People with brains knew this already, but here’s a government report validating us.
The 38-page unclassified version of the document reaches a cautious conclusion, stating that any use of the information collected under the surveillance program ’should be carefully monitored.’
…
Among other things, the report cites a Justice Department conclusion that ‘it was extraordinary and inappropriate that a single DOJ attorney, John Yoo, was relied upon to conduct the initial legal assessment’ of the surveillance program.
‘The lack of oversight and review of Yoo’s work … contributed to a legal analysis of the [program] that at a minimum was factually flawed,’ it says.
The report says Yoo largely circumvented both his boss, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
…
Most of the intelligence officials interviewed by the inspectors general had, according to the report, “difficulty citing specific instances where PSP reporting had directly contributed to counterterrorism successes.”
At some point, probably a long time from now, I bet we’ll find out that that this program was all about monitoring the conversations of people with a (D) after their names. Especially people like John Kerry.
Don’t forget that it’s also about monitoring reporters to see who’s giving them information that the administration would rather they didn’t have.
Really?
I missed the news report about how the United States was attacked after 9/11….
OR maybe it DID protect us.
Lets talk again in, oh, 3.5 years shall we?
Actually, I’ve protected this country with The Stone of Zecord from the Mutara Nebula. I can confidently proclaim this with as much evidence that usualsuspect has.
Now fuck off.
So, usualsuspect, it seems you missed the news report about how the United States was warned about 9/11. And how brilliantly the Bushies responded to it.
Remember the briefing entitled “Al Qaeda Determined To Strike in US” delivered on August 6, 2001?
The Bushies HAD the intelligence data. They didn’t have the intelligence to use it.
very cogent argument PD, I bet you got an A in debate at Harvard…….
LOL
Usual Suspect you are a fucking idiot.
Hey PD, its your debate club buddy from Harvard rat_bastard!
hey rat, do YOU have the cite for the horrifying post 9/11 attack that happened on bush’s watch?
ROLFLMAO!
Listen up, suspect: The terrorists didn’t have to attack us over here, because the motherfuckers in the Bush administration spoon-fed our fighting forces to the terrorists OVER THERE! And also had us jumping at shadows. We’d forgotten that great quote from FDR: “All we have to fear is fear.”
Yep Randy,
That’s called taking the fight to the enemy. Gosh speaking of that pargon of liberal values FDR what do you think of his Japanese citizen internment camp policy? I know Bush was way worse than that, just ask any liberal.
No, it is because we were hunting the fuckers down like animals using every tool at our disposal…Randy. And by the way, we pay the military to fight and to protect civilians, so I guess you are right too.
So yo, listen up: We killed thousands of al qaeda…over there. And prevented another attack on civilians, over here. And you can bet money we will be attacked under Obambi, cause he doesn’t have the stones to do what is necessary to prevent it. Check back in the next 3.5 years for that outcome.
And it ain’t fear to protect yourself and your family from blood thirsty savages.
‘I missed the news report about how the United States was attacked after 9/11….’
I guess you also missed the reports on how it could have been avoided if BushCo didn’t have a hard on for allowing it in order to justify his raping of the Justice system as well as Iraq.
‘very cogent argument PD, I bet you got an A in debate at Harvard…….”
Still beats your undergrad degree in obfuscation from Liberty U.
‘hey rat, do YOU have the cite for the horrifying post 9/11 attack that happened on bush’s watch?’
You mean one APART from 9/11?
‘That’s called taking the fight to the enemy’
IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK YOU GENIUS.
‘And it ain’t fear to protect yourself and your family from blood thirsty savages.’
Especially when THEY DIDN’T ATTACK THE US.
When did Iraqis destroy the WTC?
Oh that’s right, they never did. It was the good personal friends of the Bush clan, the Saudis. (17 of the 19, at least.)
“And prevented another attack on civilians, over here.”
Too bad they couldn’t prevent 9/11 in the first place, despite a memo entitled “BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US.”
God I’m so glad your neocons are out of power forever.
I missed the news report about how the United States was attacked after 9/11….
What about the anthrax attacks, the perpetrators of which, by the way, were never found.
Funkystein look up “AQI”. And “Randy” didn’t specify Iraq, seems like we were in Afghanistan too. Turns out terrorist don’t just huddle in one country. Also check out how many UN agreements Iraq violated, and then get back to me as to whether shooting at allied planes enforcing the Iraqi “no-fly” zone could be considered a “causis belli”
Zython seems to have inside information that the anthrax episodes weren’t performed by some lefty socialist….better get to the FBI with that data Z.
extraordinary and inappropriate
3 word review of the last 8 years.
Also check out how many UN agreements Iraq violated, and then get back to me as to whether shooting at allied planes enforcing the Iraqi “no-fly” zone could be considered a “causis belli”
Not reason enough to invade.
Zython seems to have inside information that the anthrax episodes weren’t performed by some lefty socialist….better get to the FBI with that data Z.
First off, do you have any proof it WAS? Secondly, so what if it was? It was still a terrorist attack on American soil.
Funkystein look up “AQI”.
AQI was founded after we invaded (originally known as Group of Monotheism and Jihad in 2003).
Usual, here’s some advice in all seriousness. As much fun as it is to point out the holes in your arguments that you could drive a train through, you should just cut your losses and leave. The only thing more posting is going to accomplish is making the hole you dug yourself in deeper.
Thanks for the advice Zython. If we kill al qaeda members that move to Iraq after we invaded, are they still dead and not attacking the US?
In all seriousness, since you are so freaking smart….are they still dead?
Not every crime committed in the US is an act of terrorism.
Most of the people we killed in Iraq had no ties to AQ. They were pissed off Iraqis who resented the occupation.
Ever heard of Mohammed al Sadr? Or Vietnam, for that matter?
Iraq was a wasteful, expensive debacle to set back our national security and standing for decades.
If we kill al qaeda members that move to Iraq after we invaded, are they still dead and not attacking the US?
What’s your point? We could’ve killed them in their home countries with far more ease. And that doesn’t explain away those that join AQI in response to the U.S. invasion. If we kill 10 members of AQ, that’s all well and good, until you realize that in doing so, we inadvertently helped them recruit 1000 members.
Really though, your concern about how many members of AQ we’ve killed rather than how much damage we’ve done to the organization as a whole really speaks volumes about your priorities.
Not every crime committed in the US is an act of terrorism.
True, stuff like this can be chalked up to stupidity of people like yourself.
We could’ve killed them in their home countries with far more ease.
Oh, really?
Perhaps you should contact the Armed Forces’ experts on asymmetrical warfare, and explain to them how that would be accomplished. You see, they have this silly strategy of drawing terrorists of all types into a weakened , unstable country and killing them like fish in a barrel. Last I heard – over a year ago – before the Surge – that ineffective method had killed of more than 40,000 terrorists.
If you know a better way, you should share it with CENTCOM.
…and created hundreds of thousands more all around the Middle East.
they have this silly strategy of drawing terrorists of all types into a weakened , unstable country and killing them like fish in a barrel. Last I heard – over a year ago – before the Surge – that ineffective method had killed of more than 40,000 terrorists.
and how many innocent Iraqis, exactly? Jesus, Frank, do you realize how heinous and immoral such a strategy would be, were it put into place?
(not that I think there is any evidence that that is really what happened – it’s just one more in a long list of after-the-fact justifications for the war.)
And in spite of all these home grown Jihadist that the lefties believe we have created….not a single terrorist attack in the US!
Wow.
Well, here’s a little thing you may not have considered:
Maybe “the terrorists” just got lucky on 9/11 and there NEVER WAS any existential threat justifying a WorldwWideWarOnTerror.
Taking out the Taliban government, yeah, but declaring War On A Tactic? Maybe not.
And in spite of all these home grown Jihadist that the lefties believe we have created….not a single terrorist attack in the US!
Terrorist attacks have been prevented by the three things that right-wingers pooh-poohed in advance of the Iraq invasion: international cooperation, law enforcement and intelligence. Apparently Cheney’s constitution-trampling domestic spying and humanity-trampling torture program contributed little to nothing to the last of these.
that ineffective method had killed of more than 40,000 terrorists.
…and created tens of thousands more.
Assuming that all of those 40,000 were genuine terrorists, how many of them, and how many of the remaining members of al qaeda, etc., were terrorists before 2003?
S Q : How many innocent Iraqis? I ask you, how many innocent Iraqis? Every single Iraqi that died while we there? Every one we shot or bombed by accident? Every terrorist, hiding in the “sea of people”?
And how many “innocent Iraquis” would have died under the Hussein regime? In a Kurdish revolt? In a war with Iran backed Sunnis? How many “innocent Iraquis” would have watched their daughters raped, and their sons tossed into wood chippers?
How many Kurds would have been poisoned by gas and chemicals? Southern Iraquis flloded out of their ancestral homes?
JS Mill said it best:
Nice diversion Frank. But I’m talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died because you think it’s okay to invade their country for the sole purpose of drawing in terrorists so we can kill them. Because that’s what you said.
So, if I want to lure a drug dealer into your home with the express purpose of fire bombing it and killing the drug dealer, that would be okay with you, right?
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds. I love that line, it is so fitting.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds. I love that line, it is so fitting.
Really easy to say that when other people are fighting your battles.
Besides, Liberals(TM) don’t think all war is bad. Just the ones you think are a good idea.
Nice diversion Frank. But I’m talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who died because you think it’s okay to invade their country for the sole purpose of drawing in terrorists so we can kill them. Because that’s what you said.
Pretty much this. No about of red herring is going to divert attention from the fact that you support Iraqi civilians being used as live bait.
Scratch a liberal and a coward bleeds.
Yes, sort of like when National Guardsman George W. Bush defended the shark infested waters of the gulf versus going to Vietnam and then just ditched his service.
“In a war with Iran backed Sunnis?”
What? The majority populations of Iran and Iraq are Shia Muslims.
Go back to school, Frank. And take your meds.