"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Who Do You Want To Help?


Anonymous Jeff said...

Fitzgerald was long suspicious Rove had hidden evidence; Not swayed by last minute testimony, lawyers say

Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna

Print This | Email This

A few weeks after he took over the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in early 2004, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had already become suspicious that Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney’s then-chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby were hindering his investigation.

In late January 2004, Fitzgerald sent a letter to his boss, then acting Attorney General James Comey, seeking confirmation that he had the authority to investigate and prosecute individuals for additional crimes, including obstruction of justice, perjury, and destroying evidence. The leak investigation had been centered up to that point on an obscure law making it a felony for any government official to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover CIA officer.

Comey responded to Fitzgerald in writing Feb. 6, 2004, confirming that Fitzgerald had the authority to prosecute those crimes, including “perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”

Fitzgerald was concerned that Rove had hidden or destroyed evidence, lawyers close to the case tell RAW STORY. His suspicions may have been right: an email he sent to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley in early July 2003 later proved Rove had spoken to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame—a fact that Rove omitted when he was first interviewed by the FBI.

Whether or not Fitzgerald knew in late January or early February 2004 about the existence of the email Rove sent to Hadley remains unknown. The email did not show up during a search ordered by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2003. Gonzales enjoined all White House staff to turn over any communication about Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Iraq war who accused the Bush administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence. Gonzales’ request came 12 hours after senior White House officials had been told of the pending investigation.

Hadley did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Calls placed to the National Security Council were dropped by press office aides.

According to those familiar with the case and earlier reporting by RAW STORY, Fitzgerald had already obtained the cooperation of a key witness, former Deputy National Security Adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney, John Hannah. In February 2004, Hannah agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald when the special prosecutor uncovered evidence tying Hannah to the leak and threatened to indict him, the sources said.

Hannah gave Fitzgerald the names of some White House officials who knew about Plame Wilson and disseminated her CIA status to reporters and other White House officials, the laywers said. One of the officials Hannah appears to have implicated was Rove, they added. Cheney promoted Hannah to be his assistant national security adviser following Libby’s indictment.

Fitzgerald still looking to indict Rove

Short of a last minute intervention by Rove’s attorney, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is expected to ask a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove for making false statements to the FBI and Justice Department investigators in October 2003, lawyers close to the case say.

Rove failed to tell investigators at the time that he had spoken about Plame to Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and conservative columnist Robert Novak, both of whom later cooperated in the case. Novak outed Plame in a July 14, 2003 column.

The Chicago prosecutor briefed the second grand jury investigating the outing last week for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

As of Monday, neither Rove nor his attorney Robert Luskin has explained Rove’s misstatements to Fitzgerald’s satisfaction, those familiar with the case said. Eleventh-hour testimony from Time Magazine reporter Viveca Novak—who Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin fingered as a crucial witness in keeping his client out of court—does not appear to have been helpful in dodging an indictment, they added.

A woman who answered the phone at Patton Boggs, the law firm where Luskin is a partner, said Luskin would not answer specific questions about the probe.

Rove is also under scrutiny for allegedly telling his assistant not to log a phone call from Cooper, the sources said. Rove’s assistant, Susan Ralston, provided Fitzgerald with information last month in which she alleged that Rove told her not to log a call from Cooper that was transferred to Rove’s office from the White House switchboard, sources close to the case said. The lawyers added that Luskin and Rove have an explanation for that as well, but declined to elaborate.

Rove’s case hangs on February 2004

Over the past few weeks, the time frame when Fitzgerald became increasingly suspicious—specifically February 2004—has become crucial for Rove. He testified before Fitzgerald’s grand jury that month without revealing he had been a source for Cooper and Novak, saying only that he had shared information about Plame Wilson with other journalists—including Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball—after her name had appeared in Novak’s column.

In a bid to keep Rove out of Fitzgerald’s crosshairs, Luskin recently told Fitzgerald that he had a conversation with Time Magazine reporter Viveca Novak in February 2004 where she inadvertently revealed that Rove had been a source for her colleague Matt Cooper. Luskin said this prompted an exhaustive search for the Hadley email which was promptly turned over to Fitzgerald and led Rove to change his testimony.

Luskin testified Dec. 2 that the Novak meeting took place in late January or early February 2004, the very month in which Fitzgerald had sought the authority to prosecute officials if they were found to have hindered his investigation into the leak.

Novak, however, testified that she met Luskin in either March or May 2004, those close to the case said. This discrepancy is at the crux of what Fitzgerald is investigating. Rove didn't reveal to the grand jury that he had spoken with Cooper until Oct. 15, 2004.

Luskin has said that Rove did not intentionally withhold information from Fitzgerald or the grand jury about his conversation with Cooper. Rather, he says Rove had simply forgotten about it, and Luskin’s meeting with Novak had jogged his memory.

Before Novak testified in a sworn deposition last week, Rove faced the prospect of being indicted on numerous counts, including obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements for failing to disclose conversations he had with reporters about Plame Wilson, sources close to the case said. Several reporters close to Novak said they believe Luskin’s decision to draw her into the case was made to keep Rove’s indictment from being handed up on the day Libby was charged.

Rove could be indicted on those counts if Fitzgerald determines that Novak’s testimony did not go far enough in clearing up questions about why Rove did not tell investigators about his conversations with other reporters. Her testimony may, however, shield Rove from more serious charges, attorneys close to the case said.

Novak (who is not related to the conservative columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson’s name and CIA status,) is the latest in a lengthy list of longtime Washington, D.C. reporters who have become embroiled in the leak investigation, and the third to have withheld crucial information from editors about her involvement while still reporting on the story.

In a first-person account Novak posted on Time magazine’s website Sunday about her role in the case, she said she had met with Luskin, Rove’s attorney, for drinks in October 2003. Luskin asked Novak what she was working on for Time and Novak said the Plame Wilson leak.

“Well you’re sitting next to Karl Rove’s attorney,” Luskin said to her, according to Novak’s account.

The two began spending more time together and during the course of several meetings during the first half of 2004, either in March or May, Novak wrote, Luskin had told her that Rove had not been a source for Matt Cooper, Novak’s Time colleague, who had been the second reporter to write about Plame Wilson on July 17, 2003.

Novak said she inadvertently tipped Luskin off to the fact that Cooper's source was Rove. She said she sensed she was being spun by Luskin and her knee-jerk response led to her divulging information that could be used to help Rove escape serious charges.

Following his meeting with Novak, Luskin told Rove that Novak said he was Cooper’s source. Luskin and Rove then did an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails to find any evidence that Rove spoke with Cooper.

An email Rove sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just minutes after his conversation with Cooper in July 2003 turned up, and Luskin said he immediately turned it over to Fitzgerald.

Still, it’s unclear why that email wasn't found when White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered all White House staff in October 2003 to turn over emails and other documentary evidence that showed officials spoke with journalists. Moreover, it’s not known why Rove did not change his grand jury testimony to reflect that he had been Cooper’s source until October 2004, some six or eight months after Novak’s meeting with Luskin.

8:14 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Fitzgerald briefs grand jury Wednesday

Jason Leopold

Print This | Email This

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will present additional evidence to a grand jury Wednesday morning in the CIA leak case that could result in an indictment being handed up against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, sources close to the investigation told RAW STORY.

When asked Wednesday what the prosecutor was briefing the grand jury about, Randall Samborn, Fitzgerald's spokesman, said he had no comment and "can't confirm or deny" the prosecutor was meeting with the grand jury.

Although the grand jury’s term expires in 18 months, Fitzgerald is expected to wrap up the case as it relates to Rove before the end of the year, the sources said.

Fitzgerald intends to present the grand jury with the sworn testimony from Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, and Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak. The sources close to the case said Fitzgerald is still intent on seeking an indictment against Rove on at least one count of making false statements to FBI and Justice Department investigators when he was first interviewed in early October 2003 about his role in the leak.

Rove failed to tell investigators at the time that he had spoken about covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and conservative columnist Robert Novak, who first published her name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003 column. Rove had been a source for both journalists. Cooper and Novak later cooperated in the case. Luskin said Rove had forgotten about the conversation.

Eleventh-hour testimony from reporter Viveca Novak—who Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin fingered as a crucial witness in keeping his client out of court—does not appear to have been helpful to Rove in dodging an indictment, the sources said.

In a bid to keep Rove out of Fitzgerald’s crosshairs, Luskin recently told Fitzgerald that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak in February 2004 where she inadvertently revealed that Rove had been a source for her colleague Matt Cooper. Luskin said this prompted an exhaustive search for evidence that Cooper and Rove spoke. The search turned up an email Rove had sent to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just minutes after his conversation with Cooper in which he told Hadley what they had spoken about. Luskin said he promptly turned over the email to Fitzgerald and that led Rove to change his testimony.

A week ago, Fitzgerald briefed the second grand jury hearing evidence in the leak case for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

8:15 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Reuters: Law firm says they've filed suit against Diebold

NEW YORK, Dec 13 (Reuters) - A law firm said it filed suit on Tuesday against Diebold Inc. (DBD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) alleging the voting-machine maker lacked sufficient internal controls, was unable to be confident in the quality of its voting machines and made misleading statements about its condition. Excerpts:

The lawsuit was filed by Scott + Scott LLC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and seeks class-action status.

On Monday, the company, which also makes automatic-teller machines, said chief executive Walden O'Dell is resigning for personal reasons and named Thomas Swidarski, president and chief operating officer, to replace him.

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Wed. December 14, 2005:

Due to contractual non-performance and security design issues, Leon County (Florida) supervisor of elections Ion Sancho has announced that he will never again use Diebold in an election. He has requested funds to replace the Diebold system from the county.

On Tuesday, the most serious “hack” demonstration to date took place in Leon County. The Diebold machines succumbed quickly to alteration of the votes. This comes on the heels of the resignation of Diebold CEO Wally O'Dell, and the announcement that a stockholder's class action suit has been filed against Diebold by Scott & Scott. Further “hack” testing on additional vulnerabilities is tentatively scheduled before Christmas in the state of California.

Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines.

A test election was run in Leon County on Tuesday with a total of eight ballots. Six ballots voted "no" on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thompson and by Harri Hursti voted "yes" indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked.

At the beginning of the test election the memory card programmed by Harri Hursti was inserted into an Optical Scan Diebold voting machine. A "zero report" was run indicating zero votes on the memory card. In fact, however, Hursti had pre-loaded the memory card with plus and minus votes.

The eight ballots were run through the optical scan machine. The standard Diebold-supplied "ender card" was run through as is normal procedure ending the election. A results tape was run from the voting machine.

Correct results should have been: Yes:2 ; No:6

However, just as Hursti had planned, the results tape read: Yes:7 ; No:1

The results were then uploaded from the optical scan voting machine into the GEMS central tabulator, a step cited by Diebold as a protection against memory card hacking. The central tabulator is the "mother ship" that pulls in all votes from voting machines. However, the GEMS central tabulator failed to notice that the voting machines had been hacked.
The results in the central tabulator read:

Yes:7 ; No:1

This videotaped testing session was witnessed by Black Box Voting investigators Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne, Florida Fair Elections Coalition Director Susan Pynchon, security expert Dr. Herbert Thompson, and Susan Bernecker, a former candidate for New Orleans city council who videotaped Sequoia-brand touch-screen voting machines in her district recording vote after vote for the wrong candidate.

The Hursti Hack requires a moderate level of inside access. It is, however, accomplished without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA. It is a particularly dangerous exploit, because it changes votes in a one-step process that will not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure, it requires only a single a credit-card sized memory card, any single individual with access to the memory cards can do it, and it requires only a small piece of equipment which can be purchased off the Internet for a few hundred dollars.

One thousand two hundred locations in the U.S. and Canada use Diebold voting machines. In each of these locations, typically three people have a high level of inside access. Temporary employees also often have brief access to loose memory cards as machines are being prepared for elections. Poll workers sometimes have a very high level of inside access. National elections utilize up to two million poll workers, with hundreds or thousands in a single jurisdiction.

Many locations in the U.S. ask poll workers to take voting machines home with them with the memory cards inside. San Diego County (Calif) sent 713 voting machines/memory cards home with poll workers for its July 26 election, and King County (Wash.) sent over 500 voting machines home with poll workers before its Nov. 8 election.

Memory cards are held in a compartment protected by a small plastic seal. However, these simple seals can be defeated, and Hursti has found evidence that the memory card can be reprogrammed without disturbing the seal by using a telephone modem port on the back of the machine.

The Hursti Hack, referred to as “the mother of all security holes” was first exposed in a formal report on July 4. (

Diebold has insisted to county and state election officials that despite Hursti’s demonstration, changing votes on its memory cards is impossible. (Public records from Diebold, including threat letter to Ion Sancho:

On Oct. 17, 2005 Diebold Elections Systems Research and Development chief Pat Green specifically told the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) board of elections during a $21 million purchasing session that votes cannot be changed using only a memory card. (Video of Pat Green: Over the objections of Cuyahoga County citizens, and relying on the veracity of Diebold’s statements, the board has chosen to purchase the machines.

According to Public Records obtained by Black Box Voting, Diebold has promulgated misrepresentations about both the Hursti Hack and another kind of hack by Dr. Herbert Thompson to secretaries of state, and to as many as 800 state and local elections officials.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Well it's clear who you want to help John, and it has nothing to do with that picture you posted.

8:28 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Here you go Republicus, this seems to be right up your alley.

9:46 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Bob Novak Says President Knows Leak Source

By PETE YOST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert
CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that
President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name.

Novak said that "I'd be amazed" if the president didn't know the source's identity and that the public should "bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."

Novak's remarks, reported in the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer, came during a question and answer session Tuesday after a speech sponsored by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) urged Bush to identify Novak's source or to say that he does not know who it is.

In 2003, Novak exposed Plame's identity eight days after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. In the column disclosing Plame's CIA status, Novak said the sources for his column were two administration officials.

The identity of Novak's sources has been one of the secrets in the CIA leak investigation.

Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, is one of Novak's sources, according to people close to the investigation, but his other source is not publicly known.

Novak apparently is cooperating with the criminal investigation of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, though the journalist has never said so.

The prosecutor has aggressively pursued contempt of court orders against reporters who have refused to cooperate and Novak is not among those who have become embroiled in court battles in the probe.

Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Bush to share the identity of Novak's sources if the president knows.

"You are in a position to clear this matter up quickly," Schumer said in a letter to the president on Wednesday.

"Unlike Mr. Novak, who can claim an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his sources, there is no similar privilege arguably preventing you from sharing this information," Schumer wrote.

"You have repeatedly suggested that you would like to get to the bottom of this affair," Schumer reminded Bush. "At one point, in 2004, you suggested that anyone who was involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired."

4:05 PM  
Blogger John said...

Perhaps I should feel sorry for you, but I don't feel any pity.

It's disgust.

You rush in here to shout me down by postering more Karl Rove and Diebold stuff.

You're throwing pies.

Fitzgerald has EXPLICITLY said, quite a while ago now, that Libby's indictment and the investigation (now being PREMATURELY wrapped up) has NOTHING to do with the clamorous, drum-beating grievances of your crowd about the war.

The Diebold Co. was CLEARED of any rigging shenanigans by both Senator Kerry himself (who you can be damn sure would've pulled a Gore if there was any REAL evidence of tampering --as opposed to saying, post-facto, "Well, there MIGHT have been" to YOUR crowd just to keep you guys pissed and busy screaming and throwing pies) and follow-up investigators.

But of course, "absence of evidence" is not necessarily "absence of guilt,"
and there's no way in hell--i.e. in your hellish mind---that Bush would be given the benefit of the doubt.

And yet, Lee Harvey comes in here and insinuates--by implication-- that what was impregnated and chadded in 2000 and what was "rigged" in '04 is what's going on now with Iraqi "Democracy," right?

Why else would it be relevant to a post that was comprised of images?

Unless the post is as irrelevant to your grievance as a cafe is to terrorists but must be bombed anyway with the propaganda you strap on yourself before barging in here, killing yourself in the process but hoping to take as many anonymous strangers with you as possible.

What, Lee Harvey, do you think 70 virgins are awaiting your heroic entry into paradise?

Go to hell.

As Republicus has said, he had asked Lee Harvey--politely, then firmly-- to stop compulsively sending him the political narcotics he tries to push on everybody on his mailing list.

He wouldn't stop.

He went to New Orleans to survey the destruction caused by President Bush (not Hurricane Katrina) and the mailing stopped.

Ah yes. He was gone.

Then he came back, found the blog of Republicus, and is NOW DOING THE SAME THING.

Republicus can delete anything he wants. He can ban anyone he wants.

Yet he has not blocked Lee Harvey's access to his private email box, and he has not blackballed him from the blog, despite being sorely tempted by what is Lee Harvey's obvious exploitation of Republicus' Free Speech ethos and using that to justify his obsessed stalking and harassment and his postering of Daily Kos,, *The Nation,* and "Commondreams" antiwar and Bush-Hating propaganda.

Republicus de-limbed both him and his propaganda and then told him to go away.

Republicus has diagrammed--in previous commentary sections-- the nature of some of the propaganda hit-pieces, and will presently post a very-telling analysis of one in particular to prove that what he is rabidly injecting is nothing but political drugs.

He's a Bush-Hating political junkie, and wants to get everyone else hooked on the same junk he injects his veins with every morning over a bowl of Fruit Loops.

Republicus had said a resounding NO, but he persists.

Why? Because he "cares about his country," and is determined to stop Republicus from "telling lies?"

Hell no. He knows Republicus is the one who cares about his country and speaks the Truth.

"Patriotism" is hated by sickos like Lee Harvey, as they ridiculed the notion and attacked it--before co-opting it and saying that it is THEY who are the "true" patriots!

Make up your twisted mind, sicko.

Is patriotism good or bad?

Anyway, he persists NOT out of any notion of "patriotism" and "fighting for what he thinks is right."

It is Republicus who takes the time to confront and expose him for the insidious scoundrel he is for the sake of patriotism and fighting for what he believes is right.

Lee Harvey persists precisely in the spirit of what he and his cohorts projected when accusing the administration of "Repeating anything enough times to make it believable by sheer persistence" (a paraphrase of Karl Marx's insidious political m.o.).

That's what he's doing. Right before your eyes.

He just keeps sticking you with a syringe-- like the Borg sneaking up on you in *Star Trek: The Next Generation* and injecting something in the neck before dragging you away to join their Collective "We" and "Us" and "Many-many of us."

"The People," children, "The People!"

"Resistance is futile."

Kelly: ;)

But it's true.

Yes, he's trying to shout over Republicus...without Republicus even saying a word, simply asking--in the title of this post--which group in the pics would you like to help?

