But we foiled 2002!

[Chilly]

One of the things that I find absurd about this administration's PR team is their insistance on the use of Orwellian-like tactics as their trump card. I also find it absurd that people actually fall for it.

 

There has been a recent example of the Bush administration doing exactly this in their defense of the whole wiretapping incident. The PR campaign wasn't going exactly well for them, and a good majority of people thought that the Bush administration was wrong for not getting warrants.

 

And now comes the trump card: fear. The Bush campaign, attempting to boost its PR campaign with the wiretaps, decides to tell the country about a 2002 plot to destroy the US Bank Tower (or, as Bush referred it to by its old name to keep it in line with the rhetoric, the Liberty tower).

 

The terrorist plot that they foiled was so dangerous and imminent that they never even informed the mayor or the local city government. And then they never even had the courtesy of informing the mayor before announcing it on national tv.

 

This isn't to suggest that you can't use examples of when it was useful, but don't use one specific incident to drive an Orwellian-like fear feeling to get your point acrossed.

 

I know this will never happen, but I dream of there being a coherent argument, with facts and examples to back it up. This is the appropriate way to use the 2002 terrorist attack.

 

Instead, this administration uses it as a distraction from all of the other things. "We foiled 2002. Now let us do whatever we want, otherwise you'll get attacked again".

 

Neither Democrats nor Republicans, as well as any other party once they got into power, will really truly do that. I do like how all the Republican's say that the Democrats don't have a coherent National Security plan and is the party of big government, while the Republicans not only fail to coherently put together a compelling reason to have warrantless system, but also want expanded Presidential authority (aka big government, what they are against).

 

I think that its pathetic that the Democrats are so disorganzied that they will not be able to take advantage of this and use it to their advantage. I also think its not completely the political party's fault that politics is done with way.

 

A big part of the blame falls squarely on the electorate for allowing emotional responses like this to overtake their senses. Unfortunately, its all too common to have this happen. If it didn't work, political strategists wouldn't use it.

 

Anyway, enough of my long ass rant about different things. Its the system, and we're stuck with it.

[SilverNRed]

There has been a recent example of the Bush administration doing exactly this in their defense of the whole wiretapping incident.  The PR campaign wasn't going exactly well for them, and a good majority of people thought that the Bush administration was wrong for not getting warrants.

602056[/snapback]

Link?

 

EDIT: Here's a link that doesn't seem to indicate that the NSA program is all that unpopular.

 

Rasmussen

 

I imagine a giant chunk of Americans just want to hear that the government is doing everything possible to keep them safe.

[Chef Jim]

Link?

 

EDIT:  Here's a link that doesn't seem to indicate that the NSA program is all that unpopular.

 

Rasmussen

 

I imagine a giant chunk of Americans just want to hear that the government is doing everything possible to keep them safe.

602061[/snapback]

 

Damn lying numbers............

 

64% sure is a good majority.

[SilverNRed]

Damn lying numbers............

 

64% sure is a good majority. 

602070[/snapback]

Probably depends on the question. I'm sure most people would respond "yes" if asked if they'd prefer the government get warrants all the time, but they're rather NSA (or anyone else) just bend the rules as needed if it means getting the job done with terrorism.

 

I just don't think the NSA thing has been unpopular for the Bush administration. If anything, it has helped by keeping terrorism in the forefront. And maybe it even gives them a reason to bring up some successes.

[Chef Jim]

Probably depends on the question.  I'm sure most people would respond "yes" if asked if they'd prefer the government get warrants all the time, but they're rather NSA (or anyone else) just bend the rules as needed if it means getting the job done with terrorism. 

 

I just don't think the NSA thing has been unpopular for the Bush administration.  If anything, it has helped by keeping terrorism in the forefront.  And maybe it even gives them a reason to bring up some successes.

602077[/snapback]

 

That's why I think polls are a load of crap. You can word the questions anyway you want to get the results you want. Though, this poll's not too bad because it proves a point a agree with.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

That's why I think polls are a load of crap.  You can word the questions anyway you want to get the results you want.  Though, this poll's not too bad because it proves a point a agree with. 

602078[/snapback]

Problem with what the Bush admin is doing is not checking up on or spying on terrorist contacts in the U.S., but his administrations inability to differentiate between this kind of action and spying on political opponents or simply just following congressionally established procedures to ensure that these actions taken remain above board.

 

I think if they had asked a question as to whether or not people believe or trust the Bush Administration to not abuse its power. You could probably get results that would not be favorable.

[Chilly]

The Rasmussen poll has a definite disparity between what I was asking and what they were reporting.

 

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

 

And I doubt anyone in congress would disagree either. The real issue with this whole situation has been if the President should be allowed to expand his power to the point of authorizing the wiretaps WITHOUT a warrant.

 

Check out the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll at

 

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

 

The issue really isn't what he is doing, but should he get warrants for doing so. If you saw any of Alberto Gonzales' presentation to congress on the issue, this is mainly what the leaders of congress and their constituents are concerned about in this issue.

 

It isn't exactly the issue of wiretapping persay, as it is not receiving the warrants for it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Problem with what the Bush admin is doing is not checking up on or spying on terrorist contacts in the U.S., but his administrations inability to differentiate between this kind of action and spying on political opponents or simply just following congressionally established procedures to ensure that these actions taken remain above board.

 

I think if they had asked a question as to whether or not people believe or trust the Bush Administration to not abuse its power.  You could probably get results that would not be favorable.

602098[/snapback]

 

Proof of spying on political opponents, please?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Problem with what the Bush admin is doing is not checking up on or spying on terrorist contacts in the U.S., but his administrations inability to differentiate between this kind of action and spying on political opponents or simply just following congressionally established procedures to ensure that these actions taken remain above board.

 

I think if they had asked a question as to whether or not people believe or trust the Bush Administration to not abuse its power.  You could probably get results that would not be favorable.

602098[/snapback]

 

Trusting ANY administration not to abuse this power is a symptom of clinical insanity.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And now comes the trump card: fear.  The Bush campaign, attempting to boost its PR campaign with the wiretaps, decides to tell the country about a 2002 plot to destroy the US Bank Tower (or, as Bush referred it to by its old name to keep it in line with the rhetoric, the Liberty tower). 

 

The terrorist plot that they foiled was so dangerous and imminent that they never even informed the mayor or the local city government.  And then they never even had the courtesy of informing the mayor before announcing it on national tv.

602056[/snapback]

 

There are, I think, two issues at work here that I keep harping on:

 

1) This administration's marketing sucks. Big-time. It's not that they don't know what they're doing...they just haven't the slightest idea how to sell it. I've been screaming about that since...November of '03.

 

2) There has not been a clear, intelligent public debate about whether the war on terrorism is based in criminal justice or military action. Bush treats it as largely a military issue (as opposed to Clinton, who treated it as largely criminal. Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.) That's pretty much the issue driving the whole wiretap controversy...and pretty much the issue behind not notifying the mayor of what's happening in his city: if counter-terrorism is a military action, why would you be required to notify someone as far outside the chain of command as the mayor of a city? I'm not saying it's not an issue as much as I'm saying it's one small detail of a much bigger issue no one's addressed.

[Chef Jim]

There are, I think, two issues at work here that I keep harping on:

 

1) This administration's marketing sucks.  Big-time.  It's not that they don't know what they're doing...they just haven't the slightest idea how to sell it.  I've been screaming about that since...November of '03. 

 

2)  There has not been a clear, intelligent public debate about whether the war on terrorism is based in criminal justice or military action.  Bush treats it as largely a military issue (as opposed to Clinton, who treated it as largely criminal.  Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.)  That's pretty much the issue driving the whole wiretap controversy...and pretty much the issue behind not notifying the mayor of what's happening in his city: if counter-terrorism is a military action, why would you be required to notify someone as far outside the chain of command as the mayor of a city?  I'm not saying it's not an issue as much as I'm saying it's one small detail of a much bigger issue no one's addressed.

602161[/snapback]

 

Also probably had a lot to do with the mayor of LA at the time the plots were "allegedly" foiled and the mayor of LA at the time the plots were announced.

[Chilly]

There are, I think, two issues at work here that I keep harping on:

 

1) This administration's marketing sucks.  Big-time.  It's not that they don't know what they're doing...they just haven't the slightest idea how to sell it.  I've been screaming about that since...November of '03. 

