Cal Thomas Says: Donald Rumsfeld is Right (Fort Worth Star-Telegram August 10, 2006)

I can't wait to get to Rumsfeld but first lets us agree that the administration got all they needed and wanted to support the Iraq war.

• They got all the money they wanted, 300 billion plus. (This is $3000.00 per income tax filer).
• They got all the equipment and arms they asked for.
• They got all the troops they wanted. But they needed 300,000 and fired the General who proposed that number.
• They conducted the war unencumbered by Congress. "Ask and you shall receive".
• They tapped millions of phone conversation, and money transactions. (Legality is yet to be determined).
• They used all means of interrogation to extract life saving information from unnamed prisoners who were not allowed legal council.
• To date no one in the White House has defined water boarding as torture.
• They got to Stay the Course that allows the enemy to select the units and vehicles and time they will attack and then document the results with video. (The first war that I know of where the bullets literally have the names of the target on them).

Mr. Thomas, according to your article, the news media is responsible it for what appears to be a small civil war in Iraq.

How can the news media be responsible when we know the Administration was satisfied with the planning, funding and prosecution of the war as agreed above?

It seems that the Administration made one mistake. They failed to get the media aboard and agree that everything they were doing was right.

"Yes, the plan is perfect gentlemen but get the media under control because the perfect plan will fail if the media starts throwing stones".

How could the Administration leverage the success of an otherwise perfect war on the assumption that the media would not totally support the war? Did they forget among other things the "First Amendment?"

How for Righteous Rumsfeld:

Troops, we don't need all those troops. We will be received with roses and kisses. (My paraphrasing)

Feb. 20 2003: "'Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?' Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' The News Hour. 'There is no question but that they would be welcomed,' Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces."

30 Mar 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

4 May 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Fox News Sunday: "we never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country... We're going to find what we find as a result of talking to people, I believe, not simply by going to some site and hoping to discover it."

10 Sep 2003 In a speech to the National Press Club, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "I said, 'We know they're in that area.' I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area.' Our intelligence tells us they're in that area, and that was our best judgment."

16 Mar 2003 Vice President Dick Cheney tells Meet the Press: "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

24 Jun 2003 At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons." [see Dick Cheney quote above, March 16, 2003]

The answer to our to winning in Iraq:

President Bush must institute policies to grow a moderate Muslim base.

Jack Crader

rumsfeldius,

Thanks for the response, belated or not, and for the clarification of your position, as well.

I agree with you that the US needs to get out a new message, but my concern is that another well-devised prop campaign will be worthless without: 1) actions to support it in real-time and 2) a few (I'd welcome even one to start) admissions of the fact that the US makes, and has made, mistakes.

" ... I am just saying "let's have more good info out there", and I don't get what's wrong with that. Your arguments make it seem that it is wrong to love this country, to believe in it, and or to speak of it constructively. "

I see that you do not appreciate my emphasis on the 'negative' with regard to the US/US policies and in light of my posts on this blog, I believe that your interpretation of my comments as being 'negative', is correct. And so, let me take this opportunity to tell you that I am well aware of what the US has done well or right and I, too, am trying to speak/write constructively. I emphasize the negative because my interest is in improving/bettering what needs to be improved (granted, from my small perspective) and I have difficulty with 'singing the praises' of the US when we are in as much trouble as I believe we are in with regard to our ability to interact with the rest of the world. I believe that the US can do, and be, better, and we seem to share that view. I spend (or waste) my time writing here precisely because I am concerned about the US and what seems to be happening within it. I also give care about what is happening throughout the world at large. Writing is a small contribution (or no contribution, possibly) but like other blog responders, writing about the issues is all that we have to offer.

" ... Anyone who believes the world can be delinked, de-coupled, is just plain stupid. And that's not name calling, that's calling a spade a spade. "

Per above, we agree.

" ... The world is a tough place. If we want our cooperaiton and collaborations to continue, we will need to do what Rumsfeld suggests, get out the message that America, like all other countries faces a turbulent international environemnt, but unlike other countries, it burdened by its ability to actively confront this environment!
We make mistakes, but if the world holds us up to unrealistic standards, then it is predestined to hating us. In such a case, we need a dialogue with the world, and so far there has been no dialogue, its only been finger pointing at the US. We need to get a message out, that our actions must be evaluated fairly. Yes, we make mistakes, but that doesn't imply, as you in fact clearly believ, that our entire system is hell bent on conquering. "

Lots of issues here. We do indeed need a dialogue. IMHO, the most significant issue has to do with the importance of the US being able to admit that it has ever made a mistake. Why is that so important? Precisely because the US is the 'sole superpower' at the moment. It is amazing to me how US administrations seem to forget that even if the US was a beneficent country according to the world's view, in all manners and respects, there would be individuals who disliked the US simply because it is what it is. When one is labeled as the 'super ... anything', one needs to be careful not to be arrogant and/or to falsely believe/act as if they are in any way better than anyone else, because they are not. Unfortunately, that is the perception that people have of both the US and its' citizens.

The US government needs to think more critically about where and when to use the military, what countries and governments it does business with (promoting democracy in Iraq while simultaneously maintaining a close relationship with Mr. Mubarak, for example) and it also needs to begin breaking down accepted stereotypes of both 'America' and the 'typical American'. Media has served to paint a false picture of life within the US for world audiences and the best, 'new' media campaign that I could suggest would address this huge misperception first. We aren't a society comprised of 'Brady Bunch' families. We don't all drive or want to drive Porches, want to look like Barbie or Ken, or party because it happens to be Friday/Saturday night. Many US citizens work 60 hours or more a week in order to eat and don't have or want a membership to the local country club. Our government struggles and sometimes doesn't work at all (Katrina.) We aren't all of the 'extreme religious right' or of the 'liberal left'. Many of us are just plain, normal citizens, somewhere in the center, who are trying to simply have a life, with no prestige, pomp, or circumstance. The people of the world really DON'T know America or Americans. We are all actually more alike versus different and the greatest shame, IMHO, is that the rest of the world doesn't know this. Mother's hearts break forever when their children die - all over the world. American mother's hearts break, too. Perhaps the administration should step aside and let the people of the US speak to the world, for themselves. 'Regular' people know much more than politicians do, about most things in 'real life' - all over the world. We could probably conduct a fairly successful discussion, beginning with the topic of - our shared shock/disappointment in our politicians, leaders, and governments.

Is the US bent on conquering? Some people believe so and you would be hard-pressed, from THEIR viewpoint/perspective, to argue to the contrary. And, THEIR perspective is where the 'discussion' needs to begin, too. Why? Because while I may know that the US is not comprised of 'bad and ugly citizens', they don't know it because all that they have seen are the results of the US government's decisions, i. e., US troops in their backyard and the consequences of same. They believe what they believe and whether 'wrong' or 'right', according to the US' 'opinion', any discussion has to begin with respecting an individual's right to their own perspective and the US doesn't have to agree with it. This would represent 'new thinking/strategy' by the US in that the US may have to step back/down in some instances but, would that be as 'terrible' as it appears? Would the US be weak - or wise? If we sincerely tried to listen/negotiate, and the other party then agreed to a resolution and consequently acted in violation of that agreement, the US would then be in a position to act, as needed, in response to that violation of agreement.

Granted, some situations may not lend themselves to 'negotiation', but many of the situations that we are currently facing could be successfully diffused using this mechanism. Resultant, positive consequences would include a shift in perceptions about the US, worldwide, and possibly the opportunity to set an example of how the negotiating process is supposed to work. I am referencing a return to peacemaking throughout the world by the US, while simultaneously reserving military action only for instances in which no other solution can be found. Strength, yes, but strength must be coupled with wisdom and wisdom sometimes means knowing when to 'lose' or step back, gracefully. Some losses are actually wins, albeit in a different form.

The US may have its' 'reasons' for doing and being where it is (militarily), but the individuals affected by the US' presence don't care about the US' reasons for invading their countries. This is where that critical, consequential thinking component becomes important. For example, someone had to know that anti-US/west sentiment was on the rise in the ME in past decades/centuries. Someone also had to have accepted that a risk existed that said anti-US/west sentiment may eventually be violently expressed. The US' relationship with ME governments continued, for the sake of oil and the global economy. Under the current administration, containing that 'risk' has now become the nation's sole focus. No large-scale programs to reduce oil dependency were/have been introduced, megamillions have been invested and earned from the ventures, and the explanation provided, from an 'oil-man', no less, is that "we need to reduce our dependency on oil but we also need the oil to keep the economy going". Someone knew what could happen and someone didn't care. Sorry, but I don't buy that successive US administrations suffered from a lack of ability with regard to predicting the current consequences of our relationship with the House of Saud. We need to be a little wiser in what we do and where we do it. Some people don't forget and others live for the sole purpose of remembering. Have we learned from this mistake yet or not?

