HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Last attempt: Defending ...

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:43 PM

Last attempt: Defending the NSA's actions REQUIRES that you believe Bush did everything he could,

with the information he had at his disposal, to stop 9/11. He couldn't have stopped it without The Department of Homeland Security, The Patriot Act, or any of the things that Snowden exposed. It requires you to believe that he was right to ignore the intelligence provided at the time by our own intelligence services and foreign intelligence services.

In short, any defense of the NSA's (and, by extension, President Obama's) tactics today is a defense of George W. Bush. Period.

Explain why I'm wrong.

49 replies, 2446 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Last attempt: Defending the NSA's actions REQUIRES that you believe Bush did everything he could, (Original post)
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 OP
jbond56 Jun 2013 #1
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #2
jbond56 Jun 2013 #5
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #9
JaneyVee Jun 2013 #12
kentuck Jun 2013 #28
Mnemosyne Jun 2013 #36
kentuck Jun 2013 #38
Mnemosyne Jun 2013 #40
baldguy Jun 2013 #3
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #6
baldguy Jun 2013 #8
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #10
baldguy Jun 2013 #15
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #18
baldguy Jun 2013 #25
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #27
baldguy Jun 2013 #30
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #11
baldguy Jun 2013 #14
HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #19
baldguy Jun 2013 #23
Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #26
HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #29
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
baldguy Jun 2013 #31
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #20
baldguy Jun 2013 #24
jeff47 Jun 2013 #37
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #42
jeff47 Jun 2013 #44
sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #47
jeff47 Jun 2013 #48
Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #21
Autumn Jun 2013 #4
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #7
Autumn Jun 2013 #13
Phlem Jun 2013 #16
Phlem Jun 2013 #17
jberryhill Jun 2013 #22
gcomeau Jun 2013 #32
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #33
gcomeau Jun 2013 #34
jeff47 Jun 2013 #35
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #39
jeff47 Jun 2013 #41
Pale Blue Dot Jun 2013 #43
jeff47 Jun 2013 #46
Herlong Jun 2013 #45
Herlong Jun 2013 #49

Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:47 PM

1. I think you make a bad assumption.

I think if shrub was told of every possible way it could have been stopped he still would have failed. No matter how hard he tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbond56 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:48 PM

2. Would Obama have failed, had he been President at the time? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:52 PM

5. Maybe

Alot of things have changed and we have lost alot of ground. So Its hard to imagine things would have played out the same way, but the end result may not have been different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbond56 (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:56 PM

9. So you honestly believe that Obama,

given intelligence briefings that say "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and saying he intended to use airplanes, could not have put a plan in place that would have stopped him? You obviously think little of President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:59 PM

12. Most likely wouldn't have invaded the wrong country. Saved trillions in treasure, thousands in blood

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbond56 (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:21 PM

28. But you have to consider...

That George W was the village idiot. He failed at everything he tried until he found a scheme to make some money from a baseball team. Remember the oil company he started? I forget the name of it off the top of my head? But I think it was someone in the Bin Laden family, perhaps an uncle of Usama bin Laden, that was one of the main investors in George's oil venture. Basically, he was an arrogant asshole. Nobody could tell him anything. He was the "decider". So, presidentin' is hard. We may never recover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:22 AM

36. Arbusto Oil. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:24 AM

38. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #38)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:39 AM

40. Anytime kentuck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:50 PM

3. Beleiving Snowden is a hero for exposing secrets REQUIRES that you believe Cheney is a hero

 

For exposing secrets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:53 PM

6. Do you think Bush could have stopped 9/11?

Given the available intelligence briefings? Given the same intelligence, would Obama have been able to stop it? I'll bet you'll deflect rather than answer, which will be telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:56 PM

8. Do you believe Cheney is a hero?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:57 PM

10. "I'll bet you'll deflect rather than answer, which will be telling." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:01 PM

15. Your premise is shit. The fact that it can be dismantled so easily is telling.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:05 PM

18. Proceed, baldguy

If it's so easy to dismantle, please dismantle my OP WITHOUT changing the subject to a Strawman. Good luck!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:17 PM

25. Your OP was a strawman.

 

Get over the fact that you can't defend it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:20 PM

27. So it is your position that Bush could not have stopped 9/11, given the intelligence at his disposal

I just want to be clear on this, because it appears that you are defending Bush. I would hate for it to appear that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:39 PM

30. "I could while away the hours, confirmin' with the flowers..."

 





You're not as good at this as Ray Bolger.

