Daisygirl, Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I, for one, don't hate the president. I believe what we are doing here is discussing several sides of an issue. From statements the president himself has made, it appears (and is not yet proven) that he authorized wiretaps without FISA authority, even the authority he could get 72 hours after the wiretaps went into effect. For the most part, people in this particular thread haven't identified themselves as being from either party. We are American citizens having a discussion about current events.

Chatty Lady, I would respectfully ask that you leave those of us who wish to discuss this issue alone to discuss it in peace. There's a great deal of thinking going on here, wresting with questions which don't have easy answers. We are not "mucking up this forum."

Daisy,
Very well said. Not that it will make a difference to those who are looking for reasons to belittle our country and attack our leaders, but thank you for standing up and stating it so well.

The FISA court may have the ability to approve things in 72 hours, but their record is much different as it applies to our present leadership. They have opposed and stalled every attempt by our President's to protect our country and it was all for political gain.

Since Truman, NSA has had the authority to listen to the foreign end of conversations, but not the American end and the terrorists knew that so they planned much of their destruction from within our country. And few of their conversations lasted 72 hours. They simply changed phones and identies.

We need to know what the terrorists are planning. And now that they know we can listen to the American end of their conversations they will find other ways to destroy us. The NYT should be prosecuted for treason for revealing this information in the midst of war.

The information about the violence against our country was there before 9/11. But because we only had one half the conversation, we could not determine where or when they would attack. As a result, thousands died.

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant as destructive as Hitler. He has killed thousands of his own people and thousands in other countries. We should all support a president who takes his responsibility to defend our country seriously.

Mr. Bush has not broken any laws. He has not perjured himself as other leaders have. He was authorized by Congress to take necessary measures to protect our country and he is doing just that. I applaud him.

As to Chatty stating her opinion, she has been a vital part of this site for a very long time and has as much right as anyone else to express her feelings.

smile

[ December 27, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]

I think this is the most level-headed political discussion yet to visit this web site. I don't understand why it's being referred to as "crap" or as something that gives comfort to our enemies.

Life in the 21st century is extremely complicated. The world is united in many ways -- economically, environmentally, and health, to name three ways -- and there's a tremendous diversity of culture and opinion in the world. In such a complex world, it's important to be able to examine issues from different angles and to consider other people's opinions rather than to automatically think that any one person has a monopoly on the truth. Even if President Bush were the smartest and kindest man in the world, he still wouldn't have such a monopoly.

The American system is one in which we are supposed to be an educated public so that we can intelligently govern ourselves. To do so we need to have solid information so it's great if we can talk about it intelligently rather than cast aspersions about the veracity of the sources.

We should be electing good people to represent us and a wise person to lead and gude the country. Unfortunately, corruption is rampant. Eisenhower warned us in 1961 to beware of the "military-industrial complex" but that's just what's at work in the world.

Just my observation and you're probably right Casey, everyone certainly has the right to speak her opinion (thanks Smile) its just that I've seen so many times that this type of discussion gets out of control, feelings get hurt and good people leave. I would hate to see that again but I guess thats life and lets face it there is no right or wrong answer to these discussioins anyway. I'll just stick to the posts I care about and maybe can be of assistance with....

Chatty, please don't let anyone hush your beautiful voice. We all benefit from your straight forward observations.

smile

Today I’d like to begin by reiterating my gratitude for those on this thread who have addressed this topic with honor and dignity. Again I will state, for any of you who don’t like talking politics and think this site is being ruined by this thread, you are free not to attend it. This country is about freedom of choice. This is Dotsie’s site. The choice is hers as to whether or not a topic is suited for this site. Dotsie is an honorable woman who provides us, at no cost, a place to meet and discuss things. I believe as long as we treat each other and a topic courteously she has no problem with the things we discuss.

Having a different opinion is welcome here. If your opinion differs please substantiate it. While it is true that just because something is written somewhere doesn’t make it so, when articles are written by the liberal as well as the conservative arms of the news media then we need to take them seriously. That is what is happening now. If you doubt this please thoroughly read the articles provided and the comments submitted by everyone on this thread, “skimming” will not work on a topic so profound as this. Then check out the political bias of those sources. The articles come from all varying sources. And when you do read this thread in it’s entirety, please read it with an open mind, as the rest of us have done.

Bush admits to the topic we are talking about on this thread, and we are discussing that topic. If you’ve been watching tv you’ve heard him admit these things. The issues brought up by the latest negative posts, we have already addressed and resolved. Thank you for your opinion. We are all free to express ourselves here with honor and dignity - free, honor and dignity being the operative words.

