quote:

---

FORT MEADE, Md. -
President Bush, defending the government's secret surveillance program, said Wednesday that Americans should take
Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he's going to attack again.

"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it," Bush told reporters after visiting the top-secret National Security Agency where the surveillance program is based. "I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously."

It was Bush's first comment about bin Laden since the al-Qaida leader warned in a tape aired last week that his fighters are preparing new attacks in the United States. Bin Laden offered a truce, without specifying the conditions, and the White House responded that the United States would never negotiate with the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.



Bush's NSA visit was part of an aggressive administration effort to defend the surveillance program. Experts and lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether it's legal for the government to listen to conversations in the United States without a warrant, which the administration could get through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Four leading Democratic senators wrote Bush Wednesday saying they support efforts to do everything possible within the law to combat terrorism, but that the NSA program is an "apparent violation of federal law."

"If you or officials in your administration believe that FISA, or any law, does not give you enough authority to combat terrorism, you should propose changes in the law to Congress," wrote Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin and Russ Feingold. "You may not simply disregard the law."

Reporters traveling with the president were only allowed to see a few minutes of Bush's NSA tour, as he walked through the high-tech Threat Operations Center where intelligence experts monitor Internet traffic. He spoke to reporters from a podium set up in a hallway after completing his tour, but did not take questions.

In keeping with the NSA's secrecy, reporters were required to leave their cell phones, pagers, laptops and wireless e-mail devices outside the complex. The White House negotiated so that the journalists could bring in cameras and video equipment, but they were allowed only to take photos of the president, not the inside or outside of the facility itself.

Bush said the NSA program is limited to communications between the United States and people overseas who are linked to al-Qaida. He said it has helped prevent terrorist attacks and save American lives, although the government has not given any specifics.

Bush urged that people "listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously."

His critics say the law requires him to get permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on communications involving Americans.

"Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists," Sen.


Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said in a speech Wednesday. "I think that's our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., said the administration should have asked Congress to change the law if it wanted additional surveillance powers.

"Instead, a top lawyer in the Bush administration did just the opposite," Leahy said Wednesday, circulating 2002 testimony from a Justice Department official who said the administration had no position on a bill that would have made it easier to get warrants from the FISA court.

Bush said he had the legal right to do whatever he could to prevent further attacks and that the NSA program "is fully consistent with our nation's laws and Constitution."

"I'll continue to reauthorize this program for so long as our country faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," Bush said.

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., said he's eager to learn more. Asked on NBC's "Today" show, if Bush broke the law, McCain replied: "I don't know. I want to be perfectly clear. I don't know the answer."

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want a Chia Obama
For Christmas

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

There's something very strange about President Bush telling us that we should take bin Laden's threat "very seriously". It sounds like he wants people to be afraid. And is he actually saying that he has the power to do anything he wants, legal or illegal, to "prevent further attacks"?

If I were wearing my tinfoil hat, I'd say he wanted us to be afraid so that we would be more willing to allow him to expand NSA surveillance of citizens.

If I had my extra-special Super Deluxe tinfoil hat on, I'd say that the threatening message from bin Laden was created by the NSA under the direction of the administration in order to garner support for increased surveillance.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

What surprises me is the gullibility of so many Americans that even allows him to go around openly inspiring fear- and betraying the tactics that so many dictators have used in the past. It also makes me regret that people just don't value their freedom and privacy nearly as much as they used to. Then I think of that famous quote, which suggests that they don't deserve it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The world is a dangerous place, full of dangerous people.
It's seems the most dangerous ones ascend to leadership most often.
We've got Bush, they've got OBL. Two very dangerous mothers. They've proved it countless times.
Add in Iran and North Korea leadership and you've got a circle jerk of megatonic proportions.

Warpigs never sounded so right-
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

I voted for Bush. I support this war and our troops. It has been a successful campaign, and good is coming from it.

I would vote again for Das Busher before ever casting a chad away for the other's agenda.

The war has been successful in the aspect that terrorism hasn't found the resources to make it to my neighborhood...yet...and again. The same can't be said in Europe, Africa, Asia and of course Israel.

I'm not so myopic to also realize the US wants/needs a stabilized region in which a pipeline can function from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.
Although, realistically I can't ever visualize that project ever being functional more than say 50% of the time, at best. It will forever be the target of sabotage.

Yeah, LF, you're right. Hug your kids, because we are all most certainly gonna die. But at least we look good, smell good, and have really nice toys.

It's niave to believe that this government isn't doing everything in it's power to monitor the communications of it's citizens and it's enemies. They always have throughout the centuries. Technology is and always will be a two edged sword. You want easy communications, cheaply? You must know they will always be monitored as easily and as cheaply.

The new Google in China is now in effect, limiting access to knowledge the rest of the world takes for granted.

If we become too uncomfortable with Big Brother and He becomes more of a menace than outside enemies...

-well, there's always revolution. We're way overdue anyhow.

Ease your worried mind

Last edited by lmposter on 01-26-2006 at 11:27 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

But where do you stand on the issue of law? if what the president is doing is actually illegal, and he's been caught, what then? Just let him skate, like Reagan and Clinton did? Actually pass an Act to say that the president isn't subject to law (might as well)?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm not sure laws have been broken, given the current state of conflict. However, I'm sure that as a matter of compromise, to quell the gnashing, more stringent guidelines will be implemented, and then ignored or circumvented. The best lawyers, with the sharpest teeth reside in Washington. They will either enact laws that somehow retro-inclusively shield the president/NSA/other sordid and spookier govt. intenties from jurisprudence or except some weak slap on the wrist accompanied by the much feared finger wagging, but ultimately continue to do as they damn well please.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

But where do you stand on the general issue of presidents breaking the law? I think that both Reagan and Clinton should have been booted out of office. Indeed, I think the fact that they skated makes the situation worse. Why should presidents obey the law if they're not going to get called on breaking it?