*sigh* If you only had a brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:58 PM

11. Exposing CRIMES is not the same thing as exposing Undercover Agents. Would you like me

to explain the difference?

Opposing these leaks means siding with Cheney, Bush, Peter King, Sarah Palin, Ari Fleischer, Boehner, and in fact every Bush War Criminal who was never prosecuted, and every Republican who supported these Bush policies.

How you know you're on the right track? By who is on your side.

I'm proud to be once again, as always, on the opposite side to Cheney, who hates these leaks, King, Fleishcher Boehner, Palin et al. If I ever thought that gang of corrupt morons agreed with me, as they agree with you, I would seriously begin to question my opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:00 PM

14. Snowden didn't expose any crimes. He made a lot of allegatations, which have been proven to be false

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:06 PM

19. Oy vey. Which of Snowden's allegations have "been proven to be false"? - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:15 PM

23. The NSA is not listening to all your phone calls & it is not reading all your emails.

 

Having the metadata about phone calls and emails is not the same as the content & the identity of the sender and receiver.

Snowden, as the employee of a private contractor, did not have the ability not the authority to tap anyone's phone. He was not able to listen in on the President's phone calls.

The programs Snowden exposed are not unconstitutional or illegal.

These are Snowden's central allegations. None of them are true. The President has repeatedly said that they are not true. Members of the House & Senate Intelligence Committees have repeatedly said that they are not true. Most knowledgeable legal experts are saying that they are not true.

The text of the warrant Snowden provided proves that they are not true. It covers only anonymous metadata, which isn't linked to any particular individual without a further warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:17 PM

26. exactly. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:31 PM

29. You and I define 'proved' quite differently, as 'proof' for you seemingly consists of

 

the assertions of authorities. many of whom like Dianne Feinstein have skin in the game in the form of massive financial investments in the infrastructure of the National Security State.

Furthermore, I think you and I define 'allegation' differently. This allows you to create a strawman of supposed Snowden allegations that you can then proceed to knock over as somehow 'proven false'. Snowden alleged a technical capability, not an operational actuality. At least based on what I read. If the technical capability Snowden alleged became or becomes an operational actuality, it would damned well be both illegal and unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:43 PM

31. .

 



Tell me again how a proven liar who can't hold a job is more trustworthy than a sitting Democratic President of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:07 PM

20. Wow! Are you being sarcastic or something? No one can be this unaware of what has been

revealed and what he revealed only confirms what was revealed by all the other Whistle Blowers of the past decade.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:16 PM

24. Try again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:22 AM

37. So....you're now arguing that Snowden leaked false information?

'Cause he did leak that Verizon warrant.....was that a lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:43 AM

42. Yes, apparently there was a warant, AND THAT'S the PROBLEM!!

The FISA court cannot issue warrants for domestic intelligence!! So, how did they get that warrant??? Got any ideas?

This is why we need Congressional hearings, as Don Wyden among other Democrats, have been saying for a long time now.

Do you get it now?? FISA = FOREIGN Intel. It is ILLEGAL to spy on the American people, with or without a warrant.

What probable cause, a Constitutional Requirement for ANY warrant, did the NSA present to the Fisa Court to do something as illegal as spying on the American people?? Did they LIE to the FISA Court?

The Warrant IS the problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:49 AM

44. No, the FISA court can, thanks to the 2010 law.

It is ILLEGAL to spy on the American people, with or without a warrant.

Nope.

First, if FBI gets a wiretap warrant, then they are spying on American people. Search warrants also cause law enforcement to spy on American people.

Additionally, Title 50 (which created the intelligence agencies) does not forbid the intelligence agencies from helping title 7 (law enforcement) agencies. So far, all that's been leaked is the NSA is storing the data. Nothing has been leaked about how the data is or has been used, so we don't know if it's being used by title 7 or title 50 entities.

Finally, the metadata belongs to the phone companies, not the American people. So do you now want to extend full Constitutional rights to corporations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:53 AM

47. Omg!

Forget it! It's just too sad to read this stuff on DU.

For those who understand this democracy, just so you don't think I agree with the above comment.

SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL! No law 'fixed' that. The FISA 'fix' was done to protect Bush who had broken the law. Congress CHANGED the law to legalize his illegal activities.

They did NOT make 'spying on the American legal' as you see in the comment above. They made it not necessary to get a warrant until AFTER the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:56 AM

48. Yeah, when the argument goes downhill, it's best to just shout "You're wrong".

That way one isn't in danger of having to think about their positions.

SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS ILLEGAL!

How is an FBI wiretap not spying on an American?

The FISA 'fix' was done to protect Bush who had broken the law.

Odd that it passed in 2010 then, instead of 2006 when Bush's program came to light and he still had a Republican majority in both houses. Almost like that wasn't the entire reason for the 2010 law.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:08 PM

21. They wonder why no one talks about NSA laws

 

When they are still stuck on hyperbole talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:51 PM

4. Some people are going to be fine with it and some aren't going to be fine with it.

In the long run I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind. If you were against it when Bush was doing it, you're probably going to be against it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:54 PM

7. I'm not talking about what happened after 9/11.

Given the available intelligence, could a competent President have stopped 9/11? I say the answer is an overwhelming "yes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 10:59 PM

13. Oh yes, I agree with you 100% on that.

The information was there and it was ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:01 PM

16. Ha!

"Defending the NSA's actions REQUIRES that you believe Bush did everything he could" LOL

"yeh see heh, I'm the decider ya see? I needs to see everything so I can decides!

person: "But mister president, you do want to end this unlawful gathering of information don't you?"

Yer FIRED, I've decided, heh.... punk."



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:04 PM

17. PS...

I'm agreeing with you.



-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:12 PM

22. "The System Was Flashing Red"

Do you recognize that chapter title?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:44 PM

32. Explain why you're wrong???

 

Either the NSA gas to dara collection or no other intelligence information exists in the entire world. Those are the options you just asserted existed.

You need it to be *explained* why you're wrong????

Would you like us to clarify the problem with "if you say we need jet planes then you have to believe that without them we're incapable of physical motion" while we're at it???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:46 PM

33. My point is that the tools needed to stop 9/11 existed before 9/11.

This is in little dispute, expect on Free Republic. What are you saying? That Bush was great?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:50 PM

34. So?

 

That is completely irrelevant to the conclusion you then tried to tie it to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:18 AM

35. Golly, that's a really tough strawman to knock down!

Phone companies are going to collect the data no matter what. They have to in order to send you a phone bill. And the data belongs to the phone companies, per a 1979 SCOTUS ruling.

During the W administration, the phone companies gleefully handed it over to the executive branch without any oversight, warrants, or probable cause.

I don't want that. And I have no reason to believe the phone companies would not do so again.

The system set up by the 2010 law requires oversight from both the judicial and legislative branch. It requires warrants. It's much better than the system you inherently propose: Going back to the 2006 scandal. Because if there's no system in place, then there's nothing preventing returning to the abuses from that era.

Hey look! Neither 9/11 or evil terrorists of doom even came up in my explanation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:24 AM

39. By 2001, Bin Laden was already responsible for one terrorist attack against Americans.

There was not a court, President, or American who would have denied a warrant for all communications coming in and out of Bin Laden's headquarters. That was how they got the information necessary to predict 9/11. Nothing new was needed... just a President who was willing to listen to the competent intelligence he was presented with.

Your response? Please be specific, lest it look like you're supporting President Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #39)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:39 AM

41. Again, my position has utterly nothing to do with terrorism.

That's why I added the tag line on the end. And it's why you're desperately returning to 9/11 and terrorism - you don't have to bother thinking if you do that.

The information is very valuable in investigating many crimes. For example, it could be quite helpful in an insider trading investigation. Thus I think it's good to save the metadata.

But I do not trust the phone companies to prevent government access to the data. Because they utterly failed to do so in the recent past, and have zero incentives to protect the data in the future. Enter the system under the 2010 law that creates safeguards to protect the metadata.

If I could wave a magic wand to set up a system, I'd probably have an entity that reports to Congress actually store the data. They're the only branch of government not directly involved in investigating crimes, so they would have the least incentive to sneak around the process. Plus, Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle have demonstrated they shirk their oversight responsibilities under the current system, so moving down to "Librarian of Congress" level is more likely to produce effective safeguards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:46 AM

43. That's scary.

And if you can't see why, that's f***ing scarier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:52 AM

46. Ah yes, when you don't have an argument, just keep shouting "You're wrong!!!"

It's far better than actually having a discussion. You might have to actually consider an issue if you discussed it.

Much better to blithely repeat what others say, and then shout "You're wrong!!" to anyone who doesn't agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)


Response to Pale Blue Dot (Original post)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 04:43 PM

49. I Think...You should stand behind Obama...because he is a good guy. And his wife is smart. Right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread