Wiretapping--Not Very Useful

Mariner

Active Member
Nov 7, 2004
772
52
28
Boston, Mass.
Contrary to Bush and Cheney's statements that wiretapping without warrants was crucial to preventing repeat terrorism after 9/11, today's New York Times reports that the FBI compalined that data from the wiretaps was seldom useful, and often distracted them from other, more productive work:

Quote

January 17, 2006

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

* * *

The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.

Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration pressed the nation's intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to move urgently to thwart any more plots. The N.S.A., whose mission is to spy overseas, began monitoring the international e-mail messages and phone calls of people inside the United States who were linked, even indirectly, to suspected Qaeda figures.

Under a presidential order, the agency conducted the domestic eavesdropping without seeking the warrants ordinarily required from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles national security matters. The administration has defended the legality of the program, pointing to what it says is the president's inherent constitutional power to defend the country and to legislation passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials told Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, of the eavesdropping program, and his agency was enlisted to run down leads from it, several current and former officials said.

While he and some bureau officials discussed the fact that the program bypassed the intelligence surveillance court, Mr. Mueller expressed no concerns about that to them, those officials said. But another government official said Mr. Mueller had questioned the administration about the legal authority for the program.

* * *

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

* * *

Some F.B.I. officials said they were uncomfortable with the expanded domestic role played by the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, saying most intelligence officers lacked the training needed to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights. They said some protections had to be waived temporarily in the months after Sept. 11 to detect a feared second wave of attacks, but they questioned whether emergency procedures like the eavesdropping should become permanent.

That discomfort may explain why some F.B.I. officials may seek to minimize the benefits of the N.S.A. program or distance themselves from the agency. "This wasn't our program," an F.B.I. official said. "It's not our mess, and we're not going to clean it up."

The N.S.A.'s legal authority for collecting the information it passed to the F.B.I. is uncertain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for the use of so-called pen register equipment that records American phone numbers, even if the contents of the calls are not intercepted. But officials with knowledge of the program said no warrants were sought to collect the numbers, and it is unclear whether the secret executive order signed by Mr. President Bush in 2002 to authorize eavesdropping without warrants also covered the collection of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Aside from the director, F.B.I. officials did not question the legal status of the tips, assuming that N.S.A. lawyers had approved. They were more concerned about the quality and quantity of the material, which produced "mountains of paperwork" often more like raw data than conventional investigative leads.

"It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads," the former senior prosecutor said. "A trained investigator never would have devoted the resources to take those leads to the next level, but after 9/11, you had to."

By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

By contrast, different officials agree that the N.S.A.'s domestic operations played a role in the arrest of an imam and another man in Albany in August 2004 as part of an F.B.I. counterterrorism sting investigation. The men, Yassin Aref, 35, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, are awaiting trial on charges that they attempted to engineer the sale of missile launchers to an F.B.I. undercover informant.

In addition, government officials said the N.S.A. eavesdropping program might have assisted in the investigations of people with suspected Qaeda ties in Portland and Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis case, charges of supporting terrorism were filed in 2004 against Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, a Canadian citizen. Six people in the Portland case were convicted of crimes that included money laundering and conspiracy to wage war against the United States.

Even senior administration officials with access to classified operations suggest that drawing a clear link between a particular source and the unmasking of a potential terrorist is not always possible.

* * *

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Endquote


[These are excerpts from the article. See the whole thing at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...=1137560400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

]

Mariner.
 
not surprised really....that the FBI continue to complain when they were the ones tracking all the terrorists and failed to stop them

but what i would like to know is this.....

why does the ny times have direct access inside all of the various security agencies; CIA, NSA and FBI and why aren't the agents from these agencies that are leaking this information tried for treason and shot?
 
manu1959 said:
not surprised really....that the FBI continue to complain when they were the ones tracking all the terrorists and failed to stop them

but what i would like to know is this.....

why does the ny times have direct access inside all of the various security agencies; CIA, NSA and FBI and why aren't the agents from these agencies that are leaking this information tried for treason and shot?