(BTW, the UN is not the place for any 'discussions' to take place for it has lost its' overall credibility with too many people in the world. 'Leaders' (and not their subordinates) should be required to sit in the same room, face-to-face, with other leaders of the world - and perform as leaders. They have all claimed responsibility for both their people and their countries; they should have to deal with one another - as rational, mature men and women, despite major disagreements. Doing this would go a long way toward setting an example for their people with regard to interacting with individuals whom one may dislike and/or disagree with. Additionally, "I don't like you/your principles and therefore I won't deal with you", not only represents an abandonment of leadership responsibility but also represents a lack of recognition of the consequences of issues that have not yet been resolved (problems will worsen.) The majority of the world's leaders ARE over two years of age?)

" ... I happen to be an American who genuinly believes in improving global standards of living and human rights. I deplore the state of the world and I believe our country must make a contribution to embetterment. We have no choice, we are engaged with the world, and we will be challanged, both by the environment, and by our own national limits. I personally think Iraq was a mistake, but now we must make the best of it, and I do not understand how making one mistake (invading Iraq), legitimizes a second mistake (letting it rot). If we're in, we should remain in, and the international community better do its best to help us, because either it trusts our good intent, or it will simply undermine any hope left for the Iraqis. Make no mistake about it. The international community doesn't help by yapping at us. We may have made a mistake, but yapping only hurts the Iraqis."

Agree that the US needs help in Iraq, but that assistance will likely not be forthcoming unless/until the US clearly states that it made a mistake and asks for said assistance. A second possibility is that a truly multi-national peacekeeping force may be brought in. Third possibility is that the Iraqi's themselves will decide to boot everyone out and manage the consequences of that action themselves.

" ... then youd do a better job selling it to the world than myself."

I wouldn't be good at devising PR or writing propaganda; wrong 'mindset'. Besides, the first time that they told me that I had to use a file cabinet down at the end of the hall versus one in the same room, due to 'regulations', I'd undoubtedly get fired for questioning 'authority'/insubordination. I am an average American citizen - no more, no less - who believes that that we can improve.

I agree with Sp4MP in the following statement as that the Laws that Sp4MP referres to I have researched and that Sp4MP is 100% correct in the fact that
Crime of High Treason has been committed by G.W. Bush, V.P. Cheney, Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of those named;

"Arrogance, Stupidity, Incompetence and a Fool."

The 3 Stooges (Bush, Cheney & Gonzalles) and their Congressional Committee of 8 are AIDING the terrorists in destroying the United States of America.

Ops, my mistake there are 4 Stooges.

Let us not forget Donald Rumsfeld.

What you say?

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of NSA warrant less surveillance today before Congress today is expected to stress not only the President's powers during wartime, but also contain an attack on "misinformed, confused" news accounts, according to Time Magazine." (Washington Post W.M. Arkin)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles should be Disbarred for Incompetence.

Warrants are Required.

And it is Time for Impeachment.

Yes I said Impeachment.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Donald Rumsfeld should all be Impeached for the following reasons;

On Sunday on NBC Meet the Press (1-29-2006) Sen. Bill Frist (R. from Tenn.) admitted that only 8 people in Congress new about "President George Walker Bush's Domestic Surveillance/Spying Program" and Sen. Frist stated "We all new the program was illegal but we figured the FISA law and FISA Court were outdated so we went ahead with the Domestic Spy Program using the NSA anyway."

Then Meet the Press aired a news clip from August of 2004 when President George Walker Bush gave a similar statement to the press and the country admitting that the Domestic Spy Program was illegal and that he was in VIOLATION of the LAW and he said "And I don't care."

Then Meet the Press's Tim Russert pointed out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 in Sec. 1809 says that a WARRANT is REQUIRED to do the surveillance that President George Walker Bush has dictated.

Sen. Frist admitted that he and his committee had been involved in seeking FISA Warrants in the past and it only took about one hour at the most to receive them as long as they had their facts from the surveillance already done recorded and in order for the FISA Judge to see.

Sen. Frist admitted "We all know that we could perform surveillance up to 3 days without even trying to get the warrant first and then go get one from a FISA Judge. But that's just too much hassle."

The 4th Amendment requires the President to get a Warrant to do any surveillance as that it is a form of search according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Patriot Act requires the President to get a Warrant to any kind of surveillance.
I'm sorry but they have admitted their CRIMES on national TV.

It is time they are all IMPEACHED according to the Law and the United States Constitution.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Romfeld did the Crime so they must so they must all do the TIME.

And what makes this all even worse is the fact that the illegally obtained evidence which is more commonly called "Fruit of the Poison Tree" is all the already convicted terrorists need to have their convictions over turned on Appeal.

Hence setting the terrorists FREE and according to the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists cannot be charged again for the same crime.

This means that President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are all GUILTY of HIGH TREASON for AIDING the Terrorists in the Commission of and getting away with the terrorist acts/crimes that they were originally charged with.

And any Active Duty Military personal who would and or do choose to show their support for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are in fact guilty of VIOLATING their Military Oath of Service to the United States of America.

Because the Oath of Service clearly States that they (the active duty military personal) are Sworn to Uphold the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America to which President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld have in fact VIOLATED.

The Presidents Powers are dictated by law, i.e. F.I.S.A. of 1978 Sec. 1809 which states that a Warrant is Required.

And the Patriot Act Title 1 Sec. 101 through 106 and Title 2 Sec. 201 through 225.

Title 1 Sec. 106 specifically does not give the President to do Warrant less surveillance.

Read it for yourselves.

"SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking ''; and'' and inserting a comma
and the following:
''by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting '', block during the pendency of
an investigation'' after ''investigate''; and
(ii) by striking ''interest;'' and inserting ''interest
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States; and'';
(C) by striking ''by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States'; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
18 USC 3056
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00007 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 278 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities
or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign
nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign
organization, or foreign country that he determines has
planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities
or attacks against the United States; and all right, title,
and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when,
as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such
agency or person as the President may designate from
time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe, such interest or property shall
be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise
dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the
United States, and such designated agency or person may
perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment
or furtherance of these purposes.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
''(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.--In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination was
based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the
Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be
submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This
subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.''."
Title 2 Sec. 225 Specifically does not give the President or anybody the authority to do Warrant less surveillance or searches.
"SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.
Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection
(g) the following:
18 USC 2510
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 296 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any
provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent,
or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information,
facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order
or request for emergency assistance under this Act.''."

"High on Gonzales' list no doubt will be the front page Washington Post story yesterday focusing on whether the expanded post 9/11 surveillance yielded any important intelligence or big fish. The Post story argues that NSA "dismissed nearly all" of the potential suspects as having any terrorist connection."(WP W.M. Arkin)

To prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again we must Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld who are doing more to AID the terrorists with their illegal Domestic Surveillance Program which produces "fruit of the poison tree" evidence which they have used to convict terrorists already and their convictions will be over turned on Appeal because of the illegally obtained evidence.

Therefore the President, Vice President and Congressional Committee of 8 and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles along with all NSA personal involved in the Illegal Surveillance Program are in fact Aiding the terrorists in their terrorist acts against the United States of America which is an Act of HIGH TREASON on their part. As that in accordance with the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists Can Not be Charged again for their same crime/terrorist act and that they will be released free to attack again as soon as the Appeals Court over turns their convictions because the illegally obtained evidence ("fruit of the poison tree") was used to convict them.

"I have been wondering myself what NSA might have collected through this and other expanded post 9/11 surveillance programs so my hat's off to the reporters for compiling a difficult to get to story."(WP W.M. Arkin)

The 1998 Whistle Blowers Protection Act is the law that will protect the good guy/girl that had the common sense to tell the public about the Illegal Surveillance Program of President George Walker Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld.

If we as a Country approach this situation according to our own laws and obey them then them the terrorists will not get a second chance at a 9/11 type of attack again.

