Are you really serious about Clinton being more invasive on personal life than Bush? You make a statement like that, but on what basis? If it was true, what would be the need for the so-called Patriot Act?
I must be a glutton for dealing with nonsense.
Sigh. Talking with a liberal about history is like talking with a creationist about biology.
All emphasis added in the following:
January 14, 2006—THE controversy follow ing revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist-related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by The New York Times. It certainly didn’t show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration.
Then, it was Echelon, a National Security Agency program. Its mission, Steve Kroft noted on “60 Minutes,” was “to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
The Times’ news story on the revelations stated calmly: “Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists.”
Of course, that was on May 27, 1999, and Bill Clinton ? not George W. Bush ? was president.
Despite the Times’ reluctance to emphasize privacy concerns, one of its sources in that same article, Patrick Poole, a lecturer in government and economics at Bannockburn College in Franklin, Tenn., had already done a study showing that the program had been abused.
“Echelon is also being used for purposes well outside its original mission,” Poole wrote. “The regular discovery of domestic surveillance targeted at American civilians for reasons of ‘unpopular’ political affiliation or for no probable cause at all . . . What was once designed to target a select list of communist countries and terrorist states is now indiscriminately directed against virtually every citizen in the world.”
The current controversy follows a Times report that, since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agencies are eavesdropping at any time on up to 500 Americans suspected of communicating with terrorists.
But under Echelon, the Clinton administration was spying on just about everyone. “The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has created a global spy system, codename Echelon, which captures and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax, e-mail and telex message sent anywhere in the world,” wrote Poole.
[...]“Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here,” answered Frost.
Even as the Times defended Echelon as “a necessity” in 1999, evidence already existed that the Clintonites had misused electronic surveillance for political purposes. Intelligence officials told Insight magazine in 1997 that they had spied on a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders in Seattle hosted by Clinton ? and some of that information was passed on to big Democratic corporate donors for use against their competitors.
“The only reason it has come to light is because of concerns raised by high-level sources within federal law-enforcement and intelligence circles,” wrote Insight, “that the operation was compromised by politicians ? including mid- and senior-level White House aides ? either on behalf of or in support of President Clinton and major donor-friends who helped him and the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, raise money.”
So, during the Clinton administration, evidence existed that:
* An invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;
* intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;
* and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.
These revelations were met by The New York Times by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited communications of a relative handful of suspected terrorists, have the Times in a frenzy.
Look, if you want to be a conservative that’s one thing…
Arghh! There’s that pounding in my temples again! Can’t anyone see why I get a headache? It’s like dealing with creationists (but at least they are consistent in their views. They don’t suddenly change their tune when a different political party gets in the WHite House like liberals do!) I have clearly said, and I am quoting myself here, “I’m not a conservative.” To any rational human being, these 4 words should be enough to get the point across!
OK, that’s it! I’ve got to take a break from talking politics with those on the left. I’d get further talking biology with creationsits!