Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wiretapping plan bypassed National Security Council: Report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 07:58 AM
Original message
Wiretapping plan bypassed National Security Council: Report
2nd JAN 15:35 hrs IST
Wiretapping plan bypassed National Security Council: Report
- -
New York: The Bush administration plan for wiretapping without warrants was so sensitive that the "Lawyers' Group," an organisation of government attorneys in the National Security Council, was bypassed. Instead, the legal vetting was given to Alberto Gonzales, the then White House counsel 'Time' magazine quoted administration officials as saying.

Senator Tom Daschle, who was then the Senate Democratic majority leader, told the magazine that he, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Dick Gephardt, then House minority leader, were briefed in early 2002 by Vice President Dick Cheney. There was a second briefing in 2004.

"A couple of us expressed our concerns," Daschle says. "But the information we were given was more technical and less substantive. We were told we were being informed and not consulted."

Even though the administration emphasises that congressional leaders were briefed about the new programme from the start, some object that they were told about it under ground rules that made it impossible for them to mount any opposition, the magazine says.
(snip/...)

48|~~~~ link ~~~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. "We were told we were being informed and not consulted"
And of course, they swallowed it whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Typically, you forgot to read or consider the following statement-
"some object that they were told about it under ground rules that made it impossible for them to mount any opposition"

But then, the Mediawhore conveniently put that second bit as a vague, indirect reference without actual quotes from the Democrats. And once again you take their bait. All so you can make a snide comment about Democrats even though they were told the information was being given on a confidential basis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bob3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. So the National Security Council was left out of the loop?
You wonder what else they didn't tell them - or Ms. Rice who was the National Security Adviser at the time. Yeah she's had real big role in the white House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefool_wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Come on...
Condi is such a puppet of this admin half the time you can see the strings. She never looks comfortable with anything she has to say and always has this look on her face like "I can't believe I'm saying this sh*t"

She wasn't consulted because she didn't have her own opinion to express, so her consent was implicit since they would have told her to comply. That and plausible deniability, she probably would have folded under the guilt eventually (or if they needed to scapegoat her).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. the sgt schultz approach wont work for condi...
stupidity is not an excuse for not doing your job. She knew about the wiretaps... she never bothered with the legal review.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefool_wa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. <deleted by poster>
Edited on Mon Jan-02-06 11:27 AM by thefool_wa
on edit: accidental double post of same comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. This IS high crimes and misdomenors! Gonzales must step down.
He is a disgrace to the Hispanic community. I believe he will turn on his own people in a heart beat to suck up to the Bushbots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I don't understand how you see Gonzales' crimes. . .
as directed at, or reflective of, any one group of people. BushCo crimes are an affront to the nation and have shown no limitations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
4. "They're going to lean on Specter very hard not to hold hearings,"
"They're going to lean on Specter very hard not to hold hearings," says a Republican official. Bush has warned that any public hearings on programs would simply tip off terrorists and invite them to adjust their tactics, and he says, "This is a war."

snip



This is a war, all right. It's war between Bush's radical extremists and the United States of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Specter will become the eye of the storm--the Public must not know!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. So DID Bush snoop on Kerry and his wife or not during the 2004
WH election and before?

Just one reason for asking: in the UK there have been a number of official requests under the Freedom of Information Act about correspondence between Poodle and Kerry and minutes of official meetings between Poodle and Kerry (January and February 2005.

As I understand it one request from the press concerns whether UK security/intelligence was aware of any covert US snooping of Sen Kerry and his wife as a result of 'an official mix-up' of intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-02-06 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. These are 3rd grade tactics and excuses: "I did it, but, everyone else did
too." Honestly, why don't they just claim their dog ate it.

This proves they make all their nasty moves with deliberation and intent to be able to hem and haw and wiggle out from it, either way.

"We told them, but, I guess we forgot to explain the implications...Well, why are you being so picky? We're not perfect, you know."

Let's come up with a name for this pre-emptive weasling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yeah
and remember - they've known about this for a year - so after a year of strategizing - this is all they've got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-03-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. bottom line: impeachable offense. Let's get on with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC