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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (61476)	7/31/2007 4:37:25 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Yep.....hang'em if they are guilty...

To: Sully- who wrote (61476)	7/31/2007 4:45:55 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Here's a headline you won't see plastered all over the "newz" for the next 2 weeks: << "Gonzales Told the Truth" >> Instead this is the best we can expect from the MSM. ** What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated What's Generally Referred to as "Truth"** Power Line Today the New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As we discussed in detail here (see at links below), Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question. This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact? Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells: <<< A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program. It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues. >>> What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated: <<< If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. >>> First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish. The Times adds to the anti-Gonzales tone of its article by mixing in a little false reporting. The paper says: <<< Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.” Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery. >>> In fact, James Comey's testimony did not contradict Gonzales's. As we have pointed out repeatedly, Comey refused to identify the program over which there was a legal disagreement that led to the hospital visit. He did not, contrary to the Times's assertion, challenge or contradict Gonzales's testimony that <<< "[t]here has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.” >>> The fact is that the Senators who ridiculed Gonzales, questioned his credibility and called for a perjury investigation were wrong. They owe the Attorney General an apology. To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com nytimes.com powerlineblog.com powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (61476)	8/10/2007 2:07:05 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

How about calling them ‘jailbait’? Don Surber blog Back home in Alaska, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Under Investigation, is trying to rally his supporters, the Anchorage Daily News reported. The Robert C. Byrd-wannabe told supporters: “I don’t like the word ‘earmark’.” Well, what should we call them then? How about evidence? After all, they could indicate a favor granted for a gratuity, say like hiring his son for example. How about abra-cadabra? After all, earmarks magically turned Duke Cunningham from a Vietnam War hero into inmate No. 21489-038. How about matchsticks? After all, if you mess with these you can get burnt. How about G-men magnets? After all, they seem to attract FBI agents. How about jailbait? After all, they should be off-limits. How about diseased? After all, they sicken those of us who believe in good government. How about we call them illegal? How about we call them finished? How about we call them history? Stevens is not helping Alaska. He is helping himself, his friends and his son. Alaskans can rally around him all they like, but I will point out that earmarks are illusions of economic development. West Virginia was 39th among the states in per capita income when Byrd became our senator in 1959. Today, we are 49th. blogs.dailymail.com adn.com