I think there are some disgruntled monolithic career people in the State Dept that are leaking this stuff to the Times.


And further, doesn't it seem obvious that NY Times is writing a story to alleviate any culpability they may have in breaking the wiretapping story in the first place?? That would diminish any credibility there.
 
Washington tradition, and are used by the Bush White House all the time.

In this case, if people are leaking the truth rather than simply being disgruntled, then it's a good thing we know about it, since it makes it easier to say, "Why don't we just leave our personal liberties intact and do away with this program." I'm guessing that is what will happen anyway. There's simply no logical reason not to at least keep a record of who was tapped and why, to be reviewed by a judge later. Of 1400 wiretap requests last year only a handful were denied. The potential for abuse of this type of ultimate Big Brother snooping power is simply too huge. Libertarian Republicans will side with Democrats to end it, I think.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
Washington tradition, and are used by the Bush White House all the time.

In this case, if people are leaking the truth rather than simply being disgruntled, then it's a good thing we know about it, since it makes it easier to say, "Why don't we just leave our personal liberties intact and do away with this program." I'm guessing that is what will happen anyway. There's simply no logical reason not to at least keep a record of who was tapped and why, to be reviewed by a judge later. Of 1400 wiretap requests last year only a handful were denied. The potential for abuse of this type of ultimate Big Brother snooping power is simply too huge. Libertarian Republicans will side with Democrats to end it, I think.

Mariner.
Wrong. Giving up 'classified, much less highly classified' information is dangerous for the country. There are ways of dealing with such a moral dilema, which may incur costs, but should surely be worth it to such principled people.
 
Mariner said:
Contrary to Bush and Cheney's statements that wiretapping without warrants was crucial to preventing repeat terrorism after 9/11, today's New York Times reports that the FBI compalined that data from the wiretaps was seldom useful, and often distracted them from other, more productive work:

Quote

January 17, 2006

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

* * *

The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. "There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States," the former F.B.I. official said.

Some of the officials said the eavesdropping program might have helped uncover people with ties to Al Qaeda in Albany; Portland, Ore.; and Minneapolis. Some of the activities involved recruitment, training or fund-raising.

But, along with several British counterterrorism officials, some of the officials questioned assertions by the Bush administration that the program was the key to uncovering a plot to detonate fertilizer bombs in London in 2004. The F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials also expressed doubts about the importance of the program's role in another case named by administration officials as a success in the fight against terrorism, an aborted scheme to topple the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.

Some officials said that in both cases, they had already learned of the plans through interrogation of prisoners or other means.

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration pressed the nation's intelligence agencies and the F.B.I. to move urgently to thwart any more plots. The N.S.A., whose mission is to spy overseas, began monitoring the international e-mail messages and phone calls of people inside the United States who were linked, even indirectly, to suspected Qaeda figures.

Under a presidential order, the agency conducted the domestic eavesdropping without seeking the warrants ordinarily required from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles national security matters. The administration has defended the legality of the program, pointing to what it says is the president's inherent constitutional power to defend the country and to legislation passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Administration officials told Mr. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, of the eavesdropping program, and his agency was enlisted to run down leads from it, several current and former officials said.

While he and some bureau officials discussed the fact that the program bypassed the intelligence surveillance court, Mr. Mueller expressed no concerns about that to them, those officials said. But another government official said Mr. Mueller had questioned the administration about the legal authority for the program.

* * *

"The information was so thin," he said, "and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up."

* * *

Some F.B.I. officials said they were uncomfortable with the expanded domestic role played by the N.S.A. and other intelligence agencies, saying most intelligence officers lacked the training needed to safeguard Americans' privacy and civil rights. They said some protections had to be waived temporarily in the months after Sept. 11 to detect a feared second wave of attacks, but they questioned whether emergency procedures like the eavesdropping should become permanent.

That discomfort may explain why some F.B.I. officials may seek to minimize the benefits of the N.S.A. program or distance themselves from the agency. "This wasn't our program," an F.B.I. official said. "It's not our mess, and we're not going to clean it up."