"But a zero for 5,000 record -- if indeed even nothing of use came from the eavesdropping on some 5,000 persons -- shouldn't be taken as either proof of failure or illegality." (WP W. M. Arkin)

5000 Violations of the Law and 5000 reasons to Impeach the President, Vice President and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Commttee on Inteligence),A.G. and the Sec. Def.
.
"It's all about the dots. Failure to connect the dots was the cause of 9/11, the administration thinks, and anything we do today to collect -- and connect -- dots is a positive step in the direction of preventing another attack."(WP W.M. Arkin)

Yes exactly right providing we do it by the book and in accordance with the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

"I would argue that the failure to connect the dots prior to 9/11 was caused by massive incompetence on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, by excessive secrecy born of government power struggles and arrogance,"(WP W.M. Arkin)

Again 100% Right. And the arrogance of President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld is AIDING the terrorists in their actions.

Good intensions or not, they still broke the LAW.

As a former Judge/Professor once told me "There is no acceptable excuse for breaking the law."

If we are going to convict a terrorist then let us do it by the book so they do not go free to have a second chance for another 9/11 type of attack.

Let us convict them right from the start.
It is Time for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 , A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to all are Impeached before they aid the terrorist even more.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

I agree with Sp4MP in the following statement as that the Laws I have researches and that Sp4MP is 100% correct;

"Arrogance, Stupidity, Incompetence and a Fool."

The 3 Stooges (Bush, Cheney & Gonzalles) and their Congressional Committee of 8 are AIDING the terrorists in destroying the United States of America.

Ops, my mistake there are 4 Stooges.

Let us not forget Donald Rumsfeld.

What you say?

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of NSA warrant less surveillance today before Congress today is expected to stress not only the President's powers during wartime, but also contain an attack on "misinformed, confused" news accounts, according to Time Magazine." (Washington Post W.M. Arkin)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles should be Disbarred for Incompetence.

Warrants are Required.

And it is Time for Impeachment.

Yes I said Impeachment.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Donald Rumsfeld should all be Impeached for the following reasons;

On Sunday on NBC Meet the Press (1-29-2006) Sen. Bill Frist (R. from Tenn.) admitted that only 8 people in Congress new about "President George Walker Bush's Domestic Surveillance/Spying Program" and Sen. Frist stated "We all new the program was illegal but we figured the FISA law and FISA Court were outdated so we went ahead with the Domestic Spy Program using the NSA anyway."

Then Meet the Press aired a news clip from August of 2004 when President George Walker Bush gave a similar statement to the press and the country admitting that the Domestic Spy Program was illegal and that he was in VIOLATION of the LAW and he said "And I don't care."

Then Meet the Press's Tim Russert pointed out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 in Sec. 1809 says that a WARRANT is REQUIRED to do the surveillance that President George Walker Bush has dictated.

Sen. Frist admitted that he and his committee had been involved in seeking FISA Warrants in the past and it only took about one hour at the most to receive them as long as they had their facts from the surveillance already done recorded and in order for the FISA Judge to see.

Sen. Frist admitted "We all know that we could perform surveillance up to 3 days without even trying to get the warrant first and then go get one from a FISA Judge. But that's just too much hassle."

The 4th Amendment requires the President to get a Warrant to do any surveillance as that it is a form of search according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Patriot Act requires the President to get a Warrant to any kind of surveillance.
I'm sorry but they have admitted their CRIMES on national TV.

It is time they are all IMPEACHED according to the Law and the United States Constitution.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Romfeld did the Crime so they must so they must all do the TIME.

And what makes this all even worse is the fact that the illegally obtained evidence which is more commonly called "Fruit of the Poison Tree" is all the already convicted terrorists need to have their convictions over turned on Appeal.

Hence setting the terrorists FREE and according to the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists cannot be charged again for the same crime.

This means that President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are all GUILTY of HIGH TREASON for AIDING the Terrorists in the Commission of and getting away with the terrorist acts/crimes that they were originally charged with.

And any Active Duty Military personal who would and or do choose to show their support for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are in fact guilty of VIOLATING their Military Oath of Service to the United States of America.

Because the Oath of Service clearly States that they (the active duty military personal) are Sworn to Uphold the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America to which President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld have in fact VIOLATED.

The Presidents Powers are dictated by law, i.e. F.I.S.A. of 1978 Sec. 1809 which states that a Warrant is Required.

And the Patriot Act Title 1 Sec. 101 through 106 and Title 2 Sec. 201 through 225.

Title 1 Sec. 106 specifically does not give the President to do Warrant less surveillance.

Read it for yourselves.

"SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking ''; and'' and inserting a comma
and the following:
''by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting '', block during the pendency of
an investigation'' after ''investigate''; and
(ii) by striking ''interest;'' and inserting ''interest
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States; and'';
(C) by striking ''by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States'; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
18 USC 3056
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00007 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 278 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities
or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign
nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign
organization, or foreign country that he determines has
planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities
or attacks against the United States; and all right, title,
and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when,
as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such
agency or person as the President may designate from
time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe, such interest or property shall
be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise
dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the
United States, and such designated agency or person may
perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment
or furtherance of these purposes.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
''(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.--In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination was
based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the
Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be
submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This
subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.''."
Title 2 Sec. 225 Specifically does not give the President or anybody the authority to do Warrant less surveillance or searches.
"SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.
Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection
(g) the following:
18 USC 2510
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 296 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any
provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent,
or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information,
facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order
or request for emergency assistance under this Act.''."

"High on Gonzales' list no doubt will be the front page Washington Post story yesterday focusing on whether the expanded post 9/11 surveillance yielded any important intelligence or big fish. The Post story argues that NSA "dismissed nearly all" of the potential suspects as having any terrorist connection."(WP W.M. Arkin)

To prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again we must Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld who are doing more to AID the terrorists with their illegal Domestic Surveillance Program which produces "fruit of the poison tree" evidence which they have used to convict terrorists already and their convictions will be over turned on Appeal because of the illegally obtained evidence.

Therefore the President, Vice President and Congressional Committee of 8 and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles along with all NSA personal involved in the Illegal Surveillance Program are in fact Aiding the terrorists in their terrorist acts against the United States of America which is an Act of HIGH TREASON on their part. As that in accordance with the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists Can Not be Charged again for their same crime/terrorist act and that they will be released free to attack again as soon as the Appeals Court over turns their convictions because the illegally obtained evidence ("fruit of the poison tree") was used to convict them.

"I have been wondering myself what NSA might have collected through this and other expanded post 9/11 surveillance programs so my hat's off to the reporters for compiling a difficult to get to story."(WP W.M. Arkin)

The 1998 Whistle Blowers Protection Act is the law that will protect the good guy/girl that had the common sense to tell the public about the Illegal Surveillance Program of President George Walker Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld.

If we as a Country approach this situation according to our own laws and obey them then them the terrorists will not get a second chance at a 9/11 type of attack again.

"But a zero for 5,000 record -- if indeed even nothing of use came from the eavesdropping on some 5,000 persons -- shouldn't be taken as either proof of failure or illegality." (WP W. M. Arkin)

5000 Violations of the Law and 5000 reasons to Impeach the President, Vice President and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Commttee on Inteligence),A.G. and the Sec. Def.
.
"It's all about the dots. Failure to connect the dots was the cause of 9/11, the administration thinks, and anything we do today to collect -- and connect -- dots is a positive step in the direction of preventing another attack."(WP W.M. Arkin)

Yes exactly right providing we do it by the book and in accordance with the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

"I would argue that the failure to connect the dots prior to 9/11 was caused by massive incompetence on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, by excessive secrecy born of government power struggles and arrogance,"(WP W.M. Arkin)

Again 100% Right. And the arrogance of President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld is AIDING the terrorists in their actions.

Good intensions or not, they still broke the LAW.

As a former Judge/Professor once told me "There is no acceptable excuse for breaking the law."

If we are going to convict a terrorist then let us do it by the book so they do not go free to have a second chance for another 9/11 type of attack.

Let us convict them right from the start.
It is Time for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 , A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to all are Impeached before they aid the terrorist even more.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

Clarification. I posted the same comment twice, but in the first post I mistakenly entered "redcat" in the name, because that is who I was responding to, I should have entered Rumsfeldius. Sorry for the repetition and mistake.

Belated response to Redcat

Alright, sorry for the name calling. But - yes there is a but - what is the impression you initially made?

Ok, you do make a very good overall impression, since you are so polite. But - initially it did look neolithic.

Look, here is my argument.

I am saying Rumsfeld is right on. We need to get a different message out to the world. Including to people like you who belittle and/or ignore the positive role we've played in the world.

Your counterarguments are confusing. While you make a really nice blogger impression for politeness, which is very good PR for the US, I am just saying "let's have more good info out there", and I don't get what's wrong with that. Your arguments make it seem that it is wrong to love this country, to believe in it, and or to speak of it constructively.

Should I appologize to the world (because it reads this blog) for saying that isolationists are from the stone age? Sorry, but I think they are. Anyone who believes the world can be delinked, de-coupled, is just plain stupid. And that's not name calling, that's calling a spade a spade.

You yourself make the point that we need to collaborate and cooperate in the world. I am saying exactly the same thing! It appears however, that you believe that's ALL it takes to go on in this world. That I think is ridiculuos. Whatever your take on Hobbes, you can't argue with the facts. The world is a tough place. If we want our cooperaiton and collaborations to continue, we will need to do what Rumsfeld suggests, get out the message that America, like all other countries faces a turbulent international environemnt, but unlike other countries, it burdened by its ability to actively confront this environment!

We make mistakes, but if the world holds us up to unrealistic standards, then it is predestined to hating us. In such a case, we need a dialogue with the world, and so far there has been no dialogue, its only been finger pointing at the US. We need to get a message out, that our actions must be evaluated fairly. Yes, we make mistakes, but that doesn't imply, as you in fact clearly believ, that our entire system is hell bent on conquering.

My line is simple, I am for a push in the other direction. Foreigners need to get off their high-horses. Stop pointing fingers at us for all your social-economic-political ills.

I hapen to be an American who genuinly believes in improving global standards of living and human rights. I deplore the state of the world and I believe our country must make a contribution to embetterment. We have no choice, we are engaged with the world, and we will be challanged, both by the environment, and by our own national limits. I personally think Iraq was a mistake, but now we must make the best of it, and I do not understand how making one mistake (invading Iraq), legitimizes a second mistake (letting it rot). If we're in, we should remain in, and the international community better do its best to help us, because either it trusts our good intent, or it will simply undermine any hope left for the Iraqis. Make no mistake about it. The internatinal community doesn't help by yapping at us. We may have made a mistake, but yapping only hurts the Iraqis.

Again, what's wrong with getting that message out?

But I do concede Redcat, if you shared this opinion (which in essence you probably must), then youd do a better job selling it to the world than myself.

Heck, you aught to do the PR, not me.

Belated response to Redcat

Alright, sorry for the name calling. But - yes there is a but - what is the impression you initially made?

Ok, you do make a very good overall impression, since you are so polite. But - initially it did look neolithic.

Look, here is my argument.

I am saying Rumsfeld is right on. We need to get a different message out to the world. Including to people like you who belittle and/or ignore the positive role we've played in the world.

Your counterarguments are confusing. While you make a really nice blogger impression for politeness, which is very good PR for the US, I am just saying "let's have more good info out there", and I don't get what's wrong with that. Your arguments make it seem that it is wrong to love this country, to believe in it, and or to speak of it constructively.

Should I appologize to the world (because it reads this blog) for saying that isolationists are from the stone age? Sorry, but I think they are. Anyone who believes the world can be delinked, de-coupled, is just plain stupid. And that's not name calling, that's calling a spade a spade.

You yourself make the point that we need to collaborate and cooperate in the world. I am saying exactly the same thing! It appears however, that you believe that's ALL it takes to go on in this world. That I think is ridiculuos. Whatever your take on Hobbes, you can't argue with the facts. The world is a tough place. If we want our cooperaiton and collaborations to continue, we will need to do what Rumsfeld suggests, get out the message that America, like all other countries faces a turbulent international environemnt, but unlike other countries, it burdened by its ability to actively confront this environment!

We make mistakes, but if the world holds us up to unrealistic standards, then it is predestined to hating us. In such a case, we need a dialogue with the world, and so far there has been no dialogue, its only been finger pointing at the US. We need to get a message out, that our actions must be evaluated fairly. Yes, we make mistakes, but that doesn't imply, as you in fact clearly believ, that our entire system is hell bent on conquering.

My line is simple, I am for a push in the other direction. Foreigners need to get off their high-horses. Stop pointing fingers at us for all your social-economic-political ills.

I hapen to be an American who genuinly believes in improving global standards of living and human rights. I deplore the state of the world and I believe our country must make a contribution to embetterment. We have no choice, we are engaged with the world, and we will be challanged, both by the environment, and by our own national limits. I personally think Iraq was a mistake, but now we must make the best of it, and I do not understand how making one mistake (invading Iraq), legitimizes a second mistake (letting it rot). If we're in, we should remain in, and the international community better do its best to help us, because either it trusts our good intent, or it will simply undermine any hope left for the Iraqis. Make no mistake about it. The internatinal community doesn't help by yapping at us. We may have made a mistake, but yapping only hurts the Iraqis.

Again, what's wrong with getting that message out?

But I do concede Redcat, if you shared this opinion (which in essence you probably must), then youd do a better job selling it to the world than myself.

Heck, you aught to do the PR, not me.

What can save Iraq now that it is teetering on the edge of all-out civil war? Certainly not the United States, which created this mess but which is now too discredited a force there to be able to play any useful or legitimate role. The time has come for those of us in the non-American global majority that opposed this war to step up to the plate and come up with security and military solution that can save Iraq. The U.S., obviously, must play no role, as they defied international law to create this conflict in the first place. That said, the U.S. should be held to account financially for an international stabilization force composed of still-credible actors (on this score anyway) on the international stage (Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, Canada, Russia, China, India, Turkey, Argentina) in collaboration with the Arab League and the Non-Aligned movement.
The one thing we can be sure of is that any further U.S. involvement will only continue playing into the hands of the radicals on both sides domestically, while ensuring non-cooperation from the majority of nations that remain credible on this issue, having voted against the phony rationale that the U.S. presented to the United Nations.
You made this mess. We'll clean it up. But only if you pull out militarily, give up all your colonial pretensions, allow the U.N. to take the lead in running the place, and compensate us financially for this extra burden you have left us with no choice but to take on.

rumsfeldius,

" ... To any foreign reader. Redcat is not a representative of america anymore than myself. "

I believe that is (already) my line, that is, from my post? Happy that you appreciated it, though.

" ... But note. Redcat, and his like,...'

Second mistake, if you will. Your (arrogant) assumption, about my gender, is incorrect, Sir, or would that be Madame?

" ... and are totally ignorant of the world outside them. They want to stay out of anyones backyard or demand nothing, for the simple reason that they are clueless about the modern world, or modern politics.
modern world, or modern politics. "

Third mistake. You should not assume that one is 'clueless', or uneducated with regard to 'modern politics', based solely on posts written on a blog.

" ... Like it or not, it is the US that has the wherewithal to provide stability to the world. We may make mistakes, but I invite any other country to take our role."

Fourth mistake. We are not currently providing 'stability'. And, while I can not predict the intentions of other countries, you should be careful about baiting others. Sometimes, they bite. Hard.

" ... What good there is in the world, comes from where? Who manufactured it?"

Fifth mistake if you truly believe that the US is responsible for all that is good in the world. All countries and people of the world contribute to its' value. Arrogance, versus pride, once again.

" ... Redcat's position is fundamentally flawed. It is based on the assumption that you can have it good, and pay nothing for it."

Our 'positions' are indeed different and I believe yours to be flawed, as well. With regard to 'paying' for it, you are correct in that payment is a requisite component of most 'transactions'. We differ in the ways in which we may believe that the US and other countries should 'pay', I suspect.

" ... YOu want cheap gas? You will have to fight for it. "

Or simply maintain close, personal and business relationships with the leaders of countries that will inevitably be responsible, along with some of our own leaders, for ignoring the importance of cultural differences between two societies, for the sake of making a buck. Your 'price' for 'cheap gas'? 3,000 deceased US citizens and countless other lives all over the world. Manufacturers can not produce hybrid vehicles to meet the demand, to date. We are beginning to figure it all out, but you are welcome, of course, to continue paying the 'price' for that relationship.

" ... ignorance ... isolationist ... stuck in the stone age, the West has evolved into the best intentioned and liberal empire (that's right, empire), the world has ever seen. Can you prove me wrong?"