 

2)  There has not been a clear, intelligent public debate about whether the war on terrorism is based in criminal justice or military action.  Bush treats it as largely a military issue (as opposed to Clinton, who treated it as largely criminal.  Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.)  That's pretty much the issue driving the whole wiretap controversy...and pretty much the issue behind not notifying the mayor of what's happening in his city: if counter-terrorism is a military action, why would you be required to notify someone as far outside the chain of command as the mayor of a city?  I'm not saying it's not an issue as much as I'm saying it's one small detail of a much bigger issue no one's addressed.

602161[/snapback]

 

We have a winner. I agree 100% with both of these points.

[Wacka]

If you don't like your political opponents, just do what the Clinton Administration did and sic the IRS on them.

[Johnny Coli]

If you don't like your political opponents, just do what the Clinton Administration did and sic the IRS on them.

602280[/snapback]

It sure beats writing manifestos in a tin shack in the woods, eh, Ted?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It sure beats writing manifestos in a tin shack in the woods, eh, Ted?

602284[/snapback]

 

Or causing "suicides".

[Ghost of BiB]

There are, I think, two issues at work here that I keep harping on:

 

1) This administration's marketing sucks.  Big-time.  It's not that they don't know what they're doing...they just haven't the slightest idea how to sell it.  I've been screaming about that since...November of '03. 

 

2)  There has not been a clear, intelligent public debate about whether the war on terrorism is based in criminal justice or military action.  Bush treats it as largely a military issue (as opposed to Clinton, who treated it as largely criminal.  Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.)  That's pretty much the issue driving the whole wiretap controversy...and pretty much the issue behind not notifying the mayor of what's happening in his city: if counter-terrorism is a military action, why would you be required to notify someone as far outside the chain of command as the mayor of a city?  I'm not saying it's not an issue as much as I'm saying it's one small detail of a much bigger issue no one's addressed.

602161[/snapback]

 

It's actually treated as both, as well as financial, political, diplomatic, etc. The published national strategies towards this and other issues call for combining and synergizing all elements of national power into a common mission. Wonderful thoughts and words - but difficult in the execution because of the legacy systems of doing things. It will take time to work out new lines of authority and communications issues - for you guys out there in the IT world, how easy do you think it is to interface multiple different networks (some of them secure past "top secret") so everyone can have a common operating picture?

 

As Tom alludes - the "laws" haven't kept up with the changes and blending in approach and in mission space. Creation of just one piece, the NID has already probably really screwed up the federal codes. I haven't been following, but I haven't seen Congress addressing that (except to posture when appropriate). Baseball steroids are MUCH more important to the country, as a whole. The NCTC is intell focused, but has people from all walks of government sitting at the table. NORTHCOM, who is responsible for Homeland Defense, has an interagency group that is about three pages long that is intimately involved with operations. This is all new territory and it will take a while to work the kinks out. All the argument from both sides sounds like bantering semantics, to me. The laws being quoted don't fit the current situation. And holy geeze - what would it take to get the laws changed? Look at the Patriot Act.

 

National Strategy for Combating Terror

[bobblehead]

Or causing "suicides".

602626[/snapback]

 

Have you noticed how hard it is to find anything of substance on the Vince Foster issue? Talk about swept under the rug, damn. You would think, even years later, that there would be alot out there on this.

 

Of course maybe I just don't know where to look

[Adam]

Problem with what the Bush admin is doing is not checking up on or spying on terrorist contacts in the U.S., but his administrations inability to differentiate between this kind of action and spying on political opponents or simply just following congressionally established procedures to ensure that these actions taken remain above board.

 

I think if they had asked a question as to whether or not people believe or trust the Bush Administration to not abuse its power.  You could probably get results that would not be favorable.

602098[/snapback]

Do they have political opponents? I mean if they do, its the actual democrats- the good ones, not the leaders of that party, which need to be fired

[Alaska Darin]

It sure beats writing manifestos in a tin shack in the woods, eh, Ted?

602284[/snapback]

It's as valid a point as you liberals are making on this subject. Thanks for the irony, though.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Have you noticed how hard it is to find anything of substance on the Vince Foster issue?  Talk about swept under the rug, damn.  You would think, even years later, that there would be alot out there on this.

 

Of course maybe I just don't know where to look

602946[/snapback]

 

And you thought the Bush administration had secrets.

 

I HOPE Hillary runs so the light can be shone squarely on that cockroach.