It was a simple question, and the pics were worth more than a thousand words.


That was a serious hit. So, of course, feeling panic, he felt compelled to rush in here with his syringe and start manically pumping his thumb and injecting and spraying the room, changing the subject to the hated Rove and re-hashing Diebold conspiracy theories, which are STILL insanely obsessed over well after the cold and dark day of Fitzmas brought no presents and the sane-minded investigators cleared the Diebold Co. of any electoral mischief.

Why? Because (1) Rove--the "architect" of Bush's election--must be humiliated and destroyed for his kick-ass competence as a political strategist, and (2) the democratic electoral process itself--which elected Bush-- must be impugned as fraudulent.

But which is it?

Are you angry at Rove for succesfully organizing and mobilizing the Republicans and conservatives after the wilderness years of the 1990's, and overseeing a campaign which overthrew Clintonism and Gore in 2000, and led to the greatest amount of free people to vote in the history of democracy in 2004, fair and square?

Or do you refuse to believe that and instead go after the electoral process itself--suspicious over the fact that the president of the Diebold Co. happened to be a Bush supporter?

That the election was not "fair and square," but rigged?

What, both?

Of COURSE. Go at them at EVERY angle (even if one counts the other out).

Republicus wants to help the cute ex-patriated--and Westernized-- couple.


The "Freedom Fighters," right?

Look at the friggin' pic. They're terrorists.

The juxtaposed pics struck a nerve because their silent simplicity should give any normal person pause to think and reconsider if they have been under the hypnotic suggestions that the only people who want the mission to succeed are "Bush and the Neocons."

(you may have noticed, however, how eager they are to intepret Iraqi polls as indicating that the vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave immediately, which is a LIE).

But even though Lee Harvey uses poll numbers to indicate that he is at the vanguard of a "very fast growing norm" (whatever), Lee Harvey and his ilk are not normal.

The Bush-Hater--like he--screams loudest and proceeeds to hotly deny and project and invert when SLAPPED IN THE FACE with the simple Truth.

On the heels of the propaganda that accused the administration of having "no plan" in Iraq, Bush lays out a comprehensive plan at Annapolis.

The fact that the progress in Iraq has been proceeding at an INCREDIBLE pace--despite the terrorism--is self-evidence that a plan is in progress and is working.

What do the Bush-Haters do?

They scream loudly and deny that it is a "real" plan.

That's a projection. It is their umbrella organization--the Democratic Party--that has no plan but can only relentlessly criticize.

They accuse the Foreign Policy strategist--with a doctorate degree-- and presidential speech-writer as being a "poll-watching hack."

Who accused him?

An antiwar, poll-watching hack who tries to suppress any swelling in approval by calling one of the minds behind the strategy a "poll-watching political hack."

The juxtaposed images of this post illustrate the simple truth.

Republicus wants to help Iraqis like that cute couple.


And you should, too.

Republicus doesn't CARE about the desires or "rights" of the second group.

He stands by the desires of the first (even if they are in a "very fast shrinking minority of thought," as Lee Harvey demagogically likes to heckle).

Republicus almost wept when he saw them, if you must know, the gentleman's shy compusure and the woman's excited participation as she daintily inserted her vote, while antiwar Joe Wilson IV says stuff like "The Iraqis are assholes!" and isolationists say "Who cares? That's their problem!" and then in the next breath demonize Bush for "destroying the lives of the poor Iraqi people!"

And deranged lunatics like Lee Harvey say "It's not about them! It's about oil, or revenge, or the agenda of the American Taliban!"--which Republicus is insinuatingly working on behalf of (see below).

What "poor Iraqi people" is the Antiwar crowd referring to, the couple in the first pic--who you can be damn sure are appreciative of President Bush's faith in Iraqi's just like them?

Or the violent, anti-democratic insurgents in the second pic, who you can be damn sure are about as appreciative of Bush's intervention as the antiwar American insurgents like Lee Harvey are?

Meanwhile, Lee Harvey, after running in and injecting the blog of Republicus with irrelevant political heroin to confuse and lethargize the hated heroism, then concludes with this:

"Well it's clear who you want to help John, and it has nothing to do with that picture you posted."

Sez you, LIAR.

Yes, it's clear who Republicus wants to help.

And it's clear who you want to.

And it is YOUR ulterior motives in all of this that is quite clear to Republicus.

And they have NOTHING to do with the posted pictures, as YOU PROVE by running in here and bringing up Rove and Diebold when Republicus is simply standing by the good Iraqis and wish them success with this Great American Endeavor.

You're projecting when you accuse Republicus of having some motivation that has "nothing to do" WITH THE SILENT SUBJECT OF HIS POST.

Republicus posted pictures, and nothing more, and lets the intelligent reader come to their own conclusions.

But YOU, Lee Harvey, read into it some "ulterior" motive, because it is YOU who has one, irrelevant to whether we should try and give Iraq a chance to rejoin the civilized world, as many of their people want, for themselves and their children.

YOUR motivation is to destroy Bush and all things Bush, including his noble ambition for Iraq and the Middle East...and MOST ESPECIALLY because of his association with "red-state" theists, social conservatives, and true American patriots, who must all be demonized for coming out in droves in 2000 and 2004--thanks to Rove's outreach and Bush's own Evangelical Faith and Norman Rockwellesque appeal-- and in the process demonizing the democratic process for allowing their oppressed, censored, and demonized faith to be empowered, aired, and their voices to be heard.


You're not an atheist.

You're satanic, in the truest sense of the word.

Satan is the Hebrew word for "adversary," and you are most evidently adversarial to the CONSERVATIVE promulgation of the Judeo-Christian faith and its value system and HATE the conservative revival that has swept across America with the election of Bush.

Of course you do.

You're a theophobic liberal.

THAT'S what's at the very heart of your expressed wish to see the president of the United States of America "assassinated":

"I hope Bush gets assassinated!"

Lee Harvey

"From hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."

Thus spoke Ahab while plunging his harpoon into Moby Dick...

...quoted by Khan in his obsessed determination to destroy Captain Kirk.

Both Melville's masterpiece and the second Star Trek flic (another masterpiece) had profound theological implications which make clear who is Good, and who is Evil, and showcase villains of a most insurgent character who try to kill the Good.


Because it's BETTER than them.

It's superior.

YOU, Lee Harvey, are on the WRONG SIDE of the cosmic conflict, both above and beneath the moon.

You're with THE BAD GUYS.


You're an inferior creep.

How does Republicus know such things?

Is he clairvoyant?

No, he simply pays attention to what is being said, juxtaposes that with historical issues and patterns, environmental situations, and empirical facts, and...


Lee Harvey feels very threatened by Christianity.

He--like almost ALL Bush-Hating liberals-- HATES the Religious Right more than anything else.

More than "lies" to justify a war.

He idolizes former-president Clinton who used the same WMD justifications to attack Iraq.

He hates the Religious Right more than Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty.

The cleanliness of the overall American environment and the FALSE propaganda blaming American industry as the "accelerating cause" of global warming does NOT justify such assassination-hoping hate.

He hates the Religious Right more than the "economically-destructive" tax-cuts.

The economy is just fine. :)

He hates the Religious Right a lot more than "corporatism."

He's probably driving a corporate-producing automobile right now, and wearing a corporate label on his shirt.

It's okay for Lee Harvey to express a hope that the POTUS gets "assassinated."

But it's an OUTRAGE when televangelist Pat Robertson says that the CIA should arrange the same for an anti-American South American Marxist like Venezuela's Hugo Chaves.

Republicus does not approve of Robertson saying that, and thinks Robertson should stick to selling front-row seats in heaven to his check-writing flock like a good capitalist.

But note Lee Harvey's SICK inconsistency on whether political assassination is warranted or not, and his preference on who deserves it:

NOT warranted for anti-American foreign-leader Chavez...

...but warranted on POTUS Bush.

Lee Harvey also seems to think that Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" pose as much--if not more--of a threat to America as Islamicists pose to the people of the Middle East, that outfits like the 700 Club are as oppressive to our culture as the Taliban was to Afghanistanis.

Perhaps the "homophobic" Boyscouts of America--with their oaths to God and Country--are equivalent to Al Qaeda?

Republicus has called Lee Harvey "satanic"--i.e. adversarial to American Judeo-Christian theism.

He identified that as the being at the core of his hate.

How can he say that?

Is he clairvoyant?

Of course not. He just listens, and listens well.

In a post that simply juxtaposed images Westernized Iraqis with insurgent terrorists, Lee Harvey rushes in to change the subject to Karl Rove and Diebold.

He then thinks he's administering some coup de gras by saying:

"Here you go Republicus, this seems to be right up your alley."

What did he conclude with?

Yes. Of course. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy:

"The Agenda" of the Religious Right.

Yes, be afraid, be VERY afraid.

They protect fetuses and the sanctity of marriage and want to protect their children from pornography, homosexual seduction, and gangsta-rap.


The conservative wants to *conserve* moral values that have made this country the greatest--THE GREATEST--country in the history of civilization.

Those values have theistic underpinnings.

The liberal wants to "liberate" everyone from those values.


Because the liberal hates the "hatefulness" of those values.

They will not tolerate the "intolerance" of those values.

And they judge them to be "judgmental."

The Clinton-loving, Bush-hating liberal--like Lee Harvey--is the most despicable political creature of all.

They peddle the illogic and insanity above for the sake of validating their own intellectual and behavioral depravity (because illogic and insanity is the only way it can be "justified").

