Casey, thank you for posting this enlightening article. I was able to link to it without signing up.

It is supported by the following article in the New York Times

Basis for Spying in U.S. Is Doubted
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html?th&emc=th


This certainly promises to be an interesting year on the political front with the upcoming investigations and the congressional elections.

Poll: Democrats favored to control Congress
Following Abramoff scandal, public uneasy with Republican Party, AP finds
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740963/


Even when things are handled legally, government investigations can get it all wrong and cause innocent citizens undo stress. This can be seen in the following article.

Brandon Mayfield, the Islamic lawyer from Portland, OR whose life was drastically altered when he was falsely arrested by the FBI because of shoddy fingerprint analysis.

Inquiry Says F.B.I. Erred in Implicating Man in Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07terror.html

We certainly live in interesting times.

Norma, I’m feeling a bit uninformed - I can’t think what PNAC stands for.

Vi

PNAC ... Project for the New American Century....
it's principals and objectives are on the net,
a doctrine for world peace and democracy, or .........? Whose to say?

Norma I still think PNAC is definitely something we should still be worried about. Don't discount it's importance on what is going on right now.

Sandpiper

Norma and Sandpiper, thanks for the input on the PNAC. I looked it up on the web and found all kinds of links, some praising it, some telling of the threat it poses.

For those who like me were uninformed on the subject there's an artcle dated 2/25/03 at:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

quote:

---

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines
what is required of America to create the global empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia
and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

---

Also see:

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

quote:

---

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.

This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.

---

There are tons of articles one can read and decide for themselves whether or not we and the world are in dire jeopardy because of the PNAC. I, for one, believe we are, and we need to be vigilant in letting our representatives know how we feel about this. It all fits right in with what Bush has admitted doing recently and his claim that he has the authority to do it, even though many legal scholars disagree with him.


Today's news is geared to the corruption in Washington, pointing mostly to republicans and the Abramoff, Delay, Ney triangle. I only found one article on Bush, NSA and civil liberties from MyYahoo - Associated Press, below.

From MyYahoo - Associated Press

Specter Wants AG's Testimony on Spying
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying

Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" if Gonzales had agreed to appear, Specter said, "Well, I didn't ask him if he had agreed. I told him we were holding the hearings and he didn't object. I don't think he has a whole lot of choice on testifying."

[ January 08, 2006, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Vi ]

Shudder...Yes, thanks for asking the question, Vi. I remember reading about PNAC before and shuddering then, too.

For balance, I think I should bring in the recent commentary by Joel Klein in Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1147137,00.html

In it, Klein takes Nancy Pelosi to task for a "small, but cheesy, bit of deception." The saliant paragraph is: The release of Pelosi's letter last week and the subsequent Times story ("Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show") left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn't exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, "Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it's all fruit."

Sorry, it's not all fruit. It's by lumping things together that have subtle differences that bring us problems. In order to hold the high ground, you need to play fair.

Like it or not, we have a war going on -- one that was voted for by Congress. My objection to Mr. Bush's manipulation of the NSA rules is that he did it without consent of the Congress, the voices of the American people. Combined with the PNAC information, it's a trend that scares me almost as much as bird flu...

Peace

Casey, I, too, am alarmed. Although I am not frightened by the bird flu threat.

Did you know that Rumsfeld owns stock in Tamiflu - the stuff they plan to sell us for bird flu, even though it has been stated that they don't even know if it will work. They're making a big deal out of bird flu worldwide so people like Rumsfeld can make a lot of money.

Yes, we could have a worldwide pandemic. Since those kinds of viruses can mutate into something a given vaccine does not address...what's a person do to? Vaccines don't work against viruses. AIDS is a much worse threat in so many places - especially for our young who think they are invincible. The diabetes rate is on the increase in the country - people aren't eating what they need to eat. There are all kinds of things that are much more likely to kill us than bird flu.

The fact that Bush keeps hammering in his right to disobey the laws as he sees fit frightens me a lot. What will frighten me even more is if our representatives and the citizenry of this country in general buy into it and allow him and his colleagues to get away with it. If this happens, he really will become King George. The Bush Administration is killing the principles of this country from within, all the while saying they are protecting us. I'm counting on the citizenry realizing who and what the man is. If we don't wake up, we are doomed.
--
From NetZero, USA Today - ever changing his story in the hopes of gaining sympathetic supporters:

Bush: Eavesdropping hearings 'good for democracy'
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-11-bush_x.htm?csp=24

Interesting that now he says he's for the hearings - with qualifications, of course - what a flip-flopper.

quote:

---

"There will be a lot of hearings to talk about that, but that's good for democracy," he said. "Just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I had the prerogative to make the decision I make, doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See, that's the danger."

---

And this is reassuring for someone who has never had to fight in a war - he's a real martyr:

quote:

---

While saying he wanted to bring American troops home, he said, "I don't want them to come home without achieving the victory."

---

Casey, thanks for posting your article. It's a worthwhile read.

There was a really frightening letter to the editor of our local paper today stating that people who criticize Bush should got find someplace eles to live, because they are no longer welcome in this country.

Gee, and here I thought our democratic principals were based on the right to choose our leaders and --- gasp! --- occassionally disagree with their decisions.

People like this scare me a lot worse than bird flu.

I just don't understand why people think disagreeing with someone, anyone in this country is unpatriotic. We are a nation of diversity. People have moved here from all over the world. To expect us to all hold the same beliefs about anything is totally unrealistic. To disagree is to be American. To disagree is to be democratic. A place that allows for this disagreement is beautiful. A place that doesn't allow for disagreement and criticism is called a dictatorship.

The person who wrote that letter to the editor stating that people who criticize Bush should move somewhere else is touting the value of a dictatorship and all the while calling it a democracy. If and when this becomes a dictatorship, the answer is not to move away. The constitution states what we need to do in that case. We will need to follow it.

Thanks NHJackie for your comment. Your concerns are well-founded.

The news I found today mostly focused on the Alito confirmations hearings.

Keep in mind that this letter was written by someone who's probably on the edge of reality. This is MH, the "Live Free or Die" state. And there are people who believe that means live my way or the highway.

Jackie,

So the person who wrote the editorial was the voice of intolerance. Hope he/she and all others like them in this country grow up a bit. It is immaturity that says,"My way is the only way." When we are three-years-old we throw tantrums. Maybe the editorial is his/her current form of the tantrum. Free means to have the right to believe "different from me", no matter who "me" is.

[ January 13, 2006, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Vi ]