Comments on How come our media doesn’t report this?

Go to sarooster's opinion on things - Add a comment - Go to How come our media doesn’t report this?

So Then...

when you say this, "Our president and this administration is doing the exact same thing the others did before him" you admit that George W. Bush hasn't really done a damn thing in response to 9-11 to protect your interests? I mean, after all, he's doing the exact same thing that Jimmy Carter did, Richard Nixon did, Ronald Reagan did...despite the elevated terrorist attacks of 9-11. And you think this is a good thing?

What freedoms have you lost since 9-11...you've lost the freedom to read whatever material you like without enduring suspicion from your government if you choose the wrong topic.

You've lost the freedom to criticize your government without fear of retribution or perhaps even imprisonment for having too strong of an opinion regarding certain regions of the world.

You've lost the freedom to travel without impedance.

You've lost the freedom to conduct business freely without government scrutinizing your foreign business partners.

And you'll soon lose the ability to travel within your own country if you don't carry with you the proper documentation, namely, a national ID card.

No issue resides in a vacuum. To wonder why the press doesn't report on one specific aspect of a vast issue is to live your life with blinders on either eye.

posted by Dennison..Mann on December 22, 2005 at 10:57 AM | link to this | reply

My post only concerns the issue at hand right now.

Our president and this administration is doing the exact same thing the others did before him. I am prepared to live with that. I don't think it's right, but I am not going to want to stop it now when we probably need it. I want the war to be fought in the Middle East or anywhere but here. I want anyone who would do wrong stopped. I don't feel I have given up any of my freedoms in this country. I can do now what I did before 9/11. I have asked if anyone can show me where my freedoms have lessened please let me know.

posted by sarooster on December 22, 2005 at 10:34 AM | link to this | reply

And You Think That...

George W. Bush cares about national security?

How naive are you?

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said that "a nation which sacrifices freedom for security will end up with neither."

George W. Bush cares about security...but not national security. He cares about the security of his money. He doesn't care one iota about your security unless you threaten his money. Then he becomes suddenly concerned with your whereabouts.

When speaking of terrorism, no law (nor violation of law) will make you more secure in your home. If you want to stop terrorism then separate yourself from what causes terrorism. Right now, American policies in the mid-east inspire terrorism. Remove the inspiration rather than chasing your tail by curbing the rights of your own citizenry.

What's more, my point about Clinton was this: you justified the current administration's intelligence gathering policies by citing that these policies have been White House SOP for decades...even before 9-11. Yet your justify Bush's policies by citing terrorism. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. If 9-11 and the current wave of terrorism are the impetus for the current administration's policies then why did Republicans choose the path of absurdity by impeaching Clinton for something as petty as his sexual habits rather than his illegal intelligence gathering policies that didn't benefit from the demands of 9-11 or modern terrorism?

In other words, to what degree of stupidity and pettiness will the Republicans take responsibility? Why didn't they impeach Clinton for illegal wiretapping?

And when you're finished wrestling with that, explain to me the Bush Administration's lack of response to 9-11 if they're just doing what's been done by the White House for decades.

You're sitting on a double-edged sword here. One yank and I slice you in half...lengthwise.

posted by Dennison..Mann on December 22, 2005 at 8:33 AM | link to this | reply

I don't care what kind of sex Clinton had while in office!

All I am saying is that if I could live with the kind of intelligence gathering the Clinton administration, and Reagan, and Carter, put forth then I can live with what is going on right now. The media did not make a big deal of it then and they don't need to make a big deal out of it now. The Democrats and media don't care about our national security on this issue. They want to get George Bush.

posted by sarooster on December 22, 2005 at 8:10 AM | link to this | reply

And You Really Think This Is A Good Thing?

This is so funny to me!

You're saying that the current Democratic outrage over growing evidence of domestic spying is more contemptible than the Republican outrage over Clinton's sexual exploits?

That's too funny.

Republicans don't care that the White House has been breaking the law for decades with an "ongoing" program of spying on Americans but they care about the President enjoying a little fellatio under the desk?

Well, we can see where their priorities lie.

posted by Dennison..Mann on December 22, 2005 at 5:38 AM | link to this | reply

dennison,

I am just pointing out that when the shoe was on the other foot it was Ok. Ms. gorelick was very clear in her statement. Clinton and his cronies did the same thing as Bush and his cronies. There is no difference. It was done under Reagan and Carter also. I have not seen any evidence that Bush I issued such an order, but I am sure he did also. The media and Democrats know this has been done by everyone. I don't think the program is worth a damn to tell you the truth. I can live with it now though if I lived with it when everyone else did it.

posted by sarooster on December 22, 2005 at 5:28 AM | link to this | reply

See My Comment Below...

The line is very clear.

posted by Dennison..Mann on December 22, 2005 at 4:39 AM | link to this | reply

There are U.S.citizens working & communicating with foreign individuals planning to harm this country as they did 9/11.

posted by reasons on December 22, 2005 at 4:24 AM | link to this | reply

Not Difficult To See At All...

Any non-US citizen is considered a source for foreign intelligence. It's as simple as that. Why do you think it's so difficult to see?

Law states that the US Government cannot conduct surveillance on US citizens unless they're under investigation for a crime.

I really don't see where you encounter such difficulty understanding this.

posted by Dennison..Mann on December 22, 2005 at 3:57 AM | link to this | reply

In today's world, the line between foreign and domestic intelligence is often difficult to see.