I think that you place too much faith in the winners of a primarily two-party competition where the truly remarkable thing is how lacklustre nearly all the candidates have been.

Last edited by Smug Git on 01-26-2006 at 02:02 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

They should not break the law. They are craftsmen. They should carefully hone and bend the law to their will. Sculpt it to suit their agendas. That's what got them there in the first place.
They should be called on the carpet when they are clumsy. I honestly believe Bush is doing the dirty work for our national good, but most assurdedly for his selfish interests as well.

Government is little more than a necessary evil, and Bush is the Devil in Charge.

Clinton sold miltary secrets to China. That's my definition of treason. Reagan, well, there you you go again. I liked him.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The 'Clinton sold military secrets to China' allegation is, in fact, unproven, as is the claim that Bush has broken the law on domestic spying and government intrusion. It's a great talking point amongst the whackjobs and, frankly, we ought to be allowed to know enough of the report to make an informed decision for ourselves, but it's unproven (we had this debate before).

Reagan and Clinton both broke the law and should have been booted (in fact, it seems that Reagan was dangerously and increasingly senile for the last half of his presidency and should probably have stepped aside for that reason). I guess that as the road to the Presidency is so gruelling and strewn with so many moral ambiguities, we should expect that only sporadically amoral egomaniacs will ever hold the Office, but that is an argument for stricter oversight of the Executive, not handwaving 'it's for the greater good' arguments. It's truly remarkable how uninspiring, as individuals, many recent presidents have been. It's as if the system really does aim to produce lacklustre candidates, which would be fine if it then didn't gift them with so much power (and, according to your argument, even more power than the system officially grants them).

Last edited by Smug Git on 01-26-2006 at 02:10 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All the more reason for a McCain, or even a Rice.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Bin Laden cannot hope to hurt more than say 15 million americans tops... this is barely a den't in the armour of the grand olde USA, and the void will be filled quickly by immigrants... so Manhatten won't be nearly as posh a place in which to live... but hey... dems the breaks... right?

no, the "we are all gonna die" is just not going to happen... I think that less than one in twenty of the US population stand any remote chance of being vaporized by Bin Laden's suitcase nuke squad.

They might take out one (or maybe a couple) of western Urban centres, and then they will have run out of nukes. Most of us will be just fine, under even the most dire of circumstances.

Cheers
-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
All the more reason for a McCain, or even a Rice.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I was more responding to your "inspiring individuals" criterion than to the "strong candidate" one. Warner might arguably be a competent executive/wonk in the Clinton mode, but surely "inspiring individual" is stretching the definition to the breaking point.

Rice isn't running this time; I agree Powell would be better, but he will NEVER run. If an outstanding and inspiring character is the basis for our decision, surely McCain is in a realm all his own among the realistic contenders.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I don't know enough about Warner, but he does seem to have a certain inspirational quality (judging by the reactions of others). Then again, Bush has inspired millions of stupid people, himself. I guess that both of them are populists, wheras McCain seems to, often enough, make his own buzz rather than try to follow the public one.

I've wanted McCain as president since 2000. Not because I think that he's great, but he's best of those willing to run by a country mile.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I think maybe "inspiring" is a bit strong for the effect of Bush upon his base. Even among those who like him personally, Bush is more admirable/honorable than inspiring. Clinton was one of the greatest pure politicians America has produced and wildly skilled in many ways, but even he could hardly be called "inspiring". Reagan was the last really "inspiring" President; before him one would have to go back to Kennedy and to FDR.

Warner? OK, I know a lot of people see him as competent and viable, and as a highly skilled politician, but it's hard for me to distinguish the sort of enthusiasm one might feel for his candidacy from that one might feel for a Kerry or (on the upside) a Bill Clinton. Frankly, the closest thing that the Dems have to an inspiring candidate is Hillary, and in her case the basis for that inspiration is almost entirely an iconic weight based primarily in her gender. Howard Dean strikes me as someone who could almost be an inspirational figure, as could Ted Kennedy in his better days, and maybe Barack Obama down the road. Even Jesse Jackson, really, though he brought nothing other than that single quality to the table.

Last edited by CHiPsJr on 01-26-2006 at 05:46 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Howard Dean is only inspiring to wackos and Ted Kennedy could have only been inspiring as a swimming coach or drinking partner.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Apparently Warner was so wildly popular with the Dem base in VA, and many independents, that Kaine was basically able to ride in on those coat-tails (although he did skilfully defuse the ridiculous Kilgore death-penalty stuff). VA's a Republican state, and yet Warner's support was worth a heck of a lot more than the Republican President's support was to Kilgore (admittedly at a time when Bush's JA amongst Independents was, as it remains, in the toilet).

I've hardly seen Warner, but he's apparently pretty good. Of course, he has to put that across on the national stage.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Large Filipino
President Bush, defending the government's secret surveillance program, said Wednesday that Americans should take
Osama bin Laden seriously when he says he's going to attack again.

"When he says he's going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it," Bush told reporters after visiting the top-secret National Security Agency where the surveillance program is based. "I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously."

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Imposter seems very defeatist.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thimbles worth of opinion
No, we ain't gonna die and this fucking flip flopping fear monger knows it.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

They started on an interesting note by telling the US ambassador to fuck right off.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coincidence
Imposter seems very defeatist.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudded
...
They might take out one (or maybe a couple) of western Urban centres, and then they will have run out of nukes. ...
-m

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
How're you liking that new government you have up there in our attic?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by lmposter

The United States of America will not ever quit hunting terrorists, nor cave to their demands, and that eliminates defeat.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged