 |  |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage | |
| 2005-12-19 | |
During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.
In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence. "We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business." As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order. The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror. But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses. In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified." "I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case." During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information. "We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post. Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity. "[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry. But the complaints went unheeded in Washington. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses. "The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999. "The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage." | |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #101 Well said Oude Spook. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-12-19 22:57 |
| #100 Okay, 100. Looks like LA implemented his exit strategy some time ago from his own personal La Brea Tar Pit. Ah, I knew he was running out of gas when he started spouting about the Log Cabin Club.The refs should've stepped in and stopped it right there. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 22:54 |
| #99 In light of the above exercise in freedom of expression, Bush's expressed wishes for "Iraq's inclusive democracy," makes me puke. We outlawed Nazism in 1945. Why protect the more sinister ideology of Islamofascism in 2005? I don't want Islamofascists to vote; I want them to die by the millions. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2005-12-19 22:39 |
| #98 By the way LeftAngle, Try reading USC 18 ,506, the Patriot Act modifications to FISA directly, and the Authorization to Use Military Force (i.e. the President's authorization to wage the war on terror). The laws are quite specific in exceptions and exemptions given the President to conduct military and intelligence operations in the defense of the nation. And also check USC 18 768 - regarding the NYT Leaks, there's a 10 year sentence awaiting the CIA and congressional leakers, as well as the reporters. Republican or Democrat. Problem for you LA is that you refuse to address the topic at hand, instead dropping to name calling and refusing to answer legitimate questions put to you with facts and reason. Instead you simply drop to name calling and idiocy. Simpleminded behavior such as yours may cut it at Daily Koz or Alterman or Ted Rall, but they don't hold much water to anyone capable of maturity or rational thought. In short - start arguing facts and using reason or be forever doomed to the semi-human substrata of Trolldom - ignored, deleted and ultimately tossed aside after being thoroughly demolished. Big blow to your ego - one that you are apparently incapable of sustaining except when you hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Here's 2 clues kid: 1) You are not anonymous. Go read up on the IP protocol and RADIUS. And realize that people on this board have been intercepting and tracing this sort of things for more than a decade. There is little, if any, true anonymity on the Internet. 2) If you cannot put together sufficient facts and connect them with reasons in a way that withstands scrutiny, perhaps you should realize that you are wrong, and should admit as much; try learning from your mistakes instead of repeating them endlessly. I rather expect you are unaware of clue#1, and probably incapable of clue#2. Especially the latter; hard-core Liberals like Howard Dean and Moveon can not admit they were wrong, even when the evidence is as plain as killing fields of Cambodia, or the smoking holes in the ground where the Twin Towers once were. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-19 22:02 |
| #97 Agreed on the dual-use issue. I also agree on the way in which France and Germany, among others, were intentionally and pretty openly pursuing economic war against us at the time. What bugs me - sorry about the inadvertent pun - was that Clinton and Woolsey emphasized economic advantages but de-emphasized the national security concerns. Those with wadded panties on the Bush taps should remember that Clinton was the president who very much wanted a back door into EVERY CPU chip and who fought hard to prevent the use of encryption by individuals. There are good arguments to be made on those issues, but it's hypocritical to ignore those proposals. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 21:57 |
| #96 Another thing people forget about those years when we were doing economic espionage is that it was a reaction to the dirty tricks the French were playing. The French and other Euros started that war. |
| Posted by: long memory 2005-12-19 21:55 |
| #95 This was an amusing thread. My two cents worth: I think LA is a kid who is trying to figure things out. Maybe he'll learn something, and won't resort to name-calling and gay references before he retires from the field. Maybe he won't. But everyone was pretty nice to him, all told. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2005-12-19 21:53 |