The N.S.A.'s legal authority for collecting the information it passed to the F.B.I. is uncertain. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for the use of so-called pen register equipment that records American phone numbers, even if the contents of the calls are not intercepted. But officials with knowledge of the program said no warrants were sought to collect the numbers, and it is unclear whether the secret executive order signed by Mr. President Bush in 2002 to authorize eavesdropping without warrants also covered the collection of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Aside from the director, F.B.I. officials did not question the legal status of the tips, assuming that N.S.A. lawyers had approved. They were more concerned about the quality and quantity of the material, which produced "mountains of paperwork" often more like raw data than conventional investigative leads.

"It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads," the former senior prosecutor said. "A trained investigator never would have devoted the resources to take those leads to the next level, but after 9/11, you had to."

By the administration's account, the N.S.A. eavesdropping helped lead investigators to Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and friend of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Faris spoke of toppling the Brooklyn Bridge by taking a torch to its suspension cables, but concluded that it would not work. He is now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison.

But as in the London fertilizer bomb case, some officials with direct knowledge of the Faris case dispute that the N.S.A. information played a significant role.

By contrast, different officials agree that the N.S.A.'s domestic operations played a role in the arrest of an imam and another man in Albany in August 2004 as part of an F.B.I. counterterrorism sting investigation. The men, Yassin Aref, 35, and Mohammed Hossain, 49, are awaiting trial on charges that they attempted to engineer the sale of missile launchers to an F.B.I. undercover informant.

In addition, government officials said the N.S.A. eavesdropping program might have assisted in the investigations of people with suspected Qaeda ties in Portland and Minneapolis. In the Minneapolis case, charges of supporting terrorism were filed in 2004 against Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, a Canadian citizen. Six people in the Portland case were convicted of crimes that included money laundering and conspiracy to wage war against the United States.

Even senior administration officials with access to classified operations suggest that drawing a clear link between a particular source and the unmasking of a potential terrorist is not always possible.

* * *

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Endquote


[These are excerpts from the article. See the whole thing at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/p...=1137560400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

]

Mariner.

You aren't saying the intel community should be selective about which threats to perceive as real or not, are you?

Kind of an about-face from when you lefties squealed that Bush/the intel community had foreknowledge of 9/11, isn't it?

I really can't understand how you liberals can be so blind to your own glaringly-obvious double-standards. :smoke:
 
Kathianne said:
Wrong. Giving up 'classified, much less highly classified' information is dangerous for the country. There are ways of dealing with such a moral dilema, which may incur costs, but should surely be worth it to such principled people.


:)
 
GunnyL said:
You aren't saying the intel community should be selective about which threats to perceive as real or not, are you?

....
Nahhhh, I think he's saying we should sit on our fucking hands and wait for the next attack to see if they mean it. THE MORON!!!
 
GunnyL said:
You aren't saying the intel community should be selective about which threats to perceive as real or not, are you?

Kind of an about-face from when you lefties squealed that Bush/the intel community had foreknowledge of 9/11, isn't it?

I really can't understand how you liberals can be so blind to your own glaringly-obvious double-standards. :smoke:

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but think the answers to the questions are that they are more than willing to endure further attacks, as long as they regain power and 'everyone' gets it that they were right on appeasement.
 
Kathianne said:
Sorry to be such a pessimist, but think the answers to the questions are that they are more than willing to endure further attacks, as long as they regain power and 'everyone' gets it that they were right on appeasement.

Pessimist? Realist is more like it. Based on their behavior, I sure couldn't call you wrong.
 
In protecting America, we have to be right everytime. The terrorist only have to be right once to committ a sucessful attack. If the wiretaps have led to a prevention of an attack then they are very useful!
 
hard to understand about the FBI feeling swamped by too many false leads? Who here is such an intelligence expert that s/he can KNOW that warrantless wiretapping is incredibly effective? I would think it's incredibly hard to sift through the vast amounts of information in emails and personal phone calls, and easy to make mistakes.

