Bush/Nixon Ad

[toasty]

https://political.moveon.org/donate/notillegal.html

[superdave]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

Why not post something from the ACLU while you're at it? Of course, Moveon.org is working to damage the President because they are a leftist organization.

Today, the Senate Intelligence committee chairman said the "spying" Bush did was "legal, necessary and reasonable". I think he's more credible than Moveon.org.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[toasty]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

^^Least surprising post in the history of this board. Did you cut and paste that directly from the RNC website?

So typical -- attack the messenger, ignore the message. The drumbeat of the Republican Noise Machine. Citing Pat Roberts, though, is just sloppy -- it isn't going to help support your position amongst anyone that pays attention. What, are you going to tell me that Ted Stevens supports what Bush is doing, too? If you're going to attack the ad on the basis that it comes from a biased source, you can't then turn around and cite an uber-conservative like Roberts. Have you ever been to Kansas? For fuck's sake, they don't even teach evolution there anymore...

I'm not even going to bother discussing the content, primarily b/c I was too young to remember what Nixon did and can't really compare the two. I just thought it was an excellent and entertaining morphing effect.

[neoee]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

Why not post something from the ACLU while you're at it? Of course, Moveon.org is working to damage the President because they are a leftist organization.

Your right Moveon.org is a leftist organization.

Today, the Senate Intelligence committee chairman said the "spying" Bush did was "legal, necessary and reasonable".

Let's be realistic here. You don't know if the spying was "legal, necessary, and reasonable" because there is no way of knowing. There was no precedings to determine that (as should have been through FISA), and there is no record as a result.

Many times I hear the argument that if your not doing anything wrong and you have nothing to hide than this spying shouldn't bother you. How about the same people that use this argument apply it Bush and Co.? If he was doing nothing wrong why didn't he go to FISA? Maybe because he actually did have something to hide.

[BSully828]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

The problem I have with the comparison is that Nixon's motive was personal, Bush's was not. Tricky Dick was spying on political opponents so that he could get some inside info on their doings. While the legality/ethics of the NSA wiretapping is very debatable, it's hard to argue that their ultimate goal was to maintain the security of the country.

What bothers me the most about this whole mess is that politicians on both sides have once again made it personal. Those who support the wiretapping are the buttboys of Big Brother, those who oppose are terrorists. And sites like Moveon.org on the left and The Patriot on the right keep the shitstorm going rather than trying to see the other perspective or offer an objective alternative.

Bothered, but not surprised.

[BSully828]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

Many times I hear the argument that if your not doing anything wrong and you have nothing to hide than this spying shouldn't bother you. How about the same people that use this argument apply it Bush and Co.? If he was doing nothing wrong why didn't he go to FISA? Maybe because he actually did have something to hide.

I see what your saying, but I think that's jumping the gun a little bit.

Let's remember how all of this started waaay back in 01/02. After the initial shock/horror/pain of 9/11 the general consensus was "How could this have happened". We all (we'll at least I) certainly believed that when it came to intelligence gathering and world surveillance the US and its allies were at the top of their game. Thanks to iconic characters like James Bond, Jack Ryan, Steven Segal - alright maybe not Segal - and movies like Enemy Of The State, there was a sense that technology allowed us to at worst take out some rouge nation's attempt to hurt us on our own soil before it ever happened. That kind of stuff happened elsewhere, but not here - we're the biggest and the strongest after all. 9/11 changed all of that.

So put aside your like/dislike for Bush and Friends for just a minute and take an unbiased,objective look at things in those dark days. Imagine sitting in on one of the joint chief meetings during that time, listening in on a discussion about how this happened. Obviously the most glaring truth from that Tuesday morning was that our intelligence gathering abilities were absolute s-h-i-t. Too much red tape, too many hands in the pot. The quickest and most effective (perhaps if only temporary) solution was to Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.

It was clear that terror cells were in smooth and easy communication both within and outside US soil - emails, data transmissions and phone lines were ringing loud and clear. We had/have the technology to monitor their activity but there were hoops to jump through. Surely some of the required steps were as easy as signing a piece of paper - but remember, this is the system we had before as well 9/11 and look how that turned out.

So wouldn't it stand to reason that the admin wanted to make terrorist monitoring as simple a process as possible? Is it that outlandish to think that Bush said, "Alright, we obviously need to improve our info gathering skills. Let's cut out as many steps as possible to maximize the result." And in a laundry list of immediate changes that needed to be made was this NSA wiretapping. Instead of going through the usual bureaucratic obstacle course to get the OK on real suspects - just shave it down to it's most basic parts to make the process better...stronger....faster....

So if we follow that train of thought, doesn't it also make sense that "if it ain't broke - don't fix it"? Zero attacks on US soil since 9/11, multiple threats dismantled before taking affect that we know about (you have to believe that some attacks were stopped and never made public for intelligence reasons), and little opposition from politicians on the validity of the wiretappings. The system was working, the results were real and the American people were being kept safe.

