I think he did the right thing for the security of this nation. If we heard about this right after the 911 attacks it would have been ok by everyone. But since it's four years later the minds of plenty are not the same as they were 9/12/01. Here's one example of why it was a excellent move...and those that should be investigated is those that leaked this secret and critical to our security information to the public...(aaastudio)
....................................................................................
Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they'd do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.
In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were "too hot" on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)
Dick Morris NYPost
Why didn't Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn't looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off.
column
Technorati Tags: bush, war, terror, nsa, spy, wiretap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"...and those that should be investigated is those that leaked this secret and critical to our security information to the public..."
Just like the perps (Cheney,Rove,Libby) responsible for leaking a CIA agent should be investigated? How come Bush hollers about investigating the leaker of the NSA info but not the CIA leaker? Could it be he knows who the leakers are...uh yeah. And could it be he doesn't give a ish...uhh yeah.
Just askin.
As for warrantless wiretapping, I am sure you remember where I used to work, and I have first hand experience about this paticular activity. Believe me when I tell you that the Brooklyn Bridge intelligence could have been gathered under the current laws and yes in a timley fashion, and yes in a random fishnet fashion, and yes even listening to Amercians is allowed under NSA tasking guidelines. The law works and has worked, Bush said as much in april 2004. The Spin on that embarassing fact is that he was reffering to the patriot act, and that is just more BS. What BushCo has done is an end run around the "rule of law" if you nnotice he cites the constitution not the law as giving him the power to do whatever he wants. All I can tell you is look at the history of this country, we have been down this road before, and it is for that reason that the FISA laws are on the books.
Yeah, right. You should persue the leaker of a non-covert CIA operative who was outed not once, but twice before this incident! Once by Cuba, and once by the Soviets.... hence her desk job and non-covert status for the last 10 years.
If you want to find the person that leaked the info to the press you need look no further than her faux-greiving spotlight seeking husband who spoke with both reporters before they ever talked to Chenney.
It is odd, don't you think, that in the transcripts of the interviews with Chenney that BOTH reporters told Chenney about the connection and that only in the second interview did Chenney say "I had heard that as well"?
Funny, aint it?
How can the press leak to Chenney and then Chenney leak it back to the press?
Keep digging.
Post a Comment