Sixth mistake. Name-calling: 1) makes one appear immature, 2) reduces the quality of a forum/blog, and 3) is usually only resorted to when one has no actual idea to offer. Can I prove you wrong that the west/US isn't a 'well-intentioned and liberal empire'? Yes, but to do so, you will need to agree to consider those polling results regarding the world's opinion of the US/west. Enlightening, I tell you.

" ... As for your attacks on America (as 'our back yard), you know what, why aren't you sitting in prison? Where are your dissident credentials? What are you talking about our backyard? Where is the political repression you suffer? Oh, but I forgot, freedom is ok for you, safety is ok for you, wealth is ok for yo, but its not ok for the rest of the world!? Let them live in the stoneage, what do you care?"

Prison for disagreeing with you and/or the way in which the US is currently conducting its' business/foreign policy? Anyone who cares enough to voice disagreement in/with the US is a 'dissident'? For some strange reason, I am reminded of the word 'traitor' when reading your comments. Interesting assumption/statement on your part, but the 'traitor' charge has been heavily overplayed and has now become meaningless. You'll need to find and try to apply a different slur to your fellow American citizens. Thank you for revealing your true nature, though. You have saved me much valuable time.

" ... We want the right to publish any caricatures we like, without boycots, insults, and death threats. And guess what, that is a right we MUST demand."

The 'cartoon' topic can not be discussed here and I have already addressed the faulty thinking associated with the idea of making 'demands'.

" ... Obviously I do not represent america anymore than another american, but guess what, that's what makes our country great. "

The majority of Americans are good people and the majority of Americans do not like what is happening in this country, let alone in the rest of the world. I am no Pollyanna, and your final mistake was/is in underestimating how deeply I care about this country and the rest of the world. This is my homeland, the only one that I have ever known, and I will argue that we can do better, whether it suits you well, or not.

You, of the 'this is the best that we can do'/'there are no problems to be fixed'/'everything is fine as it is'/'we have the right to rule the world' variety - are slaughtering the spirit of this country and demeaning us throughout the world. There is real work to be done in America, and if you don't believe that this country can improve, or can not see the reasons why improvement and change are now required in too many arenas, then so be it. Leave the realizations and work to be done to the rest of us. We are not only up to the task but will work to make this country better while you sit around in denial and degrade your fellow American citizens - by calling them names. So much for decency and mutual respect.

We do not need to agree. Not every American thinks as you do, and I thank you for the opportunity to have responded to your comments.

Everyone has a right to modernity, progress, and liberty. Tyrany is out, it is finished.

To any foreign reader. Redcat is not a representative of america anymore than myself.

But note. Redcat, and his like, bask in the sun of their democracy and country's achivevement, and are totally ignorant of the world outside them. They want to stay out of anyones backyard or demand nothing, for the simple reason that they are clueless about the modern world, or modern politics.

Wake up and joint the 21st century Redcat. Whether you like it or not, we are part of the world, and either we will rot with the rest of the lot, or do our job. We have no choice, we are here.

The people of the world know that The US is part of the same world as they are. They cannot wish us away, nor can we wish them away. We are bound by trade in goods, ideas, capital, and labor.

Like it or not, it is the US that has the wherewithal to provide stability to the world. We may make mistakes, but I invite any other country to take our role.

And stop blaming us for the ills of the world. Why don't you for once blame folks like Saddam, Pol Pot, the Sauds, etc.? What good there is in the world, comes from where? Who manufactured it?

Redcat's position is fundamentally flawed. It is based on the assumption that you can have it good, and pay nothing for it. YOu want cheap gas? You will have to fight for it.

In the mean time, you have a choice. Fight for it and spread the same standards of livign you are enjoying, or fight for it anyway, and make sure youre the only beneficiary. Which is better? So what is the idea of spreading democracy and markets?

Futhermore, it is only ignorance which creates the view of the West and America that Redcat has. You can cast doubt on the West's intent, but the fact is, that outside of a bunch of isolationist like yourself, stuck in the stone age, the West has evolved into the best intentioned and liberal empire (that's right, empire), the world has ever seen. Can you prove me wrong? Or let me guess, you want a utopian world with no empires, just isolated kingdoms practicing female circumcision and beheading "infidels" who disagree with them (Saudi Arabia beheading of those who so much as posses a Bible).

As for your attacks on America (as 'our back yard), you know what, why aren't you sitting in prison? Where are your dissident credentials? What are you talking about our backyard? Where is the political repression you suffer? Oh, but I forgot, freedom is ok for you, safety is ok for you, wealth is ok for yo, but its not ok for the rest of the world!? Let them live in the stoneage, what do you care?

Yes we have not only a righ to demand respect for human rights worldwide, we have a duty to fight for them. Is it Arrogant? No. We want the right to publish any caricatures we like, without boycots, insults, and death threats. And guess what, that is a right we MUST demand.

Obviously I do not represent america anymore than another american, but guess what, that's what makes our country great.

EDG wrote-
"Only a blind liberal would think that the whole story of Iraq is printed or broadcast by the liberal media."

And only a Bush-worshipping cultist would think for a moment that anyone in this administration has any interest in getting the truth out.

EDG also wrote-
"Have a soldier risk his life to rescue an Iraqi civilian from a burning building or mid-wife the birth of a baby under primitive conditions and no prior training and the story gets page 24, bottom right or no play at all."

To be honest, I'd like to see some more stories on this myself. Maybe someone should put the soldiers in question in for medals. I mean, George Tenet got one, despite the CIA's abject failure to prevent 9/11. Surely we could have a big ceremony honoring the actual heroes, instead of rewarding unqualified cronies.

EDG also wrote-
"So where is the Sec Def wrong about our problem with getting the full story out. "

The SecDef is PART of the problem. Abu Grahib would never have been an issue if there had been clear orders from above, to every point in the chain of command, not to do disgusting things like that and embarass the military and the nation, while harming our intelligence efforts and our image with Iraqis. Even after it happened, Rumsfeld and those at the highest levels of the DoD could've done quite a bit to defuse the situation, by making examples of those responsible, not merely the ones participating, but their commanding officers all the way up the chain who failed to offer proper guidance to their subordinates. But there was no guidance from the top.
This is the man who said "you go to war with the Army you have", when he could've devoted his career to making our Army the best we could have. Where's that armor? How long since they asked? How many have died for lack of it?

EDG also wrote-
"Keep in mind, he has never called for censoring the media and their one sided stories."

Well, not out loud. Not yet. Though his bosses love accusing everyone who disagrees with them of treason.

EDG-
"Has only called for "balanced news coverage"."

What, like Fox News? The network so UNfair and IMbalanced they had to copyright the phrase "fair and balanced" so no one else could use it against them? A stunt like that wouldn't be necessary if the slogan was actually true.

EDG-
"We can't influence the foreign press but we can influence our own."

Um, actually, we have been unduly influencing the foreign press. Remember how the Pentagon was paying Iraqi "reporters" to print positive stories? No, wait, you must not have read that...

EDG-
"My answer is simple................I don't buy the Washington Post or any other liberal news publication. I wait for someone to discard it in the gutter or abandon it on a table. I don't believe in paying for bias and prejudice in the news."

I'm betting you don't apply this principle equally to flagrantly conservative publications. But to you those probably seem "fair and balanced." Because in your mind, it's obvious, "biased" means "not in absolute agreement with your own prejudices."

EDG-
"The recent "major story" concerning V.P. Cheney's hunting accident was a waste of paper and ink after day one.

We learned this from Nixon, Clinton and every Washington scandal between, before, or since. "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up." It's bad enough Cheney shot a man, but it would've faded away pretty quickly if he had immediately admitted it, shown it was an honest mistake, and accepted responsibility. Instead the White House spent days stonewalling and blaming the victim. And there are troubling questions about Cheney's drinking and lack of a hunting license, which would never have come up if it were an honest accident, and he came clean at the first opportunity. It's a perfect example of the administration's "shoot first, don't answer questions later" attitude. The reason the story is so captivating is that it shows in miniature what's being done on a global scale. We have leaders who wield deadly weapons, under questionable legal authority, possibly with impaired judgement, and don't fully think through what they're doing.

And finally, EDG wrote-
"Give me a break..................Give me a balanced report. I can take it. I can even handle the truth and so can most Americans."

Actually, no, you can't handle the truth. If you were exposed to it you'd either refuse to see it or run away screaming. Many Americans have this same problem. They just don't want to hear that their leaders could be wrong.

Conservatives used to be wary of overly large and intrusive governments. Until one of their own was running a much worse example than any Democrat, then they just turned into mindless sheep and parrots.

