Why do you still support Bush?

July 9, 2006
Ally Told Bush That Failing to Inform Congress of Spying Projects Might Be Illegal In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

Recently, after the harsh criticism from Mr. Hoekstra, intelligence officials have appeared at two closed committee briefings to answer questions from the chairman and other members. The briefings appear to have eased but not erased the concerns of Mr. Hoekstra and other lawmakers about whether the administration is sharing information on all of its intelligence operations.

A copy of the four-page letter dated May 18, which has not been previously disclosed, was obtained by The New York Times.

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Hoekstra but said that "we will continue to work closely with the chairman and other Congressional leaders on important national security issues."

A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal D. Ware, said he could not discuss the activities allegedly withheld from Congress. But he said that Mr. Hoekstra remained adamant that no intelligence programs could be hidden from oversight committees.

"Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight," Mr. Ware said. "Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word."

Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker "concurs with my concerns."

A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.

The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that "intentionally undermined the administration," sends "a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over."

Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating "a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries."

Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.

"I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs," Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, "there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself."

Ms. Wilson said she shared "deep concerns" about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. "We have some troubled programs," she said.

American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.

As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.

But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.

An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised "a free flow of information," and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.

The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.

Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had "engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees."

He added, "We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities."

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that "the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members."

Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.

Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.

Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing "inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading" and asserting that "attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts."

A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.

Nancy Pelosi Admits Being Briefed on NSA Program
Written by Steve Boggess
Wednesday, December 21, 2005


Dear Editor:

I don't know if Democratic Party leaders today are afraid to actually take responsibility for their actions and words, or if they just don't believe that the voters pay attention to what they say.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, recently admitted that she indeed had been briefed in the past about the NSA (National Security Agency) program that allowed eavesdroping on those who are suspected of being either terrorists or having some association with terrorists.

In her own words, the minority leader said: "I was advised of President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities shortly after he made it and have been provided with updates on several occasions."

President Bush went on national television a few days ago and said publicly that, indeed, he did brief members of Congress on this program, and that as president he had authority to conduct such a program through executive order.

Democrats were beside themselves in accusing the president of over-stepping his boundaries.

Nancy Polosi claimed that she expressed "strong concern" about the "unspecified activities" at the time, but she kept her mouth shut. Ms. Pelosi declined to say why she didn't make her concerns public about the authorization, but it had the Democratic Party in an outrage over what they say were civil rights abuses.

It seems that the Democrats are more concerned over the civil rights of terrorists than they are over the protection of our armed forces during war.

President Bush also reminded those on the left that Al-Jazeera, Hezbollah, and other known terrorist groups are keenly aware of anti-war and anti-America positions of Democratic leaders. The comments of leftists are also broadcast on Middle Eastern television and web-sites.

The California Democrat--along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid--admitted to keeping silent about the "unspecified activities" even though she now believes they were illegal. Senator Reid also stated that he kept silent about the controversial program, even though he was briefed "a couple of months ago." True to Democrat fashion, however, Senator Reid ended his comments by trying to pass the buck back to President Bush on the NSA program by stating on Fox News Sunday: "This is something that is the responsibility of the president and the vice president and there is no way he (President Bush) can pass the buck."

The president indicated that those same Democrats who are now accusing him of over-stepping his boundaries had indeed been briefed at least a dozen times about the eavesdropping of the NSA by his executive order in an attempt to recognize those who are associating with known terrorists.

President Bush also reminded us that we are at war, and that he takes the job of protecting Americans very seriously. When he took the oath of office both times, he knew what he was facing, and has successfully faced down terrorism numerous times.

The Democrats are always accusing President Bush of one thing or another. Senator Reid doesn't want to take responsibility for voting for the same program that his Democratic colleague did. Is there anything the Democratic Party will take responsibility for? From where I sit, the thing they should be taking responsibility for is empowering our enemies. But even in doing something like that, they attempt to lay the blame at this president's feet.

Thank God Almighty for a president who isn't afraid to take responsibility for taking the fight to the enemy!



Comment
Was your poorly researched article cut and pasted from impeachbush.com? CI?

Pelosi is a democrat in name only; she's a lost soul with no real direction except to "complain" about one thing or another.

Show us anything Peolosi has done for the democratic party?

CI this is hilarious...