In the June 22 post, "The Bush-Hater's Bush," Republicus mocked the mind of the Bush-Hater.

It satirically diagrammed the essence of the grievances against the president by the Leftist Bush-Haters (who are NOT "antiwar," as their viciously belligerent campaign against the president demonstrates) and laid out three factors which they apparently think underlie the presidency of George W. Bush:

"Unwittingly, or perhaps acquiescently, in pursuing his personal goals of revenge and redemption for Poppy, he is actually being the puppet of:

A. The corporate, global interests of Halliburton and Kellog, Brown & Root, petroleum hunters and war-profiteers who have corporate agendas with business strategies that targeted the second-largest oilfield in the world (Iraq) and the belligerent Baathist regime there (stationed in the desert like toy soldiers in a shooting range) as an opportunity to land The Mother Of All Contracts, essentially securing a no-bid multi-billion-dollar grant by the Federal Government to demolish an existing infrastructure and claim-jump the oil-fields"

Republicus has shown--in the commentary section of the November 29 post, "I Like Ike," that Lee Harvey's seething contempt for the "corporatism"-- which he, Lee Harvey, would say defines the W. Bush era along with other deplored "isms"-- that Lee Harvey qualifies for the subscription to that notion.


"B. The Neoconservative Foreign Policy Advisors Wolfie and Perle, and all their cohorts in the media (The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, Foxnews...) and Washington thinktanks, who themselves have an imperialist agenda for America and are agents or strong sympaticos for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and the hawkish Likkud party, who themselves have a Zionist agenda for the Middle East"

Republicus has shown, in the same commentary section, that Lee Harvey considers that the "reality" as satirized, and
that sort of imperial "militarism" forms a nexus with the "corporatism" of Halliburton and Kellog, Brown, and Root Co. to explain what Operation Iraqi Freedom is really all about.

"Both of those entities (A & B) have differing interests (one corporate, the other imperial), but not competing ones, as the removal of the sitting, America-hating, and anti-Semitic duck Saddam, the dismantling and democratizing of his disfunctional culture, and the "opening of the spigots" would serve both interests well."

But there's one more element that the Bush-hater despises perhaps even more than the first two:

"As to the question of electability, (W. Bush) had the benefit of rallying the army of disgusted Clinton-haters who felt that Clinton stole the throne away from King George I, and could exploit the sentimental value for that king (41) the way the talentless Priscilla does for The King (Elvis), and the way the lightweight John-John did for Camelot King Arthur (JFK).

(All that yearning giddiness for a monarch occuring on both sides of the aisle and in the heartland of a Constitutional Republic, but anyway...)

But they still needed another extra-million votes or so to beat the sitting veep--Gore-- in an election held during a time of peace and prosperity (however illusory), so enter the third Puppet-Masters:

C. The Leaders of the Radical Christian Right (i.e. the anti-choice, homophobic, illiterate biblical literalists)--a.k.a. "The Fundies"-- who controlled--or "shepherded"-- the political sympathies of millions of Red State sheep, and just as the corporate war-profiteers and oil-developers saw Lord Darth Cheney as one of their own, the Fundies saw the repentant and Born-Again Dubya as one of theirs.

Furthermore, the hostile takeover of Iraq (where the Biblical Garden of Eden and Babylon were) in the first term, placing our armed forces in the neighborhood of a beleagured Jerusalem, struck millions of Fundies as the appearance of missing jigsaw puzzle pieces that interlock to create a picture that depicts the global scenario forecasted by the end-time prophecies in The Bible, specifically the idea that Russia, Iran, China, the EU, and the UN are going to get sick of Israel and--against the will of the United States-- form a coalition of sorts calling for regime change and beseiging Jerusalem on the pretense of "peacekeeping" (but actually by the machinations of Satan intent on destroying God's Chosen People once and for all)."

THAT is what Lee Harvey was referring to when he concluded his
deviations from the post with:

"Here you go Republicus, this seems to be right up your alley."

Whether Republicus is a snake-handler (well, actually, self-evidently, he IS!) and a check-writer to Robertson and/or Falwell and relishes warfare in the Middle East to encourage the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, or whether, he hasn't attended church services or cracked open his Bible in over a year is irrelevant to the fact that Republicus posted two images:

The first shows ex-patriated Iraqis happily participating in the democratic process that the United States of America shed their best blood to give them.

The second shows terrorist insurgents who hate that and determinedly bomb anything they can to disrupt the process.

Lee Harvey comes in here and plasters the walls of the commentary section with another Fitzmas Wish-List and the resurrecting of debunked and entombed conspiracies regarding the Diebold Voting Machine Co.

Then he finishes with an insinuation that Republicus--like the POTUS--is in the thrall of America's own Islamicists: The ice-cream-and-cookies Religious Right, who support the war in Iraq because of some Adventist agenda.

Before Republicus could post this response, he sees that the obsessed and stalking Lee Harvey posted yet another comment.

What could it be this time?

"Bob Novak Says President Knows Leak Source

By PETE YOST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that
President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name..."

Lee Harvey: Go to hell.

Actually, you're already there.

Go ahead and STAY THERE.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

LOL,way too much time inside your own head.

9:58 PM  
Blogger John said...

Nice comeback!

You're PEGGED.

P.S. sp. "*coup de grace.*"

12:31 AM  
Blogger Kelly said...

The reason "Lee Harvey" can't see his motives is that he LIES to himself. He is unwilling to admit that underneath it all he refuses to abide by the moral direction being taught among the Judeo-Christian "Moral Majority".

"The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." 1 Ne. 16: 2

Hence his hatred! The truth makes him angry. Therefore he shuns it with all he has...with all the energies of his heart.

8:25 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Heh hee lol, beware false prophets and Merry Christmas, oh good lord. People you take yourselves way too fucking seriously. Get out more often, circulate outside your biospherically closed environments you are obviously hermetically sealed in.

10:22 AM  
Blogger John said...

Jeff can't handle the truth. ;)

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Report: Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Fox News

Pentagon Reviews Use of Suspicious People, Activity Database
NEW YORK — A key Republican committee chairman put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority."

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.

Neither Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan, asked about the story earlier Friday, would confirm or deny that the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002.

That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States, the Times reported.

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"We need to look into that," McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with President Bush. "Theoretically, I obviously wouldn't like it. But I don't know the extent of it and I don't know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week."

McCain said it's not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.

"We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for," he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.

"Of course I was concerned about the story," said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. "I'm going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it."

Other Democrats were more harsh.

"This is Big Brother run amok," declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "We cannot protect our borders if we cannot protect our ideals." Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a "shocking revelation" that he said "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.

Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." And McClellan said Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."

The report surfaced in an untimely fashion as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism.

The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

Faris' lawyer, David B. Smith, said on Friday the news puzzled him because none of the evidence against Faris appeared to have come from surveillance, other than officials eavesdropping on his cell phone calls while he was in FBI custody.

Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.

Asked about this on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters."

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the NSA disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."

Asked about the administration's contention that the eavesdropping has disrupted terrorist attacks, Fredrickson said the ACLU couldn't comment until it sees some evidence. "They've veiled these powers in secrecy so there's no way for Congress or any independent organizations to exercise any oversight."

Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that while it appears that some information may have been left in the database longer than it should have been, it was not clear yet whether mistakes were made. A written statement issued by the department implied — but did not explicitly acknowledge — that some information had been handled improperly.

The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.

The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Yeaaah, finally some sense seeping into the Govenment reps again>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!!!!

Senate Blocks Vote to Extend Patriot Act
Friday, December 16, 2005
Fox News

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday blocked a vote to reauthorize 16 expiring provisions of the controversial USA Patriot Act.

As Congress raced toward adjournment, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and other lawmakers who opposed the provisions. The final vote was 52-47.

A filibuster essentially prevented an official end to debate; the chamber cannot vote on the expiring provisions until debate ends. If a compromise on the problematic parts of the measure is not reached, the 16 provisions President Bush considers indispensable to the War on Terror will expire on Dec. 31. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he hopes to bring the bill up again before the holiday recess.

Earlier, the Republican-led Senate scrapped a Democratic-led effort to extend the measure for three months — a move the White House has said Bush would veto, since he wants a permanent extension.

"We are going to continue to do all we can to save lives, that is the president's number one priority," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said immediately after the vote. "The president is going to continue to act to protect the American people ... we will continue to work with members of Congress on those matters."

He added: "This law has helped prevent attacks from happening by breaking up terrorist cells within the United States ... We urge them [senators] to get this done now."

The House on Wednesday passed a House-Senate compromise bill to renew the act that supporters say added significant safeguards to the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. That compromise bill wasn't received as well in the Senate.

While supporters say the provisions in question extend the nation's ability to combat terror, opponents of them — including Democrats and Republicans — worry that there aren't enough safeguards to protect civil liberties. They note that the original act was rushed into law shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks and Congress should take more time now to make sure the rights of innocent Americans are safeguarded.

The provisions set to expire include expanded abilities to intercept communications, share secret grand jury information with foreign governments and watch terror suspects longer than other federal laws provide.

Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time, even before the Dec. 31 sunset date. He immediately objected to an offer of a short-term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned. A three-month extension "makes no sense," he added.

If Bush vetoes a three- or sixth-month extension, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday, "it will be crystal clear he's putting politics above safety."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said in a press conference after the vote that lawmakers won't get a better bill with negotiations with the House. "It's just not going to happen," he said. "I was unhappy to see a virtual party-line vote. I think we have too many party-line votes around here."

The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said a bipartisan consensus is needed on the measure and that the sunset provisions were included in the original bill specifically to revisit them later to make sure they're both effective and not infringing on individuals' civil liberties.

"Our goal has been to mend the Patriot Act, not to end it. Let's just fix the bill," Leahy said.

Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republican congressional leaders have been lobbying hard this week to secure those votes and avoid a filibuster.

The White House and its congressional allies prefer to let the provisions expire and hold Democrats responsible in next year's midterm elections rather than let opponents whittle away at the law. The whole package passed four years ago by a vote of 99-1.

Bill opponents say, however, that the current Patriot Act gives government too much power to investigate people's private lives.

"I think there are real problems inside the Patriot Act," Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., told FOX News on Friday, including the provision that allows the government to search library records without judicial oversight.

"It's not that we shouldn't have the ability to protect the American people ... but I think we need some checks and balances. We lose to the terrorists when we give up what America is about, which is a country of freedom and rights," the New Jersey governor-elect added.

Corzine said extending the provisions would be better than letting it expire, but there are problems with funding and civil liberties in the current version of the bill. He said the bill also needs to focus spending on a threat-basis, not political whims.

"We're not doing it on a threat-basis and adequately putting money where the risks are," Corzine said.

'There Is No Middle Ground'

Before the vote Friday, Democrats took turns explaining why they thought senators should vote against ending debate on a conference report they say still needs more work.

Feingold argued that reauthorizing the provisions is "not a partisan issue, it is an American issue. This is a constitutional issue. We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism."

Despite those comments, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., argued that partisanship is obviously playing a big role in the debate.

"If 90-plus percent of the Democrats vote against cloture and 90-plus Republicans vote for cloture, it's hard to argue that's not partisan," Kyl said, noting that over 44 Democrats in the House voted for reauthorizing the expiring provisions. "It seems to me that the Senate would do well to also try to act here in a more bipartisan way and not have a partisan vote. We need to reauthorize the Patriot Act, it is a tool for our law enforcement agencies to protect us against terrorists."

He added: "If we deny them [law enforcement] the key tool, the Patriot Act, they're not going to be able to do their job to protect us. And there's no more time to stretch this out with 'maybes' or 'let's negotiate more.' You either vote 'yes' to reauthorizes it or you vote 'no.' There is no middle ground."

Frist said if the Patriot Act provisions are not renewed, the United States will be in the same position it was before Sept. 11, 2001 — without adequate anti-terrorism capabilities. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said lawmakers should take their time now to make the law right.

Feingold and Sen. Dick Durbin cited a Friday report in The New York Times as more evidence that the government needs more oversight. That report said that in 2002, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on people within the United States without warrants.

"This body must be absolutely vigilant in our oversight of government power, and I don't want to hear again from the attorney general, or anyone on this floor, that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we've given with restraint and care," Feingold said.

Durbin said that it's difficult to pinpoint specific abuses of the Patriot Act because many actions are carried out in secret under the laws. He said the reported NSA activity was just one example of that.

"Whether or not we pass the Patriot Act, will the administration argue they have the authority to go forward anyway?"

Bush: Filibuster a 'Bad Decision'

On Thursday, President Bush showed his displeasure with those Democrats holding up reauthorization of all the provisions.

"The House of Representatives, recognizing the value of the Patriot Act, voted in a bipartisan way to extend the Patriot Act. And there are senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act. That is a bad decision for the security of the United States," Bush said, calling on the Senate to pass the bill "so that we have the tools necessary to defend the country in a time of war."

Chief among the critics' concerns are the National Security Letters that the FBI can use to compel the release of such private records as financial, computer and library transactions. The bill for the first time explicitly says the third-party recipients of NSLs — banks, Internet service providers and libraries — may hire lawyers and challenge the letters in court.

Feingold and his allies want more reports from the Justice Department on how the letters and other tools are used in terror investigations. They also want to set limits on how long law enforcement officials may continue to use NSLs in terror investigations.

FOX News' Molly Hooper, Greg Kelly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

11:32 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

If Bush thought eavesdropping laws were too onerous post 9/11, he was required to ask Congress to CHANGE THE LAW, not just violate it for 3 years

This new domestic eavesdropping scandal has nothing to do with September 11. Rather, it has everything to do with George Bush thinking he's living an episode of the hit spy show "24".

We now know that for the past 3 years the Bush administration broke American law in order to spy on American citizens. Why? Bush says it's because the current law was so onerous that our spy agencies couldn't find the terrorists in a moment's notice.

Maybe that's true, maybe it's not.

But, if the president of the United States thinks US civil rights and privacy laws are too onerous and are hampering the war on terror, maybe - MAYBE - he breaks the law the first time the issue comes up - let's face it, he's afraid Osama is running out the door and Bush doesn't have time to call a judge. Okay, it's possible.

But Bush didn't do this once. He did it for the past 3 years.

The first time you break the law to catch a terrorist who is fleeing, I might forgive you. But after that incident passes, you go to Congress and you ask them to change the law to address this urgent need. You do NOT just shrug your shoulders and break the law repeatedly for 3 years because you're just too proud to ask Congress - to ask OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS - to weigh the case for and against your radical proposal to spy on the American people.

This is incredibly serious. Bush did what a dictator does, not what an American president should have done.

In America, when the president has a problem with the law he goes to Congress and presents his case, and asks our elected officials to weigh the merits of the case and then vote on changing the law. Only dictators say to hell with Congress, to hell with our laws, to hell with our democratic process.

This isn't just wrong what Bush did, it isn't just criminal, it violates the most basic tenets of our democratic form of government. We have a man in power in the White House who thinks he is above the law. Bush's holier than thou snubbing of the rule of law, the will of the American people, and the truth needs to stop now. From the invasion of Iraq to this current scandal, we see a disturbing pattern of a rather-average man who's thinks he's too good and too smart to be honest with the American people.

We need an immediate independent investigation, and if this story is confirmed, Bush should resign or be removed from office.

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

I think we can now officially put to bed the LIE that congress saw and acted on the same intelligence the President had. LOL

Memorandum December 14, 2005

TO: Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Alfred Cumming
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division

SUBJECT: Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information

This responds to your request for a discussion of Congress and its role as a consumer of national intelligence, and for a listing and a description of some of the U.S. Intelligence Community's principal intelligence products, including an identification of those which the executive branch routinely shares with Congress, and those which it does not.

Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions - information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress - that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence.

Authorities Governing Executive Branch Control Over National Intelligence

The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. (6) Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be "the owner" of national intelligence.

The President's otherwise exclusive control over national intelligence, however, is tempered by a statutory obligation to keep Congress, through its two congressional intelligence committees, "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities..." (7) Current law also prevents the executive branch from withholding intelligence information from the committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (8)

In 2004, Congress further strengthened its claim to access to national intelligence when in approving legislation reforming the intelligence community it directed that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) provide the legislative branch access to national intelligence. (9) Previously, the head of the Intelligence Community was legally charged with providing the legislative branch national intelligence, but only "where appropriate." (10) Congress never defined, either in statute, report language or during debate, what it considered to be "appropriate," essentially leaving the executive branch free to adopt its own interpretation of congressional intent in this instance. The impact of the newly enacted, and unqualified directive, is dependent, as is generally the case, upon how aggressively Congress asserts it statutory prerogative.

Despite conflicting legal authorities governing congressional access to national intelligence, the U.S. Judicial Branch has not addressed the issue, since no case involving an executive-legislative branch dispute over access to intelligence has reached the U.S. courts. (11) Absent a court ruling more clearly defining executive and legislative branch authorities in this area, which most observers view as unlikely, the executive branch has contended that it is under no legal obligation to provide Congress access to all national intelligence. By contrast, Congress, through its congressional intelligence oversight committees, has asserted in principle a legal authority for unrestricted access to intelligence information. The Committees, historically, have interpreted the law as allowing room to decide how, rather than whether, they will have access to intelligence information, provided that such access is consistent with the protection of sources and methods. In practice, however, Congress has not sought all national intelligence information. (12) Unless there has been a compelling need, the intelligence committees generally have not routinely sought access to such sensitive intelligence information as intelligence sources and methods. When they have cited such compelling need for access, the committees generally have reach an accommodation with the executive branch usually, but not always.

Perhaps, in part, because of these differing legal views, the executive and legislative branches apparently have not agreed to a set of formal written rules that would govern the sharing and handling of national intelligence. (13) Rather, according to one observer:

The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard- and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to. (14)

In 2001, and again in 2002, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) directed that the Director of Central Intelligence (15) prepare a comprehensive report that would examine the role of Congress as a consumer of intelligence, and explore the development of mechanisms that would provide Members tailored intelligence products in support of their policymaking responsibilities. (16) The Director never produced such a report.

More recently, the SSCI included language in its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2006 intelligence authorization bill (S. 1803) requiring that the Intelligence Community, upon the request of the either the chairman or ranking member of either of the congressional intelligence committees, provide "any intelligence assessment, report, estimate, legal opinion, or other intelligence information," within 15 days of the request being made, unless the President certifies that the document or information is not being provided because the President is asserting "a privilege pursuant to the Constitution of the United States." (17)

Congressional Access to Intelligence Information Not Routinely Provided in Four Areas

The executive branch generally does not routinely share with Congress four general types of intelligence information:

* the identities of intelligence sources;
* the "methods" employed by the Intelligence Community in collecting and analyzing intelligence;
* "raw" intelligence, which can be unevaluated or "lightly" evaluated intelligence, (18) which in the case of human intelligence (19) sometimes is provided by a single source, but which also could consist of intelligence derived from multiple sources when signals (20) and imagery (21) collection methods are employed; and,
* certain written intelligence products tailored to the specific needs of the President and other high-level executive branch policymakers. Included in the last category is the President's Daily Brief (PDB), a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President, and which consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics. (22) The PDB emphasizes current intelligence (23) and is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain intelligence source and operational information. Its dissemination is thus limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers. (24)

Reasons for Congress Not Receiving Routine Access to Certain Intelligence.