My point is that it's easy to get swept away in the various conspiracy theories surrounding this. But, just as in normal life, Occam's Razor is at work 99.9% of the time - the simplest answer is usually the correct one. The talk of this "slippery slope" of widespread monitoring is a little obtuse IMO. I know we all like to think we're important beings in the grand scheme of things, but most our personal, day-to-day activities are of little interest to the government.

And say that day comes when the bigwigs in Washington do decide to listen in on Joe Bagadonuts from Utica, NY - just how long do you really think that will fly? Do you think that no one in that room will raise their hand and say, "Uhh - is this necessary?" If media attention is so strong on this wiretapping when its focused on terrorists, just imagine if it was on your average citizen. I'd bet my Tedy Bruschi autographed jersey that the whole New York Times office would explode in one huge orgasm right after they published an entire issue to exposing such action.

[/novel]

[neoee]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

Bsully I always value your opinion. It always seems fair, balanced and reasonable. However in this case I still assume the worst from the Evil Do'ers . I can see them wanting to make things more simple however their process allows processes to be followed after the fact and only a .02% chance they would even be denied. So theirs little room for excuses on their part.

I guess my views of this administration are a bit jaded as I do buy into one of the on going conspiracy theorys. When the public muslim community was aware of the 9/11 plans its hard to believe that our government didn't know.

For me it's pretty simple; he is given a job, regardless of how difficult it is he needs to do it, if he can't move over and let someone else do it. Red tape is no excuse for not serving your primary purpose. And what exactly is his main purpose? I think this may answer it:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[superdave]

Re: Bush/Nixon Ad

Let's remember how all of this started waaay back in 01/02. After the initial shock/horror/pain of 9/11 the general consensus was "How could this have happened". We all (we'll at least I) certainly believed that when it came to intelligence gathering and world surveillance the US and its allies were at the top of their game. Thanks to iconic characters like James Bond, Jack Ryan, Steven Segal - alright maybe not Segal - and movies like Enemy Of The State, there was a sense that technology allowed us to at worst take out some rouge nation's attempt to hurt us on our own soil before it ever happened. That kind of stuff happened elsewhere, but not here - we're the biggest and the strongest after all. 9/11 changed all of that.

So put aside your like/dislike for Bush and Friends for just a minute and take an unbiased,objective look at things in those dark days. Imagine sitting in on one of the joint chief meetings during that time, listening in on a discussion about how this happened. Obviously the most glaring truth from that Tuesday morning was that our intelligence gathering abilities were absolute s-h-i-t. Too much red tape, too many hands in the pot. The quickest and most effective (perhaps if only temporary) solution was to Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.

It was clear that terror cells were in smooth and easy communication both within and outside US soil - emails, data transmissions and phone lines were ringing loud and clear. We had/have the technology to monitor their activity but there were hoops to jump through. Surely some of the required steps were as easy as signing a piece of paper - but remember, this is the system we had before as well 9/11 and look how that turned out.

So wouldn't it stand to reason that the admin wanted to make terrorist monitoring as simple a process as possible? Is it that outlandish to think that Bush said, "Alright, we obviously need to improve our info gathering skills. Let's cut out as many steps as possible to maximize the result." And in a laundry list of immediate changes that needed to be made was this NSA wiretapping. Instead of going through the usual bureaucratic obstacle course to get the OK on real suspects - just shave it down to it's most basic parts to make the process better...stronger....faster....

So if we follow that train of thought, doesn't it also make sense that "if it ain't broke - don't fix it"? Zero attacks on US soil since 9/11, multiple threats dismantled before taking affect that we know about (you have to believe that some attacks were stopped and never made public for intelligence reasons), and little opposition from politicians on the validity of the wiretappings. The system was working, the results were real and the American people were being kept safe.

My point is that it's easy to get swept away in the various conspiracy theories surrounding this. But, just as in normal life, Occam's Razor is at work 99.9% of the time - the simplest answer is usually the correct one. The talk of this "slippery slope" of widespread monitoring is a little obtuse IMO. I know we all like to think we're important beings in the grand scheme of things, but most our personal, day-to-day activities are of little interest to the government.

And say that day comes when the bigwigs in Washington do decide to listen in on Joe Bagadonuts from Utica, NY - just how long do you really think that will fly? Do you think that no one in that room will raise their hand and say, "Uhh - is this necessary?" If media attention is so strong on this wiretapping when its focused on terrorists, just imagine if it was on your average citizen. I'd bet my Tedy Bruschi autographed jersey that the whole New York Times office would explode in one huge orgasm right after they published an entire issue to exposing such action.

[/novel]

Excellent post!