Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (153391)	1/2/2006 5:42:12 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793551

Do you, or Karen, or anyone else think that our Government needs to tell the public every single way that they are trying to protect our country? Focus, girl. No one is suggesting that. No one is suggesting that any protection be stopped at the Brooklyn Bridge or anywhere else. No one is suggesting that surveillance be stopped. You're throwing apples wildly in the general direction of the oranges. You keep bringing in all this extraneous stuff. The only question on the table is whether or not the Times revelation told AQ anything they didn't already know that would ineffectuate our surveillance. I've read it twice. I don't see anything in there that does that and you haven't offered the slightest hint of what that might be. There is one more way I can think of.....The members of Congress who have had the briefings as to the status of the A-Q related wiretapping, can let the cat out of the bag.... Then that would be the fault of Congress, wouldn't it, not the leaker and not the Times.

To: KLP who wrote (153391)	1/2/2006 6:44:39 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793551

And Happy New Year backatcha, my friend! No and no and no to most of those questions. What was done by this admin. may or may not make me uncomfortable at all. I really am not at all clear exactly what was done, and await answers before deciding that any real offenses were committed, or whether we need to get some clarity about how far executive powers extend before it IS a much worse problem. I really just don't understand WHAT information the terrorists got from that article that you and I didn't. I don't see a lot of ramifications. It never occurred to me that there wasn't a whole lot of stuff going on backstage, but I DID assume that it was being done legally (and it may end up that it was). That seemed to me to be the purpose of the article-- to shed doubt on the process and on Bush. I just can't see that the terrorists wouldn't have already assumed the same things I did, so what did they get NEW? I don't want to allow myself to be confused between the two issues which are completely different for me. Saying the president HAS the authority (or not) has nothing to do with wondering exactly what was leaked of value. If nothing was, then accusations of treason etc are diversions.