In not providing Congress routine access to source identities, executive branch officials cite the need to protect against "leaks" or unauthorized disclosure of information that the Intelligence Community generally considers to be the most sensitive in its possession. As more individuals are briefed about sources, it is contended, the greater is the risk that this information will be disclosed, inadvertently or otherwise. Such leaks could jeopardize current or future access to possibly valuable intelligence, and endanger the lives of intelligence sources providing the information.

Executive branch officials similarly point to security-related concerns in explaining why Congress is not routinely provided intelligence methods, particularly collection methods. As in the case of source protection, officials argue that effective intelligence collection demands that the methods - human and technical -- used to collect the intelligence be protected by limiting the number of individuals witting of those methods.

Officials, in part, also cite security concerns in withholding raw intelligence. Because raw intelligence sometimes is derived from a single source, the source is arguably more vulnerable to identification and ultimate exposure. Even when intelligence is collected from multiple sources, as is sometimes the case when signals and imagery intelligence collection efforts are employed, knowledge of those collection methods can sometimes be determined from the underlying raw intelligence.

They cite two additional reasons for restricting congressional access to raw intelligence. First, they contend that it would be "dangerous" if a Member of Congress were to gain access to, and possibly make policy decisions based upon, raw, unevaluated intelligence that has not been placed in context. Second, they argue that as a practical matter Congress lacks the physical capacity to securely store the volume of raw intelligence the Intelligence Community generates. (25)

Finally, executive branch officials restrict congressional access to written intelligence products - including the PDB - that are tailored to the needs of individual policymakers. They assert that it would be inappropriate to provide these products to Congress because they are tailored to the specific needs of individual policymakers, and often include information about the policymaker's contacts with foreign counterparts, as well as the reactions of those counterparts. (26)

Although PDB consumers have access to all such intelligence, it should be noted that intelligence sources, methods and operational information historically have been tightly restricted within the executive branch, as well. Intelligence Community analysts, for example, have rarely if ever have had access to such information. To the limited extent that they have, their access has been based largely upon their need to know the information for the purposes of conducting analysis. (27)

While congressional intelligence officials have not routinely requested access to the types of intelligence information discussed above, they have questioned the executive branch's security concerns with regard to certain raw intelligence, noting that it generally is more widely available to executive branch officials. (28) Their comments suggest that they dispute whether Congress is less capable than is the Executive in its ability to evaluate and safeguard sensitive intelligence. (29)

Exceptions to The Practice of Not Routinely Sharing Certain Intelligence With Congress

Although Congress generally has not had access to information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods, raw intelligence or intelligence products tailored to high-level policymakers - including PDBs - it is noteworthy that Congress occasionally has sought and obtained such intelligence information from the executive branch.

For example, while investigating Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert action operations in Nicaragua in the 1980s, the intelligence committees requested and were provided the identities of certain intelligence sources. The committees also sought and obtained access to certain raw intelligence. On other occasions, committee members have requested and obtained raw intelligence in order to verify certain Intelligence Community judgements contained in various National Intelligence Estimates (NIE). (30)

Intelligence committee staffers, occasionally, have successfully obtained access to PDBs, and PDB articles, during the course of conducting investigations and general oversight. (31) The Bush Administration, however, appears to have been more reluctant to share such information than have some of its predecessors. In 2002, for example, President Bush rejected a request by the Congressional Joint Inquiry investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks to review the August 6, 2001, PDB, which contained an article titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in U.S. (32) The Bush Administration also denied a request by the SSCI to review PDBs relevant only to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists as part of the Committee's review of the Intelligence Community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. (33)

While denying Congress access to certain PDB articles, the Bush Administration has provided such access - albeit limited - to two commissions: the 9/11 Commission (34) and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (hereafter, cited as the WMD Commission). (35)

Congress Generally Has Routine Access to Most "Finished Intelligence"

Congress generally receives access to most finished intelligence products that are published for general circulation within the executive branch. (36) A finished intelligence product is one in which an analyst evaluates, interprets, integrates and places into context raw intelligence. (37)

Although congressional access is limited to such finished products, the volume of such products provided to Congress has increased over time. (38) Between 1947, when the National Security Act establishing the CIA was enacted, and the mid-1970s, the executive branch shared relatively little intelligence with Congress, and access to it was quite limited. But after two special congressional investigative committees headed by former Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Otis Pike launched investigations of the Intelligence Community in the mid-1970s, the executive branch permitted the Community to increase the volume of intelligence information it provided to Congress. (39)

Congress Also Has Access to Intelligence Information Through Briefings

Although Congress receives numerous written intelligence products, it receives the preponderance of its intelligence information through briefings, which generally are initiated at the request of congressional committees, individual members or staff. (40)

Such briefings can include a discussion of more sensitive information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods, particularly when the briefings involve the congressional intelligence committees. But even then, if the intelligence analyst determines that such information is particularly sensitive, he may choose to brief only the chairmen and ranking members of the two intelligence committees, or in lieu of the committee leadership, the committees' majority and minority staff directors. (41) Or, based upon the executive branch's perspective that it is not legally obligated to provide Congress access to all intelligence, the analyst could choose not to share the sensitive information with anyone in Congress.

Classified Intelligence Products Which Generally Are Routinely Shared With Congress

* National Intelligence Community (NIC).(42)

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) express the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community, and thus represent the most authoritative assessment of the DNI with respect to a particular national security issue. NIEs are considered to be "estimative" intelligence products, in that they present what intelligence analysts estimate (not predict) may be the course of future events. Coordination of NIEs involves not only trying to resolve any interagency differences, but also assigning confidence levels to the key judgments and rigorously evaluating the sourcing for them. Each NIE is reviewed and approved for dissemination by the National Intelligence Board (NIB), which is comprised of the DNI and other senior Intelligence Community leaders within the Intelligence Community.

Intelligence Community Assessments (ICAs) are research papers 20-30-pages or more in length that provide a detailed data logic trail on key national security issues. They differ from NIEs in that they are less "estimative." National Intelligence Officers are expected to coordinate ICAs with other Community analysts, noting any disagreements in analytic judgements. Thus, ICAs are Community-coordinated, and are disseminated only after NIC Chairman approval.

Intelligence Community Briefs (ICBs) are estimative intelligence products that are formatted as six-page, quick-turn-around, analytic papers focusing on particular issues. Before ICBs are disseminated to intelligence consumers, National Intelligence Officers overseeing their drafting and coordination are expected either to resolve any analytic disagreements or note any such continuing disagreement between Intelligence Community analysts. Thus this product is classified to be "Community-coordinated."

Sense of Community Memos are one-page memoranda that evaluate current or day-to-day events. They are Community-coordinated and approved by the NIC chairman for dissemination.

Conference Reports are memoranda-for-the-record of conferences that the NIC sponsors on various topics. In addition to Intelligence Community personnel, participants can include experts from outside the Community.

CIA Directorate of Intelligence. (43)

The Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB), known for decades as the National Intelligence Daily and viewed by the CIA as one of its flagship products, (44) is a daily publication containing six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering an array of topics. The SEIB's format and content, although generally similar to that of the President's Daily Brief, usually contains less information in order to protect intelligence sources and methods. (45) It is disseminated to several hundred senior executive branch policymakers and to the congressional oversight committees, and although prepared by the CIA, the SEIB is produced in coordination with other Intelligence Community producers. It is viewed as a current intelligence product in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. (46)

Serial Fliers (SFs) are short and concise memorandum-style products, generally a few pages in length, on a discrete topic of current relevance. SFs generally do not contain summaries, but may contain graphics or maps.

Intelligence Assessments (IAs) are the primary vehicle for in-depth research, and can focus on larger analytic questions or provide great detail on a more narrow, but complex issue. IAs generally are from 5 to 25 pages or more in length; they always contain a "Key Findings" or "Summary" section and often include graphics, maps and other supporting material.

Strategic Perspective Series (SPSs), like IAs, are based on extensive research, but are focused on a key strategic issue - frequently at the direction of the Directorate of Intelligence leadership. SPS papers often cut across analytic disciplines or regions. Examples include Muslims in the EU: Reshaping Islam and Transforming Europe, and China's Global Strategic Ambitions. SPSs use an IA format, but carry the SPS moniker. SPS papers a "Key Findings" or "Summary," and may include graphics, maps and other supporting material.

Research Projects/Papers (RPs) are the primary vehicle used to explore new analytic research areas and to develop the Directorate of Intelligence's corporate knowledge of a given issue. A research project may culminate in a SF, IA or SPS - or, depending upon the results, may be disseminated only within the Intelligence Directorate and Intelligence Community, serving as a "capital-building" research paper.

Leadership Profiles (LPs) are biographic assessments of foreign leaders, generally 1-2 pages in length. They often are tailored for a particular meeting or event. Whenever possible, LPs contain a photo of the leader being assessed.

