Thanks and a question...

thanks, jc,  for bringing the rob kall/john dean interview to the pages of opednews. now...forgive my ignorance - does CYA mean "cover you asses?" i was wondering as i listened to him say that the other night.

regarding domestic spying before 9/11 - it's astounding how the msm refuses to recognize this in any meaningful way. it's important to remember that pelosi was informed of warrantless surveillance early on and well before the lid was blown off. we need to know when she was informed of it.

from an earlier opednews article, The Democratic Majority:

In a 2006 oped, Nancy Pelosi remarked that the president’s admission that he authorized the electronic surveillance on Americans is a "wake-up call for intensive congressional oversight of intelligence activities." With no expression of constitutional responsibility, she acknowledges that she, herself, had been informed of the president’s authorization. She went on to excuse herself by stating "But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval."

Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, raises another unsettling question. According to the former head of Qwest Communications, the NSA sought assistance with surveillance in February 2001, challenging the repeated claim that 9/11 "changed everything." The question then, is "What Did Pelosi Know about NSA, and When Did She Know It?"

by Cheryl Biren-Wright (19 articles, 23 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 351 comments) on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM
 

You Got It

That's exactly what CYA means.

And if you wanna know the truth, NSA has been collecting telephone data and signals "intelligence" for a long, long time now. They just kept a low profile on their "vacuum cleaner" technology and actually stuck to protocol in minimization procedures that eliminated innocent American communications from the data they kept, and didn't allow info they received to be used by the Dpt of Justice as evidence in cases against Americans.

An earlier version was called ECHELON, and if you google it you'll find out more than you want to know.

But Bush stepped everything up and started using it for everything. Can there be any doubt that he has also used it for political gain?

Yes, Pelosi knew about some of it, and that's exactly why she took impeachment off the table.

Everyone that knew and was briefed on the program's specifics should be tried. "State secrets" and "presidential privilege" has become an absolute joke when it is used to commit crimes against the American people.

I talked about that in another article They can do it to all of us .

When the secrets the government keeps hurt Americans, they are secrets that aren't worth keeping.

by JC Garrett (38 articles, 62 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 558 comments) on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM
 

The Real Wussies

are those who support the Congress.

The Democratic and Republican parties are the enemies of freedom, human rights, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You make apologies for them (yes, I am talking about MoveOn, PDA and every other Democratic apologist organization out there) then you have lost your right to complain about their cowardice and complicity.

They are just following your lead. 

by Michael Cavlan (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 225 comments) on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 1:19:37 PM
 

What is your goal?

I don't know if you've noticed, but most everyone here criticizes politicians when they need it no matter if they are Republican or Democrat. In fact, more Democrats are criticized on OpEd News than any Republican other than George W. Bush.

As much as I like Obama, and as much as I have supported his candidacy, I have come down hard on him when he does the wrong thing. I think that a majority of Democrats in Congress should be booted out tomorrow, and replaced by people who will do the right thing. But there are a few who are the real deal.

There are few here who voice support for bad members of Congress. There are few here who will vote for them.

Now, what out of all that gives you reason to call those people "wussies?"

What, with all your bitching and moaning about people who merely say they are going to vote in this election, are you trying to accomplish? Are you saying they should not vote? Are you saying they should only vote for candidates who have no shot at winning more than a miniscule percentage of the vote?

If you have a purpose, I'd like to know what it is, and how you think that what you are doing could possibly be of benefit. 

by JC Garrett (38 articles, 62 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 558 comments) on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 5:28:30 PM
 

