Comments on: ‘Most PSP Leads Were Determined Not to Have Any Connection to Terrorism’

By: Feinstein sets the record crooked « The Moderate

Feinstein sets the record crooked « The Moderate — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:19:51 +0000

[...] the constitution you swore to uphold. And regarding whether or not the surveillance program was of value? Remember, this is what the Senate was accomplishing, circa 2006: With prodding from Senate [...]

By: Weekly Web Watch 07/06/09 – 07/12/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH

Weekly Web Watch 07/06/09 – 07/12/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:22:52 +0000

[...] He also reports that the IGs determined that the majority of leads generated by the program had no connection to terrorism. Andy McCarthy has his own rundown, which includes notes that two 9/11 hijackers would have [...]

By: Yoo’s Self Defense | Design Website Blog

Yoo’s Self Defense | Design Website Blog — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:07:47 +0000

[...] This secret program, run without any Congressional or judicial oversight or input, was almost wholly ineffective. Yoo might dispute, dishonestly, that the program really wasn’t illegal, but he does nothing [...]

By: Yoo’s Self Defense | Design Website

Yoo’s Self Defense | Design Website — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:45:28 +0000

By: WaltFrench

WaltFrench — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:28:37 +0000

Again: value in checking boxes, but no value in, like, stopping terrorism. What about CIA?

I'm no fan of illegal and anti-Constitutional actions by "our" government, so I object to the fact that this article spends most of its time on trivia.

I pay for insurance against fire in my house and don't regret the fact that my insurer didn't pay out a penny because there was no fire. The fact that this illegal surveillance 'covered' a range of activities meant that anti-terrorism efforts could focus elsewhere. The fact that it didn't find anything? Just as relevant as the fact that no campaigns happened to be mounted that would've left a trail in this area: maybe we could've been smarter about where we put our efforts, but after the rather nasty surprise of 9/11, we were really grasping for straws. The whole country knew it and our Congress tacitly admitted it by agreeing with Bush's shotgun tactics.

The real concern is not that Bush was sloppy in spending our tax dollars -- all the old claims that Republicans are more careful with budgets were buried years ago and everybody knows of the fountains of cash to the Halliburtons, KBRs and their ilk.

It's that an anti-democratic, secretive and paranoid Administration was taken over by the Vice President and run like a dictatorship when it came to rights, defense and foreign policy, using the pretty Bush face on this can of 14th-century, rotted swill.

By: johnhkennedy

johnhkennedy — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:07:34 +0000

Was "President’s Surveillance Program" (Bush's) just spying on his political enemies?
#fb

A Conspiracy To Deceive Congress for eight years, about a secret CIA program is just like the Conspiracy To Ignore And Render Moot Our US-Federal Anti-Torture Laws.

It is time our Congressmen, Republican as well as Democrats showed us they support our Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers.

The time is now!

SIGN THE PETITION
calling for a special prosecutor at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

By: truth will out

truth will out — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:11:47 +0000

how do you know he hasn't "actually demonstrated some dirt on opponents"? Jane Harman was wiretapped. wasn't Renzi, too? Who else?

'dirt' is not the only useful information that can be gathered from eavesdropping on your political opponents. knowing their 'strategy' comes to mind, for one...

remember that we already know the FBI spent an extraordinary amount of manpower infiltrating such scary domestic groups as the pacifist Quakers, prior to the 2004 presidential election...that was time and taxpayer money well-spent, sending the FBI guys on a wild goose chase (or perhaps that was the goal)...

i wonder if there's any connection to the lockdown of the counting room in Warren Co, Ohio on election night in Nov. 2004. the elections officials at the time claimed they HAD TO shut everyone out from oversight because the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security said so.... although no one since has found the mystery official who gave that bogus order...

By: ikez78

ikez78 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:23:53 +0000

That would appear more likely if he had actually demonstrated some dirt on opponents though…

By: ikez78

ikez78 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:23:09 +0000

Spencer, just curious. How much political influence do DOJ IG's come under from both parties? I don't know.

By: Still Writing This Chapter of Bush II | Design Website Easy

Still Writing This Chapter of Bush II | Design Website Easy — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:30:34 +0000

[...] finding in the report: most leads secured by the secret surveillance program were determined not to have any connection to terrorism and — surprise!–then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ July 2007 testimony to [...]