December 17, 2005

Waiter, There's A Fly In My Bongwater

What the President said today about the NYT outing of a covert operation that doesn't have the name "Plame" attached to it:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Apologies to the slack-jawed bushliedpeopledied set. I know it hurts when reality slaps you upside yer melon.

stein hoist to Steve and Robbo's House Of Culture and Gossip

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:32 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 613 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Countdown to an ACLU lawsuit for release of all national security information gathered in 10,9,8,7.... but it'll only be to protect you from the 'evil' Government, and the damage it causes will be outweighted by the fact the ACLU won a lawsuit against the BusHitlerMcChimpyHaliburton Administration.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 06:24 PM (CcXvt)

2 Screw the ACLU. All I want to know about this program is two things: First, is it catching terrorists. It certainly seems to be. Second, is it constitutional. There, we have a problem. Bush claims it is, but the Constitution itself says otherwise. He is relying on legal opinions nobody's seen -- and Harriet Miers! -- to make this determination. I remain unconvinced that the program is constitutional, whether it's "only" targeting terrorists or not. And the national security argument on this one is bullshit, too, which anyone who's actually IN the intelligence community can tell you. Nothing the Times printed jeopardizes the program in particular or national security generally.

Posted by: IO ERROR at December 17, 2005 07:03 PM (vhWf1)

3 Thank god we have the CIA! How else would we all hear about the juicy clandestine programs in the morning newspaper? Just think, in the past we used to have these "national security" programs that remained secret for decades, now we get to read all about them: realtime, like a Tom Clancy novel! I heard the same defense for the papers leaking that the United States were intercepting phone calls made by Bin Laden on his Satellite telephone.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 07:13 PM (CcXvt)

4 The New York Times is redefining the "Classified" section.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at December 17, 2005 07:56 PM (DdRjH)

5 Liberal democrats are idiots. Just takes time to prove it. Over and over and over and over again. IO Error: If the constitution says we cannot use every means are our disposal to protect ourselves then it is time to change it. Remember when it was written and by whom and what did they mean at the time. Then was then. Now is now. Things and conditions change. We either change with them or perish.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 17, 2005 08:26 PM (TBvsM)

6 The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: G at December 17, 2005 08:48 PM (dQQ0n)

7 Always amazing when the idiots trot out the same old tired quotes of the things the 'founding fathers' said they agree with, and then totally disregard anything else they said, that they don't agree with. Hey G, you might want to next time quote him verbatim, if you respect Benjamin Franklin so much: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" How about this one: "I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, —and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages." Benjamin Franklin. Did he just say God? someone please page the ACLU.

Posted by: dave at December 17, 2005 09:06 PM (CcXvt)

8 Yesterday the white house was all like "shhh, we can't talk about it. Security." Today they blab and blab. Security. Sure.

Posted by: actus at December 17, 2005 10:08 PM (YViDI)

9 I want to see the leakers who gave this data to the press punished and an explanation from the press why they have acted so reckless with utter disregard for national security and the safety of the America n people.

Posted by: TJ Jackson at December 17, 2005 11:07 PM (1fKmK)

10 Ask Karl Rove (hee hee hee)

Posted by: hondo at December 17, 2005 11:11 PM (3aakz)

11 >>>The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. This isn't about "freedom", it's about privacy. Please don't try to confuse the two just so you can unfurl your pithy sayings that don't even apply. I don't have less freedom because I might have less privacy. We sacrifice privacy all the time. And if we can sacrifice privacy for the sake of our credit rating, I'm sure we can make a far smaller sacrifice of privacy for our national security, and for our very lives.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 17, 2005 11:47 PM (8e/V4)

12 It never ceases to amaze me how rectus manages to so completely miss the mark every time. For someone who can string together a sentence better than the average moonbat idiot, he's still not too damned bright.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 18, 2005 01:00 AM (0yYS2)

13 IM, they are SUCH morons. They operate on platitudes and emotions. It's unbelievable. We're talking about privacy, but let's quote Benjamin Franklin on freedom! yippee! score one for the good guys! morons.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 18, 2005 01:14 AM (8e/V4)

14 Agent Smith quotes Benny Goodman.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 18, 2005 06:57 AM (+5j5X)

15 "Thank god we have the CIA! How else would we all hear about the juicy clandestine programs in the morning newspaper?" Why would the CIA know about an NSA program?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 09:00 AM (YViDI)

16 Actus: was that a serious question? Who do you think provides signal intelligence to the CIA? You might have watched a few too many episodes of the X-Files, the NSA/CIA do work together.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 11:02 AM (CcXvt)

17 "Who do you think provides signal intelligence to the CIA?" THe NSA. And why would the CIA know about the executive order the NSA was working under?

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 12:34 PM (YViDI)

18 Obviously because of operating procedures, the CIA would be the ones to analyze and identify the foreign parts of the communication, they would know who intercepted the information (NSA) and why it was intercepted. I guarantee the analysts at the CIA have the security clearance to analyse anything handed to them by the NSA.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 01:00 PM (CcXvt)

19 "I guarantee the analysts at the CIA have the security clearance to analyse anything handed to them by the NSA." Sure. but the article talked about much more than what the CIA needs to analyse.

Posted by: actus at December 18, 2005 01:54 PM (YViDI)

20 The goal of an analyst is to extract needed information, from raw data, all available data is then given to them. I doubt that an analyst would be the one doing the leaking, however they are managed, by people that are well versed in both matter of policy, and the contents of the data.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 02:04 PM (CcXvt)

21 Dave, Just keep marching in lock step.....

Posted by: G at December 18, 2005 04:02 PM (dQQ0n)

22 Yes, Dave, please stay in step. With reality. Remember. No matter how much you may ever doubt your own sanity. You're doing better than G.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 18, 2005 04:42 PM (0yYS2)

23 I'm not so sure, he feels the need to put words in Ben Franklin's mouth. He must be one of the great ones.

Posted by: dave at December 18, 2005 06:03 PM (CcXvt)

24 Great? Hell, he's a legend in his own mind!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 19, 2005 10:44 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
29kb generated in CPU 0.2603, elapsed 0.3181 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.2567 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.