Besides, a lot of this is double-talk. A few years ago, when John Poindexter wanted to enact a Big Brother type surveillance project, Republicans were just as strongly in opposition as Democrats. Basically, you're just agreeing with whatever Bush does. I'm still waiting for some different types of Republicans on this board to assert themselves--where are the libertarians, to whom Big Brother is anathema?

Personally, I have a little more trouble seeing Bush as such a great leader. Let's see, he gets a memo labeled, "Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S." and does... nothing. He gets news of 9/11 and sits like a deer in the headlights for 7 minutes. Then he had 10 good minutes with a bullhorn at the WTC site. Then he invaded Afghanistan--fine job, Kerry would have done the same. But he didn't put enough force on the ground to catch bin Laden, based on Donald Rumsfeld's theories of a small military (sounds like weak defense to me). Then, he invaded Iraq on the pretext that it had WMD's, which it didn't, and which we can suspect Bush sort of knew it didn't. He fired the general who suggested he'd need more troops than Rumsfeld said. This invasion drove away vast amounts of positive support we'd gained in the Muslim world and beyond after 9/11, and created large numbers of new terrorist organizations. Many military people have suggested we're now creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. The invasion was so poorly managed that museums were looted and vast amounts of explosives--which are being used right now against U.S. forces--were stolen. He was so out to lunch about the politics of Iraq that he thought the invasion was over nearly 3 years ago: "Mission Accomplished." Abu Ghraib made the whole world sick, and Guantanamo and the secret CIA prisons and U.S. use of torture made the rest of the civilized world--and many Americans--very queasy. Both enraged Muslims, and were completely unnecessary. They lost the "hearts and minds" war. His openly Christian approach to government turns off potential immigrants that our economy desperately needs, and plays into Muslims' latent fears of Christian imperialism. His current focus on "victory" is likely unrealistic, as people here admit when I say I'll vote Republican in the next election if Iraq is a terrorism-free democracy by 2008.

Paul Bremer himself--Bush's own appointee to oversee Iraq after the invasion--has written that Bush ignored advice that he'd need vastly more troops to do the invasion right. Brent Scowcroft--who was the hawk who pushed Bush the Elder into the first Iraq war--has roundly criticized Bush the Younger for his war. And Khalilzad, the current Ambassador to Iraq, has admitted that the invasion was not truly necessary when it was undertaken.

Bush sure doesn't make me feel safe.

Most of you here are simply throwing around the stereotype that Democrats are weak on defense. Where's the actual evidence for this stereotype? Clinton came within a hair of taking out bin Laden well before 9/11. Was that lousy defense?

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
hard to understand about the FBI feeling swamped by too many false leads? Who here is such an intelligence expert that s/he can KNOW that warrantless wiretapping is incredibly effective? I would think it's incredibly hard to sift through the vast amounts of information in emails and personal phone calls, and easy to make mistakes.

Besides, a lot of this is double-talk. A few years ago, when John Poindexter wanted to enact a Big Brother type surveillance project, Republicans were just as strongly in opposition as Democrats. Basically, you're just agreeing with whatever Bush does. I'm still waiting for some different types of Republicans on this board to assert themselves--where are the libertarians, to whom Big Brother is anathema?

