just taken a deep breath? Should Susan B. Anthony just have relaxed? Maybe Jefferson and Farnklin should have switched to decaf, huh?
My friend, you want me to tell you how this secret, warrantless, illegal spying has affected me. I don't think it has, but let me ask you:
Why do you care so little for your constitutional rights? Do you understand that if any of us is wronged, we are ALL wronged?
While I thank you for giving us a practical example of moronity with your previous post a minimum of coherence would be appreciated. I assume you are questioning whether or not my post is accurate. NBC has documents and this story was widely published. As long as you confine yourself to Planety Wingnut you will never be well informed. I probably should have said the DOD got CAUGHT instead of they admitted but since the documents leaked were theirs I figured it was a distinction without a difference
[link to www.pacifica.org]
Pentagon Caught Spying on U.S. Anti-War and Anti-Nuclear Activists Anti-War Protesters Under Pentagon Surveillance Speak Out FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Collected Intelligence on Peaceful Protesters in Colorado
Newly leaked Pentagon documents have confirmed the military has been monitoring and collecting intelligence on anti-war groups across the country. Peace protests are being described as threats and the military is collecting data on who is attending demonstrations. We speak with William Arkin, the former Army intelligence officer, who obtained the secret Pentagon documents.
Earlier this week NBC News exposed the existence of a secret Pentagon database to track intelligence gathered inside the United States. The database including information on dozens of anti-war protests and rallies particularly actions targeting military recruiting. The list included: counter-military recruiting meetings held at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Forth, Florida. Anti-nuclear protests staged in Nebraska on the 50th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki.
[link to www.matrixmasters.com]
On Dec. 14, 2005 NBC published a story based on a 400-page Dept. of Defense (DOD) document that lists more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" from the previous year. These included a number of peaceful nonprofit activities, such as a Fort Worth, FL Quaker group planning a protest of military
The FBI's use of Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) resources to spy on domestic groups engaging in peaceful protest has come to light through litigation filed by the ACLU.
The New York Times reported that over 2,300 pages of FBI material revealed surveillance of a wide variety of groups, including the Indianapolis Vegan Project, the antipoverty group Catholic Workers, Greenpeace, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The documents showed that, in addition to surveillance, the FBI has used informants within targeted groups to collect information.
Read it and weep your assertion that the government has no interest in spying on anyone but terrorists is not only stunningly niave and well stupid its just flat wrong.
Hey Y'all;
We as a nation, or our Congressional Intelligence Committee still has no idea what this "program's" scope is. They have only given limited exposure to a small number of hand picked members. Very little details were revealed to this day.
Were in law does the President have the right to spy on Americans, and decide to tell whom he wants under pain of the expionage laws so as to never have to expose the program?
The idea that we would have this debate without knowing the scope of the program, is alot like science fiction, all in the imagination with a little reality mixed in.
Were in our democracy does our President break the law, and then tell us whether we believe him that it's legal or not, he has the right to ignore the law, and Congress?
That kind of behavior is a power grab, an overthow of our form of governance, and the Republicans whom would defend the same would be traitors to our democracy.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Dan and Solon and Elington -- all correct.
It's not about the "spying"...it's about the secrecy and lack of answers or even reasonable explanations to folks WITH security clearance...uh, like Democrats. How hard is it to share a little of the info to allay the legitimate fear that every day tax-paying American citizens are the victims??
The only reasonable conclusion is -- this warrantless spying is illicit and unnecessary.
1. Type what you want to say into Microsoft Word. 2. Use the spelling and grammar check (works wonders for someone with your um… capabilities). 3. Copy and paste what you have written into the Media Matter’s comment box. 4. Post to website.
Either that or stop mixing your anti psychotics with Wild Turkey
This comment will get pulled.
But it's still funny!
An Al Qaeda operative, while in flight training in Florida, orders pizza from Dominos. You order a pizza from the same Dominos, and while eating the pizza, call a friend in Canada to chat. Your international phone call is monitored because you have an Al Qaeda link (Dominos). Get it?
Imagine that they would provide falsehoods and such....