If Rumsfeld is so futuristic, whyn hasa his tenure at Defense been an abomnibal failure. From greeting us with roses to the insurgency is no big thing it'll wear itself out in a few weeks, to spending billions per fighter, with noone who can keep up with what we have now!
He's incompetent and shrouded in his own delusion of correctness.

" ... Teaching the world about america and west involves teaching them that as a people we are not bread to conquer other lands. Our intuitions are good."

The US/west has, and is currently engaged in, conquering other lands. You won't 'teach' individuals not to believe what they can see with their own eyes. 'Intentions' are self-serving and always have been. Money and moneymaking would serve as examples of 'good intentions'.

" ... The global economy the west has helped create, it maintains mostly at its own cost but for everyone's benefit (including its own). Yes, it is true we maitain it for our benefits and theirs, but only we pay the money."

In fact, the US' growing, colossal debt is financed by other countries and while certain 'everyone's' may benefit from this arrangement, others clearly are not. Additionally, easy research will reveal that the US is the stingiest country in the west with regard to the percentage of foreign aid contributed by non-private sources. Countries with much less give much more. They are paying the money, and not the US.

" ... But as much as we can, we use our expertise, our knowledge, and resoureces, to spread better standards of living. This is the raison d'etre of the West. It is the underlying rational of our existance."

Whose standards of living have been increased? Surely you are not referring to the peoples of the ME? The 'raison d'être of the West' is, to date, to take care of the west, at least from some people's perspectives. That serves as its' 'underlying rationale', as well.

" ... We have no idea what people out there think about us."

Browse some polls and it will be easy to know what people think of us. Or, for more specific examples, simply watch television and see whose flag is being burned and in how many different countries.

" ... Other's claim that our policies are biased. They are not. The policies of the US have been the most consistent of any country, and this message needs to be conveyd urgently."

The west's/US' policies are self-serving, biased, and inconsistent, to boot. 'Democracy' in Iraq (to be overseen by individuals heavily associated with politicos and business-people in the west/US) while we maintain 'good' personal and business relationships with members of the House of Saud and President Mubarak, for example? Consistent does not apply to the US/west's policies and the people of the world know it.

" ... For the last fifty years we have battled totalitarian regimes, and have supported pluralims, human righs and democracies."

For the last 50 years the US/west has 'battled' that which threatened them or their 'friends of the moment'. Granted, in between, some decent battles were fought, as well. At the same time, the US/west supported/propped up regimes that were involved in nothing short of consistent and repeated inhumane treatment of their own people. Shook Mr. Hussein's hand as he gassed the Kurds and invaded his country a decade later. Human rights? Look in your own backyard. Abu Ghraib, GITMO, and renditions will be recorded in history and will haunt the US until the end of time. Any 'standards' that the US claimed to honor and/or maintain have been extinguished by its' own actions. If the US is now further reviled on the world stage, it is because it deserves to be. Proud? The US has now become that which it once stated it abhorred.

" ... If you want to see endemic and persistent corruption, go to Brazil, or Russia, or Nigeria. America does not belong in this group of countries ... our democracy does not penalize civic activity, hence it is civic groups that help curb corruption."

'Endemic and persistant corruption' are alive and well in DC. Just watch the 'news'. And, these days 'civic activity' (even by a group of Quakers) could result in an individual's name being added to a database for the purposes of investigating their possible associations to 'terrorism'. Terrifically encouraging with regard to promoting democratic values.

" ... The mistake with Iraq began with propaganda."

Began? Or, began and is continuing?

" ... Instead of creating fear through WMDs, president Bush should have stressed Democracy from the start. We are there to democratize."

It remains to be seen exactly why the US is in Iraq. My guess is that it has something to do with oil and profits from same.

" ... That the invasion was based on a lie does not invalidate the underlying democratic mission. Anyone who doubts this needs to address the question of why we send our best political experts to Iraq, to help write their law, to help form a govenrment representative of their people, to help bring stability. Yes, the WMD's are a lie."

The invasion of Iraq underlies ANY democratic principle - in theory or otherwise. Why are US 'experts' there? Why is Mr. Karzai the leader of Afghanistan? To answer your question: the 'experts' (oil businessmen and otherwise) are there to ensure that Iraq and Iraqi law are structured such that the US/west can continue to defend the invasion in addition to ensuring that US/allied influence is not reduced within the country. The day that all US/western 'influences/experts' are absent from Iraq is the day that Iraq will truly be free.

" ... But why do we go to such pains to bring Sunnins into the coalition if it would be much easier to split Iraq into three and take off?"

WE? Interesting, revealing choice of words there. Answer? For the same reason that the Independent party is included in US politics. BTW, the 'experts' efforts to unify anything in Iraq is failing miserably, as of today. Apparently, "WE"/they need to rethink the approach/strategy.

" ... Ask yourself this. Many of you despair about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Darfur, etc. These are reactionary governments with no long-term interests in the diverse needs of their people. These governments use force to stay in power. They ignore their people."

Again, perhaps you should look into your own backyard before you criticize other countries?

" ... So ask yourself, what is so bad with bringing in democracy, which demands their government represent everyone in the country?"

What is 'so bad' about forcing another country to adopt your own political system? Believing that you have any right whatsoever to do so in the first place. If, though, it is OK to do that, then I suppose that you are ready to become a Communist, when they 'bring it in"?

" ... How do you want to undermine the reactionary Saudies, if you do not demand they open up their politics to plurality?"

Demand? Who are you to make a 'demand' of anyone? Haven't you figured out yet that that arrogant attitude is exactly what needs to disappear from the US' 'policies'? The US, because it is the US, doesn't get to make 'demands', of any country. Keep doing so and see where the US ends up.

" ... Many say "if you let them vote, they vote in Islamists". Sure, BUT, if they are to remain democratic, they also have to maintain the existance of secularists, feminists, socialists, and so on. So if that isn't the way to address their totalitarian mindset, what is?"

They vote in democratic elections and vote in Islamist leaders? That is reality, the will of the people. I GUESS YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO RESPECT THAT AND - NEWS FLASH - DEAL WITH IT. Again, who are you to dictate to anyone that they have to 'maintain' any particular value?

" ... Yes, as Americans we have a clear responsible to the world. It is to improve human rights for EVERYONE. This message needs to be made loud and clear, and I agree with everyone here, that the message has to be matched by consistent action"

Your attitude represents the worst of what the US has to offer to anyone.

I hereby ask any foreign reader to understand that this individual does NOT represent all Americans - any more than I do.

We think differently here - and thankfully so.

For what it is worth, the 2/2/06, 9:07:06 AM post addressed to Rumsfledius is made by Winston Smith

To Rumsfeldius: You ask me to prove the assumptions that underly my assertion that, "Those that routinely lie lose the ability to discern the truth." I have no empirical proof, only my experience and intuition that this is an accurate statement. The logic, however, goes something like this: A lie is always conscious, intentional act. A person uttering a lie may come to believe the lie to be fact when it is constantly repeated as a truth by the liar and by sychophantic underlings. Also, when the lie is integral to a larger overall thesis, the person tends to come to believe their own lie even if at the time of its initial utterance they knew or believed it to be untrue because of the lie's necessity to that thesis. Thus, a lie always must start out as a knowing and intentional act. A lie can, however, morph into a self-induced delusion where the actor actually believes his or her own lies. Once you begin to believe your own lies with respect to some particular subject, your ability to discern the truth about that subject is diminished.

from Winston Smith: "Those who routinely lie lose the ability to discern the truth." This is an assumption, you would have to prove. Lying and discerning truth may be unrelatted. People can lie without knowing it - most do. People can lie knowing it - most do. Discerning truth is an altogether different artform.

from my original post: "Second, we need to educate the global public about the West and America."
from David reply: But, would that consist of actually telling them the truth? There is nothing that I have seen from Rummy or the administration in general that suggests that would the case.

Per context. Teaching the world about america and west involves teaching them that as a people we are not bread to conquer other lands. Our intetions are good. People also need to learn more about the general international situation, so they stop trying to blame each and every problem on western neo-imperialism. In the West we help maintain the system, but we do not run it. The global economy the west has helped create, it maintains mostly at its own cost but for everyone's benefit (including its own). Yes, it is true we maitain it for our benefits and theirs, but only we pay the money. This global economy is dominated by security arrangements with America, and NATO, and this will not change. These security arrangements cannot nor will they be able to bring paradise to everyone. But as much as we can, we use our expertise, our knowledge, and resoureces, to spread better standards of living. This is the raison d'etre of the West. It is the underlying rational of our existance.

Frankly, in America we take way too much for granted. Maybe that's what domestic propaganda should address. As for the world outside the bubble. We have no idea what people out there think about us. But there are a lot of bad urban legends, and they need to be refuted, otherwise people will go on insisting that we are biased, and that our intentions are bad. Such claims include bizzare accusations of kidnapping Brazilian children for organ transplants, or deliberately spreading AIDS in Africa. These need to be countered, and not just by a backwood webpage of the state department. Other's claim that our policies are biased. They are not. The policies of the US have been the most consistent of any country, and this message needs to be conveyd urgently. Our enemies portay us as week-willed adventurers, willing to drop a few bombs for a few HOllywood moments. They caricature us as inconsistent, vapid, and glutunous. Granted this may be a problem in our populace, but contrary to beliefs, this is a global problem common to all cultures. As a political body, however, we are not inconsistent nor vapid. For the last fifty years we have battled totalitarian regimes, and have supported pluralims, human righs and democracies. Too many folks out there believe that Iran-Contra proove this wrong. That we too somehow engage in the world only for imperialisms sake. The message needs to be made, that Iran-Contra was persecuted by our own system, and that it was an abberation from our general policies. France, Germany, Japan, all practice politics no better than Iran-Contra, but you wouldn't think so, because their judiciary almost never catches them. All systems are prone to corruption, and the fact that in America we have stopped corruption, does not prove we are corrupt as a society. If you want to see endemic and persistent corruption, go to Brazil, or Russia, or Nigeria. America does not belong in this group of countries, and that needs to be made clear. Further, the reaoson we do not belong to this group is because our democracy does not penalize civic activity, hence it is civic groups that help curb corruption. These and many other messages need to be made clear to the world, and apparently to the American people.

from my original post: "Too many people out there think we are here to conquer them. That is the result of decades of unchecked propaganda."
from David reply: Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of Iraqis that would argue that the above statement is nonsense. And they would be right. Unfortunately, they have lots of company in the region, and the world, that can point to the actions of our government that contradict the notion that, "The west has on(l)y one global commitment improve human and civil rights by increasing standards of living."

These Iraqi's are wrong. We need to get that out to everyone. The mistake with Iraq began with propaganda. Instead of creating fear through WMDs, president Bush should have stressed Democracy from the start. We are there to democratize. That the invasion was based on a lie does not invalidate the underlying democratic mission. Anyone who doubts this needs to address the question of why we send our best political experts to Iraq, to help write their law, to help form a govenrment representative of their people, to help bring stability. Yes, the WMD's are a lie. But why do we go to such pains to bring Sunnins into the coalition if it would be much easier to split Iraq into three and take off?

Ask yourself this. Many of you despair about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Darfur, etc. These are reactionary governments with no long-term interests in the diverse needs of their people. These governments use force to stay in power. They ignore their people. So ask yourself, what is so bad with bringing in democracy, which demands their government represent everyone in the country? How do you want to undermine the reactionary Saudies, if you do not demand they open up their politics to plurality? Many say "if you let them vote, they vote in Islamists". Sure, BUT, if they are to remain democratic, they also have to maintain the existance of secularists, feminists, socialists, and so on. So if that isn't the way to address their totalitarian mindset, what is?

Or would you all rather we sit on our buts, and bitch about beheadings in Ryiad?

Yes, as Americans we have a clear responsible to the world. It is to improve human rights for EVERYONE. This message needs to be made loud and clear, and I agree with everyone here, that the message has to be matched by consistent action.

excuse me, but, i think the dialogue for impeachment for the entire 'HURRICANE KATRINA' stupidity should be laid at the feet of the entire congress. the more i listen, watch, and read about the disrespect that is being directed toward our 'total country' is ground for impeachment for 'incompetence' and 'greeed.' when are we going to decide enough is enough or do we like being 'abused & misused'. for me it seems the entire time i watch congresspersons it appears to me they all seem to have the same kind of arrogant sneer of the 'thugs' i watch in my low-moderate community and the message i get is (bad word) y'all! the next time you watch a telecasdt look and see if you 'see' the same look?
i.e. (BAD WORD) Y'ALL!

yours in the struggle
abu

"Arrogance, Stupidity, Incompetence and a Fool."

The 3 Stooges (Bush, Cheney & Gonzalles) and their Congressional Committee of 8 are AIDING the terrorists in destroying the United States of America.

Ops, my mistake there are 4 Stooges.

Let us not forget Donald Rumsfeld.

What you say?

"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' defense of NSA warrant less surveillance today before Congress today is expected to stress not only the President's powers during wartime, but also contain an attack on "misinformed, confused" news accounts, according to Time Magazine." (Washington Post W.M. Arkin)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles should be Disbarred for Incompetence.

Warrants are Required.

And it is Time for Impeachment.

Yes I said Impeachment.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Donald Rumsfeld should all be Impeached for the following reasons;

On Sunday on NBC Meet the Press (1-29-2006) Sen. Bill Frist (R. from Tenn.) admitted that only 8 people in Congress new about "President George Walker Bush's Domestic Surveillance/Spying Program" and Sen. Frist stated "We all new the program was illegal but we figured the FISA law and FISA Court were outdated so we went ahead with the Domestic Spy Program using the NSA anyway."

Then Meet the Press aired a news clip from August of 2004 when President George Walker Bush gave a similar statement to the press and the country admitting that the Domestic Spy Program was illegal and that he was in VIOLATION of the LAW and he said "And I don't care."

Then Meet the Press's Tim Russert pointed out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 in Sec. 1809 says that a WARRANT is REQUIRED to do the surveillance that President George Walker Bush has dictated.

Sen. Frist admitted that he and his committee had been involved in seeking FISA Warrants in the past and it only took about one hour at the most to receive them as long as they had their facts from the surveillance already done recorded and in order for the FISA Judge to see.

Sen. Frist admitted "We all know that we could perform surveillance up to 3 days without even trying to get the warrant first and then go get one from a FISA Judge. But that's just too much hassle."

The 4th Amendment requires the President to get a Warrant to do any surveillance as that it is a form of search according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Patriot Act requires the President to get a Warrant to any kind of surveillance.
I'm sorry but they have admitted their CRIMES on national TV.

It is time they are all IMPEACHED according to the Law and the United States Constitution.

President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Romfeld did the Crime so they must so they must all do the TIME.

And what makes this all even worse is the fact that the illegally obtained evidence which is more commonly called "Fruit of the Poison Tree" is all the already convicted terrorists need to have their convictions over turned on Appeal.

Hence setting the terrorists FREE and according to the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists cannot be charged again for the same crime.

This means that President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are all GUILTY of HIGH TREASON for AIDING the Terrorists in the Commission of and getting away with the terrorist acts/crimes that they were originally charged with.

And any Active Duty Military personal who would and or do choose to show their support for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld are in fact guilty of VIOLATING their Military Oath of Service to the United States of America.

Because the Oath of Service clearly States that they (the active duty military personal) are Sworn to Uphold the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America to which President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld have in fact VIOLATED.

The Presidents Powers are dictated by law, i.e. F.I.S.A. of 1978 Sec. 1809 which states that a Warrant is Required.

And the Patriot Act Title 1 Sec. 101 through 106 and Title 2 Sec. 201 through 225.

Title 1 Sec. 106 specifically does not give the President to do Warrant less surveillance.

Read it for yourselves.

"SEC. 106. PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.
Section 203 of the International Emergency Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) at the end of subparagraph (A) (flush to that
subparagraph), by striking ''; and'' and inserting a comma
and the following:
''by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States;'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting '', block during the pendency of
an investigation'' after ''investigate''; and
(ii) by striking ''interest;'' and inserting ''interest
by any person, or with respect to any property, subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States; and'';
(C) by striking ''by any person, or with respect to
any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States'; and
(D) by inserting at the end the following:
18 USC 3056
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00007 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 278 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities
or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign
nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign
organization, or foreign country that he determines has
planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities
or attacks against the United States; and all right, title,
and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when,
as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such
agency or person as the President may designate from
time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the
President may prescribe, such interest or property shall
be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise
dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the
United States, and such designated agency or person may
perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment
or furtherance of these purposes.''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
''(c) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.--In any judicial review of a
determination made under this section, if the determination was
based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the
Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be
submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This
subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.''."
Title 2 Sec. 225 Specifically does not give the President or anybody the authority to do Warrant less surveillance or searches.
"SEC. 225. IMMUNITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH FISA WIRETAP.
Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended by inserting after subsection
(g) the following:
18 USC 2510
note.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:15 Nov 05, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00056 Frm 00025 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL056.107 APPS24 PsN: PUBL056
115 STAT. 296 PUBLIC LAW 107-56--OCT. 26, 2001
''(h) No cause of action shall lie in any court against any
provider of a wire or electronic communication service, landlord,
custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent,
or other specified person thereof) that furnishes any information,
facilities, or technical assistance in accordance with a court order
or request for emergency assistance under this Act.''."

