Posted on 12/30/2005 7:26:42 AM PST by Pukin Dog
Yeah, we have some great keywords on this thread: "traitortots" has to be my favorite. We also have both "firingsquad" and "circularfiringsquad" on the same thread...lol.
Actually, I think the timing is very good.
Note observation from Miss Marple. I think she has it right:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549263/posts?page=452#452
In fact, I am beginning to think that the Sandy Berger settlement in September was done so as not to spook people who were under investigation. If you think about it, Berger was after stuff that had already happened, while these leakers are undermining the current war effort. A big ka-boom on Sandy might have caused the others to go into hiding.
Or, this might be my wishful thinking.
But I am positive that this has been under investigation since the Times notified the President, which was over a year ago.
This might also explain why the President was so quiet all summer, and why he came out loaded for bear in November.
Because investigation of intelligence failure issues would just end up pointing more blaming fingers at the Clinton administration. They have the perfect storm here; rag on Bush for spying too much rather than too little.
Overdue.
Not only that. An "Authorization to use force" plus the inherent Presidential Powers as Commander in Cheif make this whole "NSA Easedropping" Media circus a complete NON story to anyone who bothers to be even remotely informed about the matter
Too bad for you you are not a Judge therefore your opinion on the legality of all this is irrelevant. I know a lot of Freepers are really surprised by this but we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. You don't get to vote on this.
Interesting point about Berger's actions dealing with past flaws, rather than current ops. I'm not sure why hammering him would have spooked the current crop of scoundrels. Could be.
I am reasonably certain that an investigation has been on-going since the leak was detected, probably a year ago.
Notice how GWB has distanced himself from the "ordering" of an investigation. He knows this is going to get nasty, and he does not need to let the MSM/libs deflect the impact by saying that he ordered it in retribution. I expect soon we'll be hearing, the "I can't comment on an on-going investigation." and "We'll have to wait until the investigation is complete before we know what happened."
My favorite line from the story yesterday was the "no comment" line from the NYT spokesperson. They are in deep trouble and they know only a fraction of it . . .
Ronald Kessler was interviewd by Stuart Varney (Cavuto) and what I found interesting was his explanation of WHY it was NOT sufficient for Bush to get FISA warrants, pre or post wiretaping. (Dems always say that he had 72 hours after the fact to get one and there is no excuse.) This is what he said:
Apparently if Bin Laden were calling someone in the States, who proceeded to give Bin Laden information about the next attack, under FISA law, the only information FISA could legally provide Bush is Bin Laden's side of the conversation. NONE of what the person in the US had to say OR their telephone number could legally be provided by FISA to Bush. According to Kessler, when Bush found out, he basically said this is B.S., and made the decision to go around FISA.
Kessler is an author, but I don't know if his explanation is on spot. Anyone?
au contraire, a change in policy could in principle be a couple of elections away, if the democrats take over the house of representatives. the democrats only need to just pretend to look like they want to do something about the mexican problem.
assuming yo'mama was stupid enough not to voice encrypt the call. which he might well be.
The Justice Department will move much faster than any special prosecutor. The DOJ was designed for this type of work.
I think the resignation of Robertson from the DISA court as a "protest" may also signal something.
If the Times had this information and told the press a year ago, then NSA probably referred this to Justice soon after. Just because we only recently got confirmation that an investigation had been opened does not mean that the investigation started last month.
What if in the course of the investigation Robertson was revealed to be one of the leakers?
Pinkerton/Hennican debate on this on Fox now.
Hmm, as to timing, it looks as if you're onto something, Miss Marple. And if Rockefeller's been leaking, it would be wonderful to see him resign from the senate, utterly humiliated and facing prosecution.
Pelosi??
Just turned on Fox this am, and wonder of wonder, Juan Williams expressed admiration for the way Bush sticks to his guns. If he believes in something, especially how to protect this country, the President doesn't waver. At least Juan appreciates that much.
Just a thought, if we announced bin Laden dead, would that generate an entire new stream of 'Let's declare the war on terror over' by the dems? It would. Perhaps it's to our benefit to let bin Laden swing in the wind.
Ellis is better than Ellen, but even he does not sound like he believes what he is saying - that it is more important that 'the people' know, than the leak happened.
Journalists are already screaming the right to protect their sources. Things must be getting interesting at the NYTimes and the WashPost.
Yes!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.