Keep bringing the fastball, high and tight, Dick!!
And frankly, I hear Al Gore make those kinds of comments I'm just reminded of how fortunate we are that he didn't get elected in 2000.
Man, I love this guy. His speaking is perfect with that little smile of his and the calm even delivery. Too bad his health isn't better.
Keep bringing the fastball, high and tight, Dick!!
Chin music? That one ear holed him!!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Is there anyone on the planet that can view Algore and not see a truly mentally unbalanced person? It is very hard to even watch 30 seconds of this man and not feel like we are watching a hidden Camera viewing a mental Patient inside "the Cuckoo's Nest" Mental Hospital. Sometimes I look at this with Schadenfreude in mind, and then I feel sick to my stomach. Does anyone in that Party not see that he is insane?
"And frankly, I hear Al Gore make those kinds of comments I'm just reminded of how fortunate we are that he didn't get elected in 2000."
The Gorester talks about President Bush's wiretapping being illegal, but conveniently forgets that he wanted to have a chip installed in ALL PHONES.
Hello, Aglore? Your Clipper Chip Is Calling
Freerepublic.com | January 17, 2006 | PittsburghAfterDark
Posted on 01/17/2006 4:11:58 AM PST by PittsburghAfterDark
Hello, Mr. Gore? Your Clipper Chip Is Calling
“A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government”, declared an outraged Algore on Monday in regards to the liberal media and punditry driven story of President Bush ordering the NSA to “connect the dots” of terrorists and their handlers. So why the outrage over the breaking of law Algore? Certainly didn’t bother you much when your disgraced boss was undergoing impeachment for Nixonian charges.
Easy cheap shot though and not the point of this article.
It seems Algore’s memory on privacy and government interception of private communications is conveniently short and shall we say, incomplete.
In 1993 the Clinton Administration had decided that there was just too much communicating going out there that may or may not be susceptible to government interception. Their solution? Endorsing the mandatory installation of a little gadget known as the Clipper Chip.
Many listeners of G Gordon Liddy’s radio show will remember this little fiasco. The Clipper Chip was designed to provide secure methods of private and business conversations. Unless of course the people that wanted to listen were perceived as enemies of the state and one may wonder the administration itself.
You see, the Clipper Chip was designed by the government, the NSA in particular, and was widely expected to be adopted by all consumer electronics manufacturers. Who had the key? Why the NSA of course and their political masters.
Of course this wasn’t how it was advertised at the time. Keys to Clipper Chips would be “escrowed” or in layman’s terms, put away until needed to crack the device they needed to crack. This device would presumably go in all consumer electronics; computers, phones, fax machines, radio transmitters. In short, every single device used for electronic communications.
Just try and imagine the outrage if it was John Ashcroft and not Janet Reno’s Justice Department that released the following statement, “The Attorney General of the United States, or her representative, shall request manufacturers of communications hardware which incorporates encryption to install the U.S. government-developed key-escrow microcircuits in their products. The fact of law enforcement access to the escrowed keys will not be concealed from the American public.”
You think there was MSM outrage over this release? Hardly. In fact many talk radio shows of the day didn’t even touch the issue, the internet and bloggers were non-existent and it was left to electronics makers to tell the government where to step off.
On February 4, 1994 the following statement was released from Algore’s office on White House stationary; “Our policy is designed to provide better encryption to individuals and businesses while ensuring that the needs of law enforcement and national security are met.” It seems that privacy fears and questions about government overreaching in common carrier interception had no place in the Clinton White House.
This of course should come as no surprise. I just have to wonder if Algore is running around with a Clipper Chip in his cell phone, laptop or on his home or office fax machines and land line telephones.
I’m sure he’d like to be as law and order as he wanted the rest of us to be. So while Algore is out there railing about government privacy threats? Just remember it was his initiative in the Clinton Administration that would have left every single one of us at the whim of government intrusion and made electronic privacy impossible for all but the most technically adept in the population.
False outrage? You decide.
Clinton White House Factsheet on Clipper
Gore Crypto Statement 2/4/94
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559451/posts
And another of mention of algore. Victoria Toensig's article in the WSJ today:
Terrorists on Tap
Do Al Gore and other Democrats really want to keep the government from finding al Qaeda agents in the U.S.?
BY VICTORIA TOENSING
Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
In a speech last week, Al Gore took another swing at the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program, which monitors international communications when one party is affiliated with terrorists. Specifically, Mr. Gore argued that George Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently," and that such actions might constitute an impeachable offense. The question he raises is whether the president illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But the real issue is national security: FISA is as adept at detecting--and, thus, preventing--a terrorist attack as a horse-and-buggy is at getting us from New York to Paris.
I have extensive experience with the consequences of government bungling due to overstrict interpretations of FISA. As chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1981 to 1984, I participated in oversight of FISA in the first years after its passage. When I subsequently became deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, one of my responsibilities was the terrorism portfolio, which included working with FISA.
In 1985, I experienced the pain of terminating a FISA wiretap when to do so defied common sense and thwarted the possibility of gaining information about American hostages. During the TWA 847 hijacking, American serviceman Robert Stethem was murdered and the remaining American male passengers taken hostage. We had a previously placed tap in the U.S. and thought there was a possibility we could learn the hostages' location. But Justice Department career lawyers told me that the FISA statute defined its "primary purpose" as foreign intelligence gathering. Because crimes were taking place, the FBI had to shut down the wire.
FISA's "primary purpose" became the basis for the "wall" in 1995, when the Clinton-Gore Justice Department prohibited those on the intelligence side from even communicating with those doing law enforcement. The Patriot Act corrected this problem and the FISA appeals court upheld the constitutionality of that amendment, characterizing the rigid interpretation as "puzzling." The court cited an FBI agent's testimony that efforts to investigate two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were blocked by senior FBI officials, concerned about the FISA rule requiring separation.
Today, FISA remains ill-equipped to deal with ever-changing terrorist threats. It was never envisioned to be a speedy collector of information to prevent an imminent attack on our soil. And the reasons the president might decide to bypass FISA courts are readily understandable, as it is easy to conjure up scenarios like the TWA hijacking, in which strict adherence to FISA would jeopardize American lives.
The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.
rest of article here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007848