"High on Gonzales' list no doubt will be the front page Washington Post story yesterday focusing on whether the expanded post 9/11 surveillance yielded any important intelligence or big fish. The Post story argues that NSA "dismissed nearly all" of the potential suspects as having any terrorist connection."(WP W.M. Arkin)

To prevent another 9/11 attack from happening again we must Impeach President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld who are doing more to AID the terrorists with their illegal Domestic Surveillance Program which produces "fruit of the poison tree" evidence which they have used to convict terrorists already and their convictions will be over turned on Appeal because of the illegally obtained evidence.

Therefore the President, Vice President and Congressional Committee of 8 and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzalles along with all NSA personal involved in the Illegal Surveillance Program are in fact Aiding the terrorists in their terrorist acts against the United States of America which is an Act of HIGH TREASON on their part. As that in accordance with the Double Jeopardy Rule the terrorists Can Not be Charged again for their same crime/terrorist act and that they will be released free to attack again as soon as the Appeals Court over turns their convictions because the illegally obtained evidence ("fruit of the poison tree") was used to convict them.

"I have been wondering myself what NSA might have collected through this and other expanded post 9/11 surveillance programs so my hat's off to the reporters for compiling a difficult to get to story."(WP W.M. Arkin)

The 1998 Whistle Blowers Protection Act is the law that will protect the good guy/girl that had the common sense to tell the public about the Illegal Surveillance Program of President George Walker Bush, Vice President Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Committee on Inteligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld.

If we as a Country approach this situation according to our own laws and obey them then them the terrorists will not get a second chance at a 9/11 type of attack again.

"But a zero for 5,000 record -- if indeed even nothing of use came from the eavesdropping on some 5,000 persons -- shouldn't be taken as either proof of failure or illegality." (WP W. M. Arkin)

5000 Violations of the Law and 5000 reasons to Impeach the President, Vice President and the Congressional Committee of 8(Senate Commttee on Inteligence),A.G. and the Sec. Def.
.
"It's all about the dots. Failure to connect the dots was the cause of 9/11, the administration thinks, and anything we do today to collect -- and connect -- dots is a positive step in the direction of preventing another attack."(WP W.M. Arkin)

Yes exactly right providing we do it by the book and in accordance with the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

"I would argue that the failure to connect the dots prior to 9/11 was caused by massive incompetence on the part of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, by excessive secrecy born of government power struggles and arrogance,"(WP W.M. Arkin)

Again 100% Right. And the arrogance of President George Walker Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 (Senate Committee on Intelligence), A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and now Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld is AIDING the terrorists in their actions.

Good intensions or not, they still broke the LAW.

As a former Judge/Professor once told me "There is no acceptable excuse for breaking the law."

If we are going to convict a terrorist then let us do it by the book so they do not go free to have a second chance for another 9/11 type of attack.

Let us convict them right from the start.
It is Time for President George Walker Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Congressional Committee of 8 , A.G. Alberto Gonzalles and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to all are Impeached before they aid the terrorist even more.

Sp4MP B.T. Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

The new 'news' initiative has apparently already begun to be implemented here at home.

Perhaps the 'news' will be picked up and repeated abroad.

'Foreign policy' has apparently been revamped, per statement below regarding management of certain US ports:

"I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly,'" Bush said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200602\POL20060221b.html

Hey, maybe a good place to start upgrading our technology would be for the Secretary of Defense to start using this new-fangled technology called "E-mail".

http://daysbreak.blogspot.com/2006/02/apparently-today-is-wtf-friday-after.html

Just a thought.

Those who routinely lie lose the ability to discern the truth. If Rumsfeld thinks any significant portion of our troubles in Iraq are due to inadequate public relations, he's either once again attempting to propagandize us (lie) or he's gone completely around the bend. If he actually believes such drivel, then he HAS lost all ability to see the truth.

p.s. CHE - You seem impervious to other posters calls for you to get on topic and to stop long posts of other writer's ideas when a link would do. What's up? At least engage us and explain yourself.

"Second, we need to educate the global public about the West and America."
But, would that consist of actually telling them the truth? There is nothing that I have seen from Rummy or the administration in general that suggests that would the case.

"Too many people out there think we are here to conquer them. That is the result of decades of unchecked propaganda."
Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of Iraqis that would argue that the above statement is nonsense. And they would be right. Unfortunately, they have lots of company in the region, and the world, that can point to the actions of our government that contradict the notion that, "The west has on(l)y one global commitment improve human and civil rights by increasing standards of living."

If you want to preach the "good news," it might behoove one to stop creating "bad news," i.e wars fought for political reasons, installing/propping up dictatorships. Otherwise, you end up sounding like a hypocritical blowhard, and no amount of PR, spin, propaganda, or just plain lies can counter that.

I applaud each of you!! (except Che and EDG of course) I couldn't have said it better than each of you already have! To hell with waiting for 2008. Do you think we could get away with a public stoning? There isn't a rope long enough...

"But Dubai's record is hardly unblemished. Two of the
hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from the United
Arab Emirates and laundered some of their money
through its banking system. It was also the main
transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani
nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear
proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met
Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge
equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from
there to Libya."

NYT February 22, 2006

the bush adminstration thinks of the american public as a group of MUSHROOMS THAT CAN BR KEPT IN THE DARK AND FED BULLCRAP. they are reclassifying documents so that the american public cannot find out the truth about 911-Iraq--Iran--Isreal---Drugs---the Border---Cheney's accident Eyc.

Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, Saddam in the restaurant, No. 2 Al Queda in Pakistan. Brief victories in the war on truth. Rumsfeld has lied to himself for so long, he has lost any moral bearings.

Informed decisions?---What a odd concept...
----------
"If too little information is shared or made public, no one can make informed decisions."

"In short, secrecy leaves us less prepared to face the great challenges of the day. What if, before 9/11, information about Al Qaeda was more widely shared within the government?
What if, before 9/11, the public was more informed of the warnings of terrorist attacks within the government?
Armed with information, people might have been more alert.

The government must conduct some work in the shadows; paradoxically in a democratic society, some secrets must be kept to protect democracy. But we need more incentives for information sharing, more rapid systems of declassification, and more public understanding of what our government does and does not do."

[Source: A Christian Science Monitor's Opinion Essay
by: Mr. Lee H. Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p09s01-coop.html?s=hns]
---------------------
But the Clinton and the Bush Executive Branchs had and have other ideas for us citizens/voters.
First they had to fix the facts though...
------------------------
Reclassification Program at National Archives Exposed

U.S. military and intelligence agencies have assigned personnel to review and reclassify declassified historical records at the National Archives where they have withdrawn thousands of records from public access.

In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies
have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were
available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians.

Source: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12008.htm
Article is on the front page of the New York Times.
See "U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review" by Scott Shane, New York Times, February 21.
Hat tip: Secrecy news & Information Clearing House as compliers.
-----------
Robert Parry writes on Consortium News:

"As the Executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws." [See Consortiumnews.com's "End of Unalienable Rights."] Hat tip: ICH
-----------
Rbt Parry also pens the following:
------------
"Info War

The Bush administration's obsession with controlling the flow of information also carries a foreboding sense of doom to anyone who believes in a vibrant democracy. It now appears that Bush's concept of a terrorist "affiliate" is sliding inexorably toward covering people who present facts that undermine Bush's "information warfare" goals.

On Feb. 17, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that the battle over information will be a decisive front in the War on Terror and juxtaposed "the enemy" and "news informers" as part of the problem.

"We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life is at stake and the center of gravity of that struggle is not simply on the battlefield overseas; it's a test of wills, and it will be won or lost with our publics, and with the publics of other nations," Rumsfeld said.

"We'll need to do all we can to attract supporters to our efforts and to correct the lies that