Lies, Intel And Treason

[NATO AIR]

ralph peters takes on the dem's "bush is big brother" myth with ferocious force.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61214.htm
INTEL, LIES & TREASON

By RALPH PETERS

January 9, 2006 -- ACCORDING to the Democratic Party's leaders, we all have been betrayed by the Bush administration's Big Brother intelligence tactics as evil government operatives invaded the privacy of innocent Americans.
Stop lying. Show us the victims.

Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed. Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one.

Can't do it? OK. Let's dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach for the facts:

1) Has a single reader of this column suffered personally from our government's efforts to defend us against terrorists? Have any of your relatives or even your remotest acquaintances felt our intel system intrude into their lives?

That's what I always ask the group-think lefties. Not one has ever been able to answer "Yes."

2) The same big-lie politicians attacking the president's efforts to uncover plots against America by monitoring terrorist communications will be the first to shriek that the War on Terror has failed when we're attacked again.

They want it both ways: Drop our defenses, then blame Bush when terrorists strike.

3) The "eavesdropping" operations revealed so sanctimoniously by The New York Times aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their willing contacts on our soil. When such operations are "exposed," the terrorists find ways to work around them. Doesn't it just make sense to keep secrets from enemies who announce they want to kill Americans? Who already have killed Americans?

4) Would the Pelosi-Dean gang prefer to give the terrorists the run of the house? For all of their whining, the ultra-Dems have never laid out a coherent, detailed strategy of their own for fighting terror. Show us your plan!

5) Contrary to the nonsense concocted by Hollywood ("King Kong" was far more realistic than "Syriana"), the intelligence community isn't populated by evil sneaks plotting to destroy the constitution and assassinate bothersome citizens from the bridge of the Starship Enterprise.

I worked in the intel field for 22 years and still give occasional lectures at various agencies, and the truth is that analysts and technicians work in cubicles that would make Dilbert run screaming. Recent recruiting efforts mean that more-senior officials work in cubicles, too.

Our intelligence professionals could make more money in private industry. But they serve because they believe in our country and their mission. And not one of them goes to work in the morning asking, "How can I do a bad job for my fellow citizens today? How can I subvert the Constitution?"

6) Our intelligence system has so many built-in safeguards to protect the personal information of our citizens that it seemed like overkill to me. Intelligence reports couldn't include even a passing reference to any American citizen by name (given the variety of American names, we did a lot of scrambling to conform to the very strict rules).

My fellow Americans, the real threats to your information security are Google, eBay, chat rooms, credit applications, junk mail, etc. And the Democratic National Committee holds vastly more information about individual American citizens in its files than do all of our intelligence agencies combined.

7) Self-interested renegades posing as whistleblowers aren't patriots, they're traitors. Not one of the recent "anonymous sources" has been able to cite a single example of an innocent American harmed by our intelligence campaign against Islamist terrorists.

The leaks that so badly compromised our security were made to score political points by those who place their personal and political vendettas above our nation's safety.

8) We need to get serious about treason and the destructive culture of leaks — on both sides of the aisle. Let's face it: Both political parties have served our country badly with their use of leaks for partisan purposes.

Compromising classified information, for any purpose and at any level, is a serious crime. Those who betray their trust and harm our national defense need to go to jail — for life. If we were truly serious, we'd treat treason as a capital offense again.

THE dishonesty and cynicism on the American left is breathtaking. The only reason the Dems are hand-wringing over the imaginary threat to your personal secrets is that every other approach has failed them.

They couldn't get the traction they expected by betraying our troops and declaring Iraq a failure (note how shamelessly the Dems have deserted Cindy Sheehan as her nuttiness turned radioactive — they'll bail on John Murtha, too, as he gets whackier). Now they're trying to convince you that Big Brother Bush is peeping through the blinds to make sure you and your spouse stick to the missionary position.

The truth is that you are being endangered. By politicians so desperate to gain power that they willingly pave the way for terrorist attacks.

The Dean-Pelosi chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club has provided aid and comfort to our enemies. Reasoned dissent is patriotic, but serving as propaganda agents for mass murderers is something else. Now the Dem extremists are welcoming the compromise of clandestine programs to prevent terrorist attacks.

They, not Bush, are flouting our laws. By encouraging the compromise of classified material. And you will pay.

