Bush OK'd spying on americans without warrents

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Bush ok's spying on americans without warrents.
I love it americans are always willing to trade a little of thier freedom for a false sence of security




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
perhaps someone ought to change those lyrics 'land of the free and the home of the brave' to something a lot more appropriate... or maybe just rewrite the whole national anthem......suggestions anyone??



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This article was released in an effort to push book sales.... Do you live in America?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CogitoErgoSum1
This article was released in an effort to push book sales.... Do you live in America?


where did you get that idea from and what does anyones geographical location have to do with it?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
CogitoErgoSum1 nailed it.....this "explosive" story was to promote a book release.

The NYT's and CNN should hang their heads in shame...their Liberal Bias fell down around their ankles once again.

Lets remember this happened in 2002 right after 9/11...we just had 3000 innocent people incinerated and we had no time to play games in court.....if there was further terror acts planned, the Bush Administration had to move quickly.

Who knows how many lives were saved by this quick action.

Well "wantsome"....better luck next time trying to make our good president look bad.....You failed.

Maximu§



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
CogitoErgoSum1 nailed it.....this "explosive" story was to promote a book release.

The NYT's and CNN should hang their heads in shame...their Liberal Bias fell down around their ankles once again.

Lets remember this happened in 2002 right after 9/11...we just had 3000 innocent people incinerated and we had no time to play games in court.....if there was further terror acts planned, the Bush Administration had to move quickly.

Who knows how many lives were saved by this quick action.

Well "wantsome"....better luck next time trying to make our good president look bad.....You failed.

Maximu§


so...
1. what was the name of the book it was supposed to be promoting?

2. what is the us government doing to find osama bin laden (as he was to blame for the death of those 3000+)

3. 'wantsome' doesnt need to try & make bush look bad - bush is actually quite capable of doing that job himself



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

No story. To me, this is further evidence of BS.

I am pointing this out because most people don't bother to read to the bottom of a story. That's where they put the real juicy stuff.

By the way, I am throwing the BS flag on the motive of the article, not any possible violations.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The book is called:

STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS. Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

We're looking for OBL and his Thugs, make no mistake, but It looks like you'll attack our good President whatever the facts are.

Beware of "explosive" news-stories that promote upcoming books....

Maximu§



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

I am pointing this out because most people don't bother to read to the bottom of a story. That's where they put the real juicy stuff.



actually, i did read the whole article and nowhere did it mention a book publication but it did mention a report. by definition, a report and a book are not the same thing



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I hope you read the article much better than you read my reply.

And I thought I was a skimmer!



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Maybe I'm missing something but why do you think this article is to promote this book? It's not in the article at all. This article is about Specter calling Bush to task. This kind of thing is going to happen a lot in the days to come.

And, yeah. Nobody needs to try to 'make this president look bad', He does a fine job of that all on his own.

I hear you, thouth, about being aware of news stories' purposes. But that doesn't change the facts.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
The book is called:

STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS. Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

We're looking for OBL and his Thugs, make no mistake, but It looks like you'll attack our good President whatever the facts are.

Beware of "explosive" news-stories that promote upcoming books....

Maximu§



thank you for naming the book. i take it that you would not read it or even check its claims even before it is published?

i think most of the world has the right to attack your president and the uk prime minister for lying to them over their 'facts' concerning iraq. i would still like to know exactly what is being done to find bin laden as its almost 2006 now and you STILL havent found him


i would beware of any news story promoting anything really, especially like those news reports which were found to be paid for fake propaganda for the us government - remember that?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The report, and who reported it:

The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote Friday morning.

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


See my reply a couple posts up the way to see why I am throwing a BS on the play.

The tail that is wagging the dog is not Spectre, but the times report that is being waved by the others.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Here is the info on Drudge about the book connection:


www.drudgereport.com...


max



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   






**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

link

book




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
LOL!
Looks like Matt is more conspiratorial than some on this board!


Of course, as the info is from Drudge's site, it will be held in contempt.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I hope you read the article much better than you read my reply.

And I thought I was a skimmer!


please point out in both the article and your reply where it mentions a 'book'. then look up the dictionary definition of 'report', then come back with another sarcastic comment




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Please stop skimming and see that my point was not book-related.
Please take note of LA's response to the book-related link.
Please drive safely and have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Of course, as the info is from Drudge's site, it will be held in contempt.


Well, that's true, but let's not put everyone into one basket, shall we?

Thanks for the info. It does seem that the timing is 'convenient', to say the least. This should have been reported long ago. This administration has been getting away with far too much for far too long.

I can't help feel a bit of a 'so there!' regarding all the underhanded things this administration has done, most recently the 'news' in Iraq. It's not like they don't deserve to have to take some of their own medicine. Hey, it's the truth! What's wrong with reporting it at a convenient time?


And I might even buy the book!
(jk)



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The book might have some worth-while inforamtion in it, but you know what? There have been several books that have been intentionally ignored by the left-leaning media because the writers weren't left-leaning.

It seems that one will get their slant or will get nothing at all. That is what makes the
American news industry so dangerous. It is not about bringing thefacts forward, it is about bringing certain facts forward, and timing.





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join