Personally, I have a little more trouble seeing Bush as such a great leader. Let's see, he gets a memo labeled, "Bin Laden determined to attack in U.S." and does... nothing. He gets news of 9/11 and sits like a deer in the headlights for 7 minutes. Then he had 10 good minutes with a bullhorn at the WTC site. Then he invaded Afghanistan--fine job, Kerry would have done the same. But he didn't put enough force on the ground to catch bin Laden, based on Donald Rumsfeld's theories of a small military (sounds like weak defense to me). Then, he invaded Iraq on the pretext that it had WMD's, which it didn't, and which we can suspect Bush sort of knew it didn't. He fired the general who suggested he'd need more troops than Rumsfeld said. This invasion drove away vast amounts of positive support we'd gained in the Muslim world and beyond after 9/11, and created large numbers of new terrorist organizations. Many military people have suggested we're now creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. The invasion was so poorly managed that museums were looted and vast amounts of explosives--which are being used right now against U.S. forces--were stolen. He was so out to lunch about the politics of Iraq that he thought the invasion was over nearly 3 years ago: "Mission Accomplished." Abu Ghraib made the whole world sick, and Guantanamo and the secret CIA prisons and U.S. use of torture made the rest of the civilized world--and many Americans--very queasy. Both enraged Muslims, and were completely unnecessary. They lost the "hearts and minds" war. His openly Christian approach to government turns off potential immigrants that our economy desperately needs, and plays into Muslims' latent fears of Christian imperialism. His current focus on "victory" is likely unrealistic, as people here admit when I say I'll vote Republican in the next election if Iraq is a terrorism-free democracy by 2008.

Paul Bremer himself--Bush's own appointee to oversee Iraq after the invasion--has written that Bush ignored advice that he'd need vastly more troops to do the invasion right. Brent Scowcroft--who was the hawk who pushed Bush the Elder into the first Iraq war--has roundly criticized Bush the Younger for his war. And Khalilzad, the current Ambassador to Iraq, has admitted that the invasion was not truly necessary when it was undertaken.

Bush sure doesn't make me feel safe.

Most of you here are simply throwing around the stereotype that Democrats are weak on defense. Where's the actual evidence for this stereotype? Clinton came within a hair of taking out bin Laden well before 9/11. Was that lousy defense?

Mariner.

All of your "Demo Handbook of Accusations" rhetoric aside, you did not answer the question.
 
Mariner said:
Washington tradition, and are used by the Bush White House all the time.

In this case, if people are leaking the truth rather than simply being disgruntled, then it's a good thing we know about it, since it makes it easier to say, "Why don't we just leave our personal liberties intact and do away with this program." I'm guessing that is what will happen anyway. There's simply no logical reason not to at least keep a record of who was tapped and why, to be reviewed by a judge later. Of 1400 wiretap requests last year only a handful were denied. The potential for abuse of this type of ultimate Big Brother snooping power is simply too huge. Libertarian Republicans will side with Democrats to end it, I think.

Mariner.
You have proof that the Bush White House uses leaks all the time?

So, in other words your saying, its ok for some people to break the law, but if the Bush admin. does it, we should scream bloody murder and seek impeachment, and its threatening our very existence.
 
GunnyL said:
All of your "Demo Handbook of Accusations" rhetoric aside, you did not answer the question.
and any of are shocked about this? Hardly.
 
Every time you see a "high administration official" quoted anonymously in the newspaper, that's a leak. It's been standard practice for presidents for at least 40 years. Bush has run a very tight ship in terms of leaks that he didn't want leaked, but he's used purposeful leaks when useful.

A recent example was when Bush was rattled by Murtha's challenge to bring the troops home immediately. Bush gave a speech at the Naval Academy which said, essentially, "Stay the course." Simultaneously, there were leaks from the Pentagon and White House about plans for troop reductions in 2006. That was the standard face-saving way in which a President changes course without quotably saying he's changing course.

Mariner

P.S.

When it comes to attacking Bush's rationale and management for the war in Iraq, I don't need to follow any Democratic Handbook. I can quote Republican critics instead, as I did above--Scowcroft, Khalilzad, and Bremer. No WMD's in Iraq--Scott Hadley (Bush administration official). Uranium story was wrong? (Bush himself admitted it). No Democratic Handbook needed--just follow the news.

Honestly, I have about zero respect for most Democratic critics of the war. They were too wimpy to challenge Bush directly at the time, and they haven't offered any better approach to extricating us.

I'm also furious with the media for not more closely examining Bush's rationale at the time--subsequently we've learned that much of Bush's rationale was based on already discredited info (e.g. the aluminum tubes). The media owed it to the country to analyze this rather than joining the war frenzy. We would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble--and could have paid more attention to Al Qaeda and other threats, such as Iran.
 

Forum List

Back
Top