Situation Reports are short reports that comment on current, fast-breaking events. Up to two or three situation reports can be issued daily, if warranted.

Department of Defense.

Military Intelligence Digest (MID) is produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency and is seen as a military-oriented counterpart to the SEIB. It is viewed as a current intelligence product in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. The MID can include analysis of topic covered in the SEIB, but it also includes articles of particular interest to the defense department, and can provide a different analytic perspective. It is principally prepared for the use of defense department policymakers, but is circulated elsewhere in the executive branch and provided to the congressional intelligence committees. (47)

Classified Intelligence Products Which Generally Are Not Routinely Shared With Congress

The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President orally by a small cadre of senior Intelligence Community analysts. As previously mentioned, it consists of six to eight relatively short articles or briefs covering a broad array of topics (48) and is viewed as a current intelligence product, in that it focuses on the events of the past day or two, or on issues expected to arise over the next few days. (49) The PDB is viewed as highly sensitive, in part, because it can contain sensitive intelligence source and operational information. Thus its dissemination is limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers.

Presidential Daily Brief Memoranda are products containing responses to questions posed by the President and any of the small number of designated senior policymakers who receive the PDB. After briefing the handful of designated policymakers, members of the analytic briefing team return to CIA each morning, and task Intelligence Community personnel to provide answers to the various inquiries posed during the each briefing session.

Senior Executive Memoranda are tailored analytic products that also can be produced in response to policymaker questions arising from PDB briefings. (50)

National Terrorism Brief (NTB) is prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center, is appended to the daily PDB, and is briefed to the President by the DNI.

The Director's Daily Report is prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used by the FBI Director to verbally brief the President. (51)

Red Cell analyses are products that are speculative in nature and sometimes take a position at odds with the conventional wisdom. (52)

Raw intelligence is unevaluated intelligence.

TDs (Telephonic Disseminations) are raw intelligence reports disseminated by the CIA's Directorate of Operations. TDs are slightly finished intelligence, in that they contain some commentary as to the credibility of the source providing the intelligence.

Chief of Station (COS) Reports are reports prepared by the CIA's chief representative in a particular country and contain the COS's views of the current situation. The COS can share his reports with the resident ambassador for comment, but is under no obligation to incorporate any comments by the ambassador into his final report.

1. Reportedly "furious" about what he apparently believed to be unauthorized disclosures of classified information by Congress, President Bush on Oct. 5, 2001, ordered that the provision of classified information and sensitive law enforcement information be restricted to the Republican and Democratic leaders of both the Senate and House, and to the chairmen and ranking members of the two congressional intelligence committees. Until the President issued his order, and in keeping with prior practice, all Members of the intelligence committees had access to most such information. Bush agreed to rescind his order after several days, following a personal telephone conversation between the President and Sen. Bob Graham, then-chairman of the Senate's intelligence committee, and after negotiations between White House staff and Graham. See Bob Woodward, Bush at War, pp. 198-199. (Simon and Schuster).

2. The Senate established its intelligence oversight committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), in May 1976. The House of Representatives followed suit in July 1977, creating the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

3. Central Intelligence Agency website [].

4. To the extent that Members of Congress are entitled access to intelligence information, it is by virtue of their elected positions. Members are not subject to background checks, nor are they issued security clearances, as are congressional staff who are provided access to classified information.

5. This memorandum does not directly address the quality of Intelligence Community (IC) collection and analysis, but rather limits its focus to the degree of access to intelligence information enjoyed by federal government policymakers - including Members of Congress - and the degree to which that access enables them to assess its quality.

There exists extensive commentary which does address the quality of the Intelligence Community's collection and analytic capabilities, including more recently that contained in a report issued by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. See WMD Commission, Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005 [Hereafter, cited as the WMD Commission Report].

6. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 17.

7. Sec. 501 [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. [ct (50 U.S.C. 501[a][1]). Some observers have asserted that this language was intended to create an obligation to provide information for oversight purposes rather than establishing a legal requirement that the executive branch provide Congress substantive intelligence information. But they have noted that the congressional intelligence committees have viewed this as a "distinction without a difference," and that the committees have asserted a need for access to substantive intelligence in order to conduct oversight. See L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, February 1997, p. 11.

8. Sec. 501 [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(2)(e).

9. P.L. 108-458, Sec. 102A.(a)(1)(D) [50 U.S.C. 403-1].

10. In 1992, Congress enacted legislation spelling out the duties of the then-titled position of Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), requiring that the DCI provide Congress substantive intelligence information "where appropriate." See Title VII of the FY 2003 Intelligence Authorization Act.

11. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 17.

12. Ibid, pp. 17-18.

13. Ibid, p. 23.

14. Ibid, p. 23. With regard to an "experience-based" system and providing the congressional intelligence committees with operational intelligence, the executive branch generally limits the provision of such information to the Committees's Chairmen and Ranking Members. This despite there being in law only one provision - Section 503 of the 1947 National Security Act as amended - permitting the Executive to do so, and only the limited cases pertaining to the notification of covert action activity.

15. In 2004, Congress eliminated the position of Director of Central Intelligence and established a new position, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), to head the Intelligence Community. See P.L. 108-458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Sec. 1001, Subtitle A, Sec.1011.

16. S.Rept. 107-63, p. 6 (accompanying S. 1428) , and S.Rept. 107-149, p. 10 (accompanying S. 2506).

17. In the 109th Congress, S.1803, Sec.508.

18. Unevaluated raw intelligence consists of intelligence that has not been analyzed; lightly evaluated raw intelligence can include, for example, a brief description of the credibility of the source providing the information.

19. Human intelligence, or "HUMINT," is espionage i.e. spying, which consists largely of sending agents to foreign countries, where they attempt to recruit foreign nationals to spy. See Mark L. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, CQ Press, 2003, p. 74.

20. Signals Intelligence, or "SIGINT," refers to the interception of communications between two parties, but also can refer to the pick-up of data relayed by weapons during tests and electronic emissions from modern weapons and tracking systems. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, p. 71.

21. Imagery Intelligence, or "IMINT," also referred to as photo intelligence, is generally considered to be a picture produced by an optical system akin to a camera, but can also refer to images that can be produced by infrared imagery and radar. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, pp. 63-64.

22. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22, 2004, p. 254. (Hereafter, cited as the 9/11 Commission Report.) The PDB format does change to suit the preferences each president. See Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, (Second Edition), CQ Press, 2003, p. 48.

23. See the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission,

Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005, p. 181. Current intelligence is defined by the Intelligence Community as being that intelligence which; addresses day-to-day events; apprises intelligence consumers of new developments and related background; warns of near-term consequences; and, signals potentially dangerous situations that may occur in the near future. See U.S. Intelligence Community web page [].

24. According to the 9/11 Commission, the exact number of policymakers who receive the PDB varies by administration. In the Clinton administration, up to 25 officials had access to the PDB. By contrast, the Bush administration, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, limited the distribution of the PDB to six officials. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 254 and p. 533.

25. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 26.

26. Ibid, p. 25.

27. In the wake of the Intelligence Community's much-criticized October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Intelligence Community is now more rigorously evaluating the credibility and authentication of intelligence sources, from whom information is derived and used to form and support NIE judgements. Moreover, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Deputy Director for Intelligence Jami Misick, in a speech to analysts in March, 2004, said, "Analysts can no longer be put in a position of making a judgment on a critical issue without a full and comprehensive understanding of the [intelligence] source's access to the information on which they are reporting...We are not brushing aside the Agency's [CIA] duty to protect sources and methods, but barriers to sharing information must be removed....If you [the analyst] work the issue[,] you need to know the information. Period." She also stated that then- Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet had instructed senior CIA officials to devise a "permanent and lasting" solution to the problem of failing to adequately share intelligence source information with analysts. See [].

28. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 26.

29. With regard to protecting classified information, the executive and legislative branches each have criticized the other for failing to adequately guard against unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Neither branch, however, has suggested it is without fault. Rather, the debate, as often as not, has centered, to varying degrees, on the relative number of unauthorized disclosures that can be traced to each branch, the degree of sensitivity of such disclosures, and whether each branch has been sufficiently aggressive in its attempts to identify and penalize the perpetrator.

30. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For The Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 12. An NIE expresses the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community, and thus represents the most authoritative assessment by the Director of National Intelligence with respect to a particular national security issue. It is considered to be an "estimative" intelligence product, in that it addresses what intelligence analysts believe may be the course of future events.

31. Ibid, p. 25.

32. The Joint Congressional Inquiry was known formally as the Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11

, 2001[the Joint Inquiry's full report is available at []. Leadership of the Joint Inquiry unsuccessfully sought access to the August 6, 2001, PDB. After several days of discussions with executive branch representatives, Members decided not to pursue the request. The 9/11 Commission did gain access to this particular PDB article, and it was later declassified. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 533 and p. 261 for the declassified text of the article.

33. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,

U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, S.Rept. 108-301, July 9, 2004, p. 3.

34. The 9/11 Commission received access to about four years of articles from the PDB related to Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and key countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, including all the Commission requested. The White House declined to permit all commissioners to review these documents. The Commission selected four representatives, including its chairman, vice chairman, and executive director to review the documents. The executive director prepared a detailed summary, which was reviewed by the White House for constitutional and especially sensitive classification concerns, and then made available to all commissioners and designated commission staff. See 9/11 Commission Report, p. 533.

35. The WMD Commission was provided limited access to a number of PDB articles relating to Iraq's WMD programs. See WMD Commission Report,

p. 18.

36. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence," Center For Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. 24.

37. U.S. Intelligence Community web page [].

An NIE represents an example of a finished intelligence product.

38. CIA estimates that in 2004 it provided Members of Congress more than 1,000 briefings and 4,000 publications, including finished intelligence, books, maps, etc.

39. L. Britt Snider, "Sharing Secrets With Lawmakers: Congress as a User of Intelligence,"

Center For Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Feb., 1997, p. iii. According to Snider, most of the voluminous number of finished intelligence reports provided to the congressional intelligence committees is read by no one. (p. 25 of Snider's monograph). He cites intelligence members and staff who say they are too busy to read all the finished intelligence reports that provided daily, and some who state that it is not worth their time, or the time of the Member, to do so. Although the context of the comments is not entirely clear, they could, among other possibilities, represent a commentary on the quality of some of the intelligence products received by the two intelligence committees, or simply indicate that the products in every instance simply do not address the particular issues of concern to a Member or staff.

40. Ibid, p. 26.

41. Ibid, p. 27.

42. Congress has access to most intelligence products produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), a center of strategic thinking within the U.S. Government, reporting to the DNI and providing the President and senior policymakers with the analysis of foreign policy issues that have been reviewed and coordinated throughout the Intelligence Community. The Council is headed by a chairman and is comprised of National Intelligence Officers (NIOs), who are viewed as the Intelligence Community's senior substantive specialists. NIOs are assigned areas of functional or geographic responsibility, and are responsible for producing a variety of written intelligence products, ranging from brief analyses of current issues to "over- the-horizon" estimates of broader global trends.

43. The CIA's Directorate of Intelligence is responsible for analyzing intelligence.

44. CIA web site [].

45. 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 254-255.

46. Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, CQ Press, 2003, p. 48.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid, p. 254.

49. WMD Commission Report, p. 181. The WMD Commission criticized the quality of PDBs, asserting that, "...many of the same problems that occurred with other intelligence products occurred with the PDBs, only in a magnified manner." According to the Commission, PDBs "often failed to explain, or even signal, the uncertainties underlying their judgments..." and "...PDB articles discounted information that appeared to contradict the prevailing analytical view..." The Commission also said that by emphasizing current intelligence, the PDB could "...adversely affect the consumers of intelligence..." by creating over time "...a greater perception of certainty about ...judgements than is warranted."

50. WMD Commission Report, p. 182.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid, p. 406.

11:54 AM  
Blogger John said...




Well, *ahem,* even though the W. Bush Administration did NOT pilfer 800 private FBI files on the political opposition (like the Clinton Administration did, against American citizens, during "peacetime," no less), you can be damn sure that they're hopping over bureaucratic and regulatory procedures and bowling over ACLU standards when it comes to bloodhounding terrorist scents and checking out the subversive activities of the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan antiwar crowd.

The Patriot Act is working.

The people screaming loudest about this, of course, are the antiwar crowd who think they should be allowed to root for defeat and scream for imprisonment--if not assassination--of the Commander in Chief during war-time without drawing the attention of the Feds (because they sound a lot like an ally--if not a franchize--of *Al Jazeera.*)

Republicus himself thinks that fringe element is treasonous.

Do THEY have "something to hide?"

Anyway, yeah, it does give the government a lot of power over the activities of private citizens.

Republicus is not worried about THIS government having that power now, because they're busy trying to win a war.

But God protect us if someone like the Clintons win back control of the government with that system in place.

Nevertheless, the Patriot Act should be renewed.

12:08 PM  
Blogger John said...

"This is incredibly serious. Bush did what a dictator does, not what an American president should have done...We need an immediate independent investigation, and if this story is confirmed, Bush should resign or be removed from office."

Oh gawd. Those are practically THE SAME WORDS THEY USED WHEN LAUNCHING THE VALERIE PLAME THANG YEARS AGO! and WASTED everyone's time drumming it up as a Constitutional crisis!

They're just trying to start a new scandal and cottage industry.

What will it be this time?


12:51 PM  
Blogger John said...

Hey, didn't you say YESTERDAY that you'd go away?

12:54 PM  
Blogger John said...

Here's what you said, YESTERDAY:

"Alright man, your free, for a while anyway. I don't want to be responsible for a reality based meltdown on your part. :)

If I don't get the chance before then,Merry Christmas..."


12:57 PM  
Blogger John said...


12:58 PM  
Blogger John said...

Mark the timing of this "breaking story":

*The New York Times* has been sitting on this story for a year, and it comes out 24 hrs. after a very succesful democratic election in Iraq.

2:27 PM  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Umm hmm, sat on it at the request of the White House. Anyways-

This is against the law. I have put references to the relevant statute below the fold; the brief version is: the law forbids warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and it provides procedures to be followed in emergencies that do not leave enough time for federal agents to get a warrant. If the NY Times report is correct, the government did not follow these procedures. It therefore acted illegally.

Bush's order is arguably unconstitutional as well: it seems to violate the fourth amendment, and it certainly violates the requirement (Article II, sec. 3) that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

I am normally extremely wary of talking about impeachment. I think that impeachment is a trauma for the country, and that it should only be considered in extreme cases. Moreover, I think that the fact that Clinton was impeached raises the bar as far as impeaching Bush: two traumas in a row is really not good for the country, and even though my reluctance to go through a second impeachment benefits the very Republicans who needlessly inflicted the first on us, I don't care. It's bad for the country, and that matters most.

But I have a high bar, not a nonexistent one. And for a President to order violations of the law meets my criteria for impeachment. This is exactly what got Nixon in trouble: he ordered his subordinates to obstruct justice. To the extent that the two cases differ, the differences make what Bush did worse: after all, it's not as though warrants are hard to get, or the law makes no provision for emergencies. Bush could have followed the law had he wanted to. He chose to set it aside.

And this is something that no American should tolerate. We claim to have a government of laws, not of men. That claim means nothing if we are not prepared to act when a President (or anyone else) places himself above the law. If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached.

The Law:

Here is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Its Section 1809a

makes it a criminal offense to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."

FISA does authorize surveillance without a warrant,
but not on US citizens (with the possible exception of citizens speaking from property openly owned by a foreign power; e.g., an embassy.)

FISA also says that the Attorney General can authorize emergency surveillance without a warrant

when there is no time to obtain one. But it requires that the Attorney General notify the judge of that authorization immediately, and that he (and yes, the law does say 'he') apply for a warrant "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."

It also says this:

"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof".

Nothing in the New York Times report suggests that the wiretaps Bush authorized extended only for 72 hours, or that normal warrants were sought in each case within 72 hours after the wiretap began. On the contrary, no one would have needed a special program or presidential order if they had.

According to the Times, "the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States." But this is just wrong. As I noted above, the law specifically allows for warrantless surveillance in emergencies, when the government needs to start surveillance before it can get a warrant. It explains exactly what the government needs to do under those circumstances. It therefore provides the flexibility the administration claims it needed.

They had no need to go around the law. They could easily have obeyed it. They just didn't want to.

3:06 PM  
Blogger John said...

That's not Lee Harvey.

He's plagiarizing again. ("beneath the fold?" lol)

6:55 PM  
Blogger John said...

"I am normally extremely wary of talking about impeachment."

He's lying. Whoever wrote this has been talking about impeaching Bush to his innermost circle for a long time, if not actually mentioning it in other writings going back a long ways.

"I think that impeachment is a trauma for the country..."

Bush has been a trauma for him.

"...and that it should only be considered in extreme cases."

And the Valerie Plame "leak" was "extreme."

Deciding to intervene in Iraq was "extreme."

Bush winning two elections was VERY "extreme."

And, of course, Bush's Evangelical faith is "extreme."

"Moreover, I think that the fact that Clinton was impeached..."

LOL Everytime Republicus references Clinton, he's attacked for "obsessing" over him.

"...raises the bar as far as impeaching Bush: two traumas in a row is really not good for the country, and even though my reluctance to go through a second impeachment benefits the very Republicans who needlessly inflicted the first on us, I don't care. It's bad for the country, and that matters most."


"But I have a high bar, not a nonexistent one."

He thinks the bar was very low for Clinton's impeachment--that it was "just about sex"--and that Bush being "the very worst president in the history of the country" easily meets that bar.

"And for a President to order violations of the law meets my criteria for impeachment. This is exactly what got Nixon in trouble: he ordered his subordinates to obstruct justice."


"To the extent that the two cases differ, the differences make what Bush did worse: after all, it's not as though warrants are hard to get, or the law makes no provision for emergencies. Bush could have followed the law had he wanted to. He chose to set it aside."

I wonder how many traffic violations this clown has--or how many traffic laws he actually broke in the dead of night with no other car in sight.

"And this is something that no American should tolerate."

Republicus is DAMN SURE "Captain America" here "tolerated" Clinton's serial malfeasances--the pilfering of FBI files, serious campaign violations, perjuries, obstruction of justice...

"We claim to have a government of laws, not of men. That claim means nothing if we are not prepared to act when a President (or anyone else) places himself above the law."

This weasel is saying the SAME thing conservatives were saying about President Clinton.

What was HE saying then?

"If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached."

No, he shouldn't.

10:33 AM  
Blogger John said...

P.S. Kelly, you hit the nail on the head. Look how manically he tried to to shout you down.

11:32 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

So, is that what pulled him back in?

Seems to me he was already back in before I said that.

He is so transparent.

8:23 AM  
Blogger John said...

He's unhinged.

6:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home