| #94 I was there. Dual Use technology was a problem. Still is. Prudent to monitor those Non US Persons engaged intrade in such articles. To do otherwise be derelection of duty. Need to know who they sell to, how they are selling and getting around intended trade curbs. Not so much economic espionage as it is gathering intelligence vital to the security of the nation. Economics is the lifeblood of a capitalistic nation like the USA, and cannot be excluded or ignored. And it is tied qutie tightly to logistical capacity and capability for making war. Constitutional authority for the President to act is quite broad - FISA is probably not cnostiutional, in that it usurps executive power under Article II of the constitution intended for the executive branch. This will prove true, FISA or no, for Bush as it did for Clinton. The only reason a fuss is being made now is the NYTimes is trying to flack a book off this and attempting yet another smear of the Bush administration for political reasons, and the Dims, in their lemming-like fervor to return to power by any means neccessary, have found yet another cliff off of which they can charge. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-19 21:44 |
| #93 Let's go for 100 comments, like The Good Olde Days™ with AR-15. *Wipes tear from eye* |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-12-19 21:40 |
| #92 W speaking to teh people and teh Donks sink as his polls rise.... Rove is a genius (check the spelling, dickhead) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-19 20:35 |
| #91 Yup. And every time he goes before the public and deals with the issues (instead of following the previous tactic of letting the Democrats dig themselves into their own hole) his approvals go up even more. I hope the WH has learned its lesson: the bullshit coming from the Left has to be dealt with-- forcefully. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-19 19:35 |
| #90 Latest WAPO-ABC News poll (not exactly President Bush friendly, but then again, isn't Ipsos) shows: 47 percent approval 47 percent Bush ecomonic approval 56 percent Bush WOT approval |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-19 19:13 |
| #89 Think we got ourselves a classic here folks. Truly a work of art...and noone even broke a sweat. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-12-19 19:06 |
| #88 And of course, it's a rhetorical question at that. |
| Posted by: Danking70 2005-12-19 19:00 |
| #87 The usage of "Clinton did it too." is not as an excuse or defense. It's more like a question. Like "Why are your panties in a wad now?" |
| Posted by: Danking70 2005-12-19 18:46 |
| #86 So when and if Bush gets impeached for illegalities associated with this controversy.. And what illegalities are those? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-19 18:32 |
| #85 NO! The mainstream media pulled the strings on the puppet Pres Clinton and they are pissed GWB will not bow to polls. This started the media hate thats going on. Those that choose to follow the media blindly, as some of the Dems have, are following a pide piper to the clifs. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-19 18:25 |
#84 Since noone else is going to do it...
| ||
| Posted by: Phil 2005-12-19 18:24 |
| #83 Lefty, the Republicans bring up Clinton whenever Bush steps into something to demonstrate the hipocracy of the left who act as if only Bush has ever done this sort of thing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-12-19 18:16 |
| #82 "And if only we didn't have such a biased press, we would still have Bush as President instead of Kerry..." |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2005-12-19 18:14 |
| #81 abominal snowman: THEY ALL AGREE WITH ME: (Republican version) all together now: The Mainstream Media is responsible for all of President Bush's problems. They only report the bad news and have a agreement to slant the news in a negative way against the republicans and president bush. This is called unbalanced reporting and liberal media bias". |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 18:05 |
| #80 Hang around and find out... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 18:00 |
| #79 tu: oh really, do they talk like George F. Will? lmao |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:59 |
| #78 You know, maybe I'm dense, but "You're all _____" or "Everyone agrees with me!" stopped being valid rational arguments for most people sometime in the 7th grade. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2005-12-19 17:58 |
| #77 there is this group of about five guys who think they are the smartest mf's in the world.. Believe me, LA. The smart mf's aren't even here yet. I look forward to when they show up... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 17:57 |
| #76 ltop: Just a final note to you before I go.. If you read all the latest major polls, I'm squarely with the majority of Americans on President Bush about: his handling of the Iraqi War and job performance..and questions on his honesty and integrity. The man is hovering between 35-40% approval on all these categories..he is on