As a child I did not understand the meaning or importance of honor. Thanks to Gene Roddenberry and a Klingon named Warf, I learned a lot about it. On a site like this, in fact on a world scale, treating each other with honor, respect and dignity is key to our mutual growth and inner beauty. I thank you all for abiding in this positive realm.


The following is from an article in the New Yorker that was submitted to me by one of the thread participants. The article is not per se about the NSA, but is relevant because it addresses Bush's, Cheney's and Condi's lies - how they swear to one thing while doing just the opposite and how that infringes on innocent people's lives, this time impacting the life of what appears to be a Canadian citizen. The article references, among other things, a point I brought up in my post on the article offered by smilinize - guilt by association without the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Mostly, however, it addresses how rendition works and how it's been used, on actual terrorists and innocents, alike.

The New Yorker article is rather long, and I reiterate, it explains the facts/atrocities, the evolution of rendition and many actual horrific deeds that have taken place - too many to address them all individually. It is recommended reading for those who can stomach a brutal truth:

OUTSOURCING TORTURE
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
by JANE MAYER

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6


An additional news story was from Reuters and was only a reiteration of the article smilinize submitted but without the comments by Bamford.

Secret surveillance up since 9/11
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051227/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc_6


In conclusion, for now, I would say we are not at war with another nation. We are at war with a concept, the concept of terrorism, and that battle appears to have put some of us at war with each other - a great pity and a sad day.

Not the case Smile at all but my ex is a paid Political Historian and I wrote for one of the largest newspapers in D.C. for three years and have seen and heard it all. Its just sad to me that in a grand country such as ours we are given a choice between two candidates and in some cases, neither is a good choice. What then, we have to pick the least of the two worst and pray. It seems to me that no matter who we elect its just not good enough and certainly can't please whom ever voted for the other guy...I keep hoping above all hope someone worthy of our trust will appear on the horizon and we will be saved BUT???? Actually I think its a good thing that women are taking an active roll in this country and its problems, I just hope they are really studying all the facts and not just mimicking the newscasters, thats where the danger lies....

By the fact that everyone is coming up with their own comments and opinions means we are not mimicking the newscasters. We are not mimicking the newscasters - we are making what they say available so we can discuss it. As you can see we are bringing in articles from all sides. And we have not attacked those who love Bush. We have not directed profanity, derogation or any variation thereof at any thread participants. That is not our way.

Which of the referenced articles is from the conservative branch of the news media? Is there a conservative branch?

I don't know what you are saying President Bush and those under him admitted. He is not a liar and never has been. He tapped the phone calls of suspected terrorists and he said so. I and many other Americans believe he was right to do just that. Those who revealed that information to our enemies while we are war are viewed as traitors by many patriotic Americans.

Please be specific as to what issue was resolved on this topic. If you mean that Mr. Bush authorized tapping the phones of suspected terrorists, he was authorized by Congress to do what was necessary to defend our country and tapping those phone calls is necessary if we are to avert another 9/11. If that type of wire taps had been in place before 9/11, we might never have experienced the murder of thousands of our citizens.

Refering to statements by our leaders as lies is a conclusion, not a fact and it veers from the dignity of debate. Most of the articles referenced in this discussion are examples of conclusions reached by the liberal media unsupported by fact. Newsmen are supposed to report fact. It should be left up to the reader to reach conclusion.

I have only read the headline of the most recently referenced article, but I am personally delighted to know that secret surveillance is up since 9/11. We are at war. If surveilance of my phone calls will avert another mass murder, go ahead and listen to all my calls. Only those with something to hide and those looking for excuses to attack our leaders fear surveilance. I am one of the first to defend our freeedoms, but no one is free to plot another attack on our country. Nor should they be.

The terrorists themselves have repeatedly stated they represent the nation of Islam. Just as Texas and New york are states of the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are states of the Islamic nation. The real issue, however, is that we are at war. We are free to say what we like, but attacking our country from within is simply wrong.

Only when one is losing a debate is it necessary to use insults. There is nothing undignified about differing opinions. No one has called anyone a name or insulted anyone except our President who has been called various names including liar.

And saying 'prove it' is not an insult.


smile

[ December 27, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: smilinize ]

I scrolled back through the posts looking for where there has been namecalling but haven't found anything. I saw where Casey said that Bush "is not a liar," not that he _is_ a liar. The discussion has been mostly civil. Can you help me out, Smile?

As for the liberal/conservative nature of the press -- this subject wears me out. This is for everyone out there: Please define what you mean by liberal and conservative press, then give examples of who you mean and why you say that. In relation to the rest of the world, the United States press is centrist with a conservative tilt. It's absolutely pro-business and pro-capitalist. By most definitions, that's a conservative tilt, believe it or not!

[ December 28, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: DJ ]