Cavlan makes good point

I think what Cavlan is saying is that the real wussies are the apathetic American voters, perhaps not you but me, who by and large accept what is happening, the corruption and violation of the Constitution, under this administration. I am a 63 year old veteran who has just recently, (within the past five years) come to the realization that our electred officials work for us and should be responsive to us. I, like most Americans I know was always intimidated to call them or write them. Why should that be? Most Americans are not even sure who their reps are or how they feel on certain issues. They are afraid to ask. E-mail has helped to change that, making our reps more responsive, but, sadly no more available or accountable. For the most part they simply get back (within seconds) with a form email, thanking us for our concern, and asking our patience to excuse them for being so busy that they cannot respond further at this time (ever). I must have e-mailed my congressman, Bill Delahunt, D-MA, 20 times urging him to vote for impeachment. Finally he wrote back saying he thought, like Pelosi, impeachment would be a "political distraction." Really? From what? Our illegal invasion of Iraq? Our oil grab of another country's resource? Political for him, maybe, but how much more damaging for the Constitution, our country and the rest of us if we fail to impeach? On principle alone we must. For legal reasons, not political reasons, we must. The democrats reasons against impeachment are not valid, legitimate, Constitutional reasons not to impeach, they are self-centered, political party reasons not to impeach. Staring us all right in the face are compelling, legal reason TO impeach that if we do not move ahead with, as mandated by their own vows, will be a very real and lost opportunity and sad day for this once great country of ours. Congressmasn Delahunt has not gotten back to me and I suppose never will. And this is precisely why I will never vote for him again and why I urge any and all of you who might be reading this to find out who your rep is and what their stated position is on impeachment and our corrupt administration. Most importantly don't forget to tell them your feeling on the subject and how you expect them to represent you, their boss.

Our lack of engagement, the 2 party system, the whole voting process has encouraged this disconnect. Conversely, our un-watched elected officials, realizing their unchecked freedom we have given them, especially incumbents, have become increasingly arrogant with power. This bubble will pop sooner than later. All it will take is one caught official to turn whistle blower before he's assasinated. The truth will out, like how three world trade buildings fell as if demolished with explosives rather than impossibly "collapsing" as reported, including one tower that wasn't even hit by a plane. Go figure. People may laugh at the conspiracy theory but more and more professionals and experts are putting their names behind what appear to be rational, unanswered questions. People get the type of government they deserve, not necessarily one that is designed for them or one they want and hope will be there for them.

I agree with Cavlan: we are the wussies and we are rapidly running out of time to get rid of Pelosi and demand, DEMAND impeachment in defense of our Constitution and for violations at the top which are staring us right in the face. History will judge us no less coldly than it does the wretched German majority who capitulated to the Nazis. Let the chips fall where they will until we get to the bottom of this and back on track. Do we want a government that tells us what is in our own best interest, or do we tell them?

It is the end of the Cold War which brings this new, self declared "threat" of terrorism to a head. It's no secret that banks make most of their money from war. Not only banks. Corporations, coincidentally the largest in the world. People. How much money does the military spend on special forces alone? And yet they have to hire mercenaries, ("defence contractors") which make about ten times as much money in one day of fighting, depending on the mission. The "War on Terrorism" is there and happening because the military industrial complex needs a war, some kind of war, any kind of war, to exist, to keep making money. One of the sayings I heard from senior officers during Vietnam which keeps returning to me is: "it may not be the best war but it's the only war we got right now." Capitalism needs growth to survive. The military needs war for promotions. And ironically, terrorism has demonstrated more than anything the ineffectiveness and irrelevance of our military which could do nothing but watch on 9/11 as the towers crumbled. Bush would have us believe we could fight terrorists on the battlefield, in the streets of Baghdad, and be just as successful as we were in bringing down the Germans. This defies reason because terrorism by definition, BY DEFINITION, is war proof. Think about it. All the nuclear submarines in the world could not prevent some psyched up teenager from strapping on a backpack of plastic explosives and walking into Grand Central Station at rush hour to do his or her thing. Terrorism doesn't apply just to bringing down tall buildings with our own commercial airplanes. How long did it take authorities to round up the two (American) nuts that were terrorizing Washington DC last summer.? And that was a freak catch. "War on terrorism" is a metaphor like war on drugs, on poverty. But in the case of "War on terrorism" it is instantly oxymoronic because there is no fighting it, not in the conventional sense, with weapons, not against an enemy with no return address.

by Nick van Nes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments) on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM
 

Real courage comes from knowing that you are dead.

Every combat soldier knows this.  Congress is just too special.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1210 comments) on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 4:18:04 PM