Comments Posted By DaveG
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 43 Comments
If he’s so sorry about having mismanaged his power, I suggest he resign from office,
Which, ironically and tellingly, is exactly what he wants Bush to do, but doesn't have the testicular fortitude to do himself. Hypocrisy and arrogance. What a putz.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 16.06.2006 @ 09:29
LOOSE LIPS SINKING AL QAEDA IN IRAQ?
Someone close to the top tier of al Qaeda in Iraq leadership has started to blab.
Or the NSA programs are working. Remind me - were you for or against those?
Comment Posted By DaveG On 12.06.2006 @ 12:05
I wish more people would consider 3rd party and independent candidates.
I sure as hell would! Where are they??
Comment Posted By DaveG On 30.05.2006 @ 13:31
ABRAMOFF SINGING, HASTERT DANCING
Yes, what of his source? Mr. Anonymous is very busy these days. And here we are again, a big media splash that leaves us all wondering if this so-called source has any veracity whatsoever, and what may have been the motives behind the "leak."
How anyone can be a proponent of journalist shield laws is beyond me. They're a recipe for this kind of partisan sensationalism.
Trust no one that is not willing to put their reputation behind their anonymous allegations. It's that simple.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 25.05.2006 @ 08:50
Do you trust George Bush or any President to use the awesome power of his office in a constitutional and legal manner?
A qualified 'yes' to that, in that I trust the Executive branch to be far less damaging to the Constitution than both the Legislative and Judicial branches, both of whom have shown such a cavalier attitude to the Constitution that I don't even trust them to provide any semblance of reasonable and rational oversight to the most mundane activities. "Emanations from penumbras" my @ss. Our model of checks and balances from a triumvirate gov't is clearly broken, and only getting worse.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 19.05.2006 @ 08:33
BUSH BASHING 101: WHEN IN DOUBT, RECYCLE
You're right, crosspatch, but what do you suggest we do when every reaction to a threat brings cries of "impending tyranny" and "irrevocable loss of civil rights" from the head-in-the-sand crowd? "A chill wind's blowing," you know.
What would we do in response to a threat similar to 9/11 when we can't do any profiling at the security gates? Strip search 10% more grannies?
The administration doesn't dare announce or react to a credible threat because 1) the accusations of fear-mongering from the very same party that promised a renewal of the draft should Bush be re-elected (nope, no fear-mongering there!) would be shrill and immediate, and 2) if they back up their claims with actual intelligence there will be another out-cry over gov't spying from the very same party that brought us FBI files being used against political opponents and the Carnivore Internet spying program (which, BTW, I am not opposed to).
We are "represented" by a majority party that cowers in fear of a minority party that will stop at nothing to discredit the majority party in order to win back the majority for themselves, even if it means achieving governence of a smoking hole in the end.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 19.05.2006 @ 08:21
ARE PARTS OF THE NSA TELEPHONE RECORDS STORY BOGUS?
What the hell is wrong with you people?
A question more aptly directed to the Pulitzer Committee, I think. That's where the motivation is coming from.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 17.05.2006 @ 16:46
what took them so long?
Have you ever worked for a large corporation? Have you ever worked for a large corporation that got large through acquisitions and mergers? In may experience, five days is fast, particularly when the Legal Office is involved.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 17.05.2006 @ 10:23
Like I commented here just a few days ago: the anonymity of leakers calls into question the veracity of their statements, in addition to hiding their motives. To me, any anonymous source is as credible as a three year old stating that the sky is falling.
This is reason number one that I am steadfastly opposed to shield laws for journalists - that's carte blanche to simply invent news based on anonymous, fabricated sources, with no way to ever determine the truth. Examples abound of the recent disingenuous behavior of the media - why should we trust them any more than we trust elected officials, who at least have the threat of being held accountable by voters??
Comment Posted By DaveG On 17.05.2006 @ 08:21
ABC NEWS CALL MONITORING: WHAT'S GOING ON?
Yeah, boy, some day there will be another Clinton-esque Administration, and all we'll have to worry about is mis-use of FBI records and the selling of nuclear secrets to China. Whhoo-eee, just like the good ole days.
I don't understand how anyone can say there has been no oversight of these NSA programs. Frankly, you have to have your head buried somewhere deep in your posterior to not have seen, over and over, the reports that these programs have been vetted by the DoJ, and have been presented to Congressional leaders since their inception. Reports indicate that there were areas of concern from both, and those concerns were addressed.
But still we hear the hysterical shriekings about this "dangerous abuse of power." Is it a dangerous abuse of power when I am stopped at a sobriety checkpoint? Well, in my opinion, yes. But when I object, all I hear is "it's for the public good, and the ends justify the means," or "you're on a public road, and the cost of using the public road is increased scrutiny." Ok, then, you're making phone calls using public utilities. Don't the ends justify the means when you have to pay for that with increased scrutiny? For crying out loud, if the gov't wanted to they could collect all of your garbage from the curb and sift through it looking for whatever they want. I also find it intersting that opponents of the most recent program insist on calling it wire-tapping, when it is clearly nothing of the sort. A more correct analogy would be the gov't collecting phone bills from your curbside trash can, although even then your phone bill contains far more personal data than this program reportedly collects.
Like I said here before: if you don't want your communications tracked, then collect a whole lot of soup cans and twine and build your own communications network, and for heavens sake, don't use a cell phone. If you don't want to be tracked, analyzed, and have your behavioral data sliced and diced every way imagineable, cut up your credit cards and don't leave the house.
Comment Posted By DaveG On 17.05.2006 @ 08:40