When the Islamist killers come to our soil again and left-wing politicians attempt to exploit our dead by howling that the War on Terror failed, just remember who it was that gave away our secrets to the terrorists.

Ralph Peters is a former military intelligence officer.

 

[Nightwish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/p...d=2&ei=5070&en=484bc2e583399264&ex=1136955600

 

[Mariner]

that the Democrats have not offered any very good alternative plan. On the other hand, they've also been rather stifled by Bush's heavy-handed, "if you don't agree with me, you're a traitor" way of handling dissent. Bush is hardly one to encourage discussion of different ideas, or respect for his opponents' viewpoints. Some people seem to see this as a strength. I see it as a possibly fatal character flaw.

(Of course, he is capable of whopping flip-flops when the situation calls for it: Oops, no WMD's in Iraq or even under my desk, ok, ok, let me see, "We came here for humanitarian reasons!" Derides Gore as a nation-builder, then starts the biggest nation-building project since the Marshall plan. Says he's a "uniter, not a divider" and then runs the most divisive, aggressive, and secretive administration in recent memory.)

Peters isn't providing any real information in this opinion piece at all. Just hot air.

Why does he put "eavesdropping" in quotes? What else was it but eavesdropping?

I'm glad he feels so safe about the safeguard on American citizens within the intel community. His saying so doesn't make me feel more safe.

I like that Jefferson quote. I'd guess that eavesdropping without having to tell anyone would count at "tyranny" in Jefferson's eyes.

Mariner.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Peters isn't providing any real information in this opinion piece at all. Just hot air.


Mariner.

I found his comments about how intel gathers info, and some of their restrictions quite revealing and interesting.

And how many new ideas have come from Pelosi Dean gang lately?

You obviously pick an agenda and then make the facts fit.
Loser.
Hey, but OBL loves you. Its guys like you who make his life easier.

 

[dilloduck]

that the Democrats have not offered any very good alternative plan. On the other hand, they've also been rather stifled by Bush's heavy-handed, "if you don't agree with me, you're a traitor" way of handling dissent. Bush is hardly one to encourage discussion of different ideas, or respect for his opponents' viewpoints. Some people seem to see this as a strength. I see it as a possibly fatal character flaw.

(Of course, he is capable of whopping flip-flops when the situation calls for it: Oops, no WMD's in Iraq or even under my desk, ok, ok, let me see, "We came here for humanitarian reasons!" Derides Gore as a nation-builder, then starts the biggest nation-building project since the Marshall plan. Says he's a "uniter, not a divider" and then runs the most divisive, aggressive, and secretive administration in recent memory.)

Peters isn't providing any real information in this opinion piece at all. Just hot air.

Why does he put "eavesdropping" in quotes? What else was it but eavesdropping?

I'm glad he feels so safe about the safeguard on American citizens within the intel community. His saying so doesn't make me feel more safe.

I like that Jefferson quote. I'd guess that eavesdropping without having to tell anyone would count at "tyranny" in Jefferson's eyes.

Mariner.

You are afraid that the government is spying on you ? :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Adam's Apple]

Why does he put "eavesdropping" in quotes? What else was it but eavesdropping?

My best guess would be to distinguish it from what the NYT is implying to the Bush Administration's definition of "aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their willing contacts on our soil".

 

[Adam's Apple]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/p...d=2&ei=5070&en=484bc2e583399264&ex=1136955600

Please tell me what information we are to get out of this article with proof of the insinuations that the NYT is making.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

that the Democrats have not offered any very good alternative plan. On the other hand, they've also been rather stifled by Bush's heavy-handed, "if you don't agree with me, you're a traitor" way of handling dissent. Bush is hardly one to encourage discussion of different ideas, or respect for his opponents' viewpoints.

Mariner.

Yea, the Dems have been real stifled in opposing Bush's war plans. Uh, there was a presidental election recently "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".
Apparently your memory is quite short. Shame on you for posting such a blatant mis representation of the facts.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yea, the Dems have been real stifled in opposing Bush's war plans. Uh, there was a presidental election recently "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place".
Apparently your memory is quite short. Shame on you for posting such a blatant mis representation of the facts.

Yes, and that poor Sheehan woman. No coverage at all of her anti-Bush rantings.