The American public is going to impeach Bush for a spy program that they are mostly in support of? Who on the left is thinking up this self defeatist stuff?

HAHAHAHA

Each new unwarranted attack of the radical left represents one more dem who will be voted out this next election.

Show us any democrat that has done anything constructive lately for ANY party other than aiding and comforting the ENEMY?

Why is it that when you disagree with a democrat,or that person disagrees with the party line,they are "democrats in name only" and only worthy of your contempt and scorn.

But,when a repub disagrees with the party,or crosses party lines for some reason,you praise them as being truly enlightened and showing "independence from the party?

Rex wrote:
Show us any democrat that has done anything constructive lately for ANY party other than aiding and comforting the ENEMY?

My point, precisely!~ Most democrats are "lost souls" without a rudder.

mm wrote:
But,when a repub disagrees with the party,or crosses party lines for some reason,you praise them as being truly enlightened and showing "independence from the party?

You fxxxxg liar! Show me!

Huh. I agree with C.I for once. Go figure.

Monday, September 26, 2005
Angry Protesters Demand "U.S. Out of U.S. Now!"
posted by Mr. Right



During a much-publicized anti-war protest in our nation's capitol this past weekend, "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, who previously demanded that President George W. Bush resign and withdraw his troops from occupied New Orleans, took things a step further during a speech to an enthusiastic crowd of dozens of fellow "Moonbats" in Washington, D.C.:


"We demand the war criminal Bushitler withdraw all U.S. troops from everywhere throughout the United States of America immediately and turn his self [sic] in to the United Nations to stand trial for conspiring with the Jews to murder my son! We will no longer tolerate his stormtroopers here on our home soil!"


Her cries were quickly embraced by the others in her movement, as an angry crowd of foul-smelling hippies, eyes bloodshot and pupils fully dilated, later showed up at the Pentagon in Arlington, VA, demanding that the U.S. Military surrender the building. "This is our country, we don't want you here!!!" Yelled Violet Lee Hill, a 26-year-old Graduate Student in Wymyn's Studies at the University of Wisconsin, "You have no right to be here! We are sick and tired of this oppressive occupation, and we aren't going to stand for it any longer! And bring us some more Cheetos, damnit!"

An indignant Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), seizing the moment, immediately took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives:


"Clearly, America is the biggest quagmire in U.S. history! American troops have occupied it since 1775, and they are still there today! How much longer will this exercise in futility continue? What is our exit strategy? When will the troops be going home? How many untold billions of dollars have we spent on this 230 year fiasco, and where has it gotten us? How many of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have died on U.S. soil? Some estimates I have read place it in the millions - the millions - with hundreds of thousands of them killed in combat in tiny, insignificant places with names like Lexington and Concord, Gettysburg and Pearl Harbor!

I ask you, Mr. President, how much is enough? How many more of our sons and daughters must we lose to this insanity? How can you possibly continue to justify their presence in a land where they are unwanted and serve no useful purpose, when their very presence there is brazenly illegal to begin with? I have had my staff working day and night, researching the matter, and they can find no record of Congress ever approving of this deployment and no record of the matter ever even being discussed before the United Nations Security Council! The time has come to put an end to this! It is plainly obvious that the people of the United States do not want us there! The American occupation of the United States must end and end right now and the President must be impeached for undermining the very essence of the Constitution by illegally deploying our troops there in the first place!"


Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) added:


"Take a good look around you. It doesn't take a genius to see that we are surrounded by the American Military! Wake up, America! They have set up camps and bases in every state in this country, from Maine to Mexico... from Bermuda to West Dakota, and they are armed to the teeth with tanks and guns and warships and planes and even nuclear - yes I said nuclear - missiles! Did you ever stop and ask yourself why that is? The answer is plain as day, George W. Bush has us all under siege! He is using our own sons and daughters to keep his sorry ass in power, and we ain't gonna stand for it any longer! The time has come to rise up and demand our freedom from the tyranny of American Imperialism, if not for our own sakes, than for the sake of our children! George W. Bush has gone too far and he must be stopped! Mr. President, withdraw your troops from all of America, and do it right now!"


Ward Churchill, Professor at the University of Colorado and self-proclaimed Native American, issued a strongly-worded statement expressing support for Ms. Sheehan's sentiments:


"I am moved by the words of my pale-faced soul-sister, the one whom I call 'She-Who-Howls-at-Smirking-Chimp.' Long have my people suffered at the hands of the White Devil! We who rightfully own this land demand that all of you treacherous, conniving little Non-Native American Eichmanns, every last filthy one of you stained in the blood of our innocent forefathers, withdraw from North, Central and South America and the Islands of the Caribbean immediately, military and civilian alike! I am excluding myself, of course, because I really am a Native American - no really, I am and you can't prove otherwise no matter what proof you think you have, including those Native Americans who say I am not one of them, because I am - so there! And never mind that I once admitted that I wasn't, because I was lying when I said that - it was the evil white-man part of me speaking with forked-tongue!"


Famous Hollywood anti-war activists Jane Fonda and Martin Sheen later vowed to stand with Ward Churchill and "his people" in driving the Americans out of their homeland. Ms. Fonda even offered to be photographed on a vegetable-powered anti-aircraft gun shooting at American jets, if one was made available. MoveOn.org founder George Soros quickly offered to pay for such a weapon, if former Vice-President and Internet creator Al Gore would take the initiative to invent it.

A spokesperson for Mr. Gore said the former Senator from Tennessee and Vice President of the United States was too busy to comment at this time, as he is currently researching how President George W. Bush has managed to cause global warming not only here on Earth, but also on Mars.

Meanwhile, world renowned propagandist Michael Moore posted this press release on his website:


"We are a nation under siege by our own oppressive Imperialist government and we must endeavor to drive ourselves from our own land - for if we do not, who will? Who among you would dare to deny that it was the Americans who conquered America? And deep down inside, we all know the real reason why Bushco continues to occupy America with his troops, and it is all about oil! He has a secret pact with the big oil companies to develop oil fields in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, and I have the proof! Bush is lying when he tells people that the American Armed Forces are here to protect and serve the people! They are nothing but a bunch of jackbooted thugs who were sent here for the sole purpose of raping the land and stealing our oil!

Before Shrub stole the last two elections, America was a peaceful land of hope and frivolity, where little children flew their kites and life was beautiful. Since then, every single day in our beloved country, thousands of people die, and this is a fact that even the Bush Administration dare not deny! Their blood is on his hands! How long is he going to continue to sit there on his lazy ass reading 'My Pet Goat' to gullible young school children while our people, our environment and thousands of innocent caribou are under assault by our most dangerous enemies, the American oil cartel and the U.S. Military? The world cannot afford to wait another three years for the end of the Evil Bush Regime - it must be ended now!

I am presently in the process of putting the final touches on a film, produced in conjunction with the good folks at Hezbollah and al-Jazeera, which will shake the very foundations of this country to its core and bring the much-hated Bush Regime to its knees, America the Pitiful: Oil's Well that Ends Wells! Once they see this film, I guarantee you that the American people will be rioting in the streets, demanding Bush's resignation, an end to the occupation of America, and the immediate cessation of all business activities by every oil company in America and throughout the world! Tell your friends and neighbors that they all MUST see this movie! [Advance tickets are now on sale at MichaelMoore.com]"


THUS ENDETH THIS WEEK'S DABBLING IN THE ART OF SATIRE

While I realize it is satire,the sad thing is that many dems and others on the left probably believe it,and agree with the sentiments you wrote.

"Satire?" ROFLMAO. You're still a liar! Quit projecting your sadist rhetoric; you're the sociopath.

If it wasnt satire,and the writer (or I) are liars according to you,then the sentiments written in that piece must be true.

The left is so far out there, satire more closely resembles and exposes their truth... Sad isn't it?

Informing Pelosi of an illegal program doesn't somehow make it legal. She said she protested the program. She probably felt she could not go public about it, thinking it was classified. However, an illegal program may not be classified.

The last time I looked this thread is on Bush. The right is doing it best to instead make it a discussion of Kerry, Cindy, Pelosi, et al. I guess Bush can't stand scrutiny.

Maybe John Kerry does not get respect from his own party because he has not killed anything yet.

She protests everything else...

Leave a girlfriend to die in a lake have a couple abortions and the Dems will take him in as one of their own...

Rex, how many people has Bush killed in Iraq?

NONE...

America endorsed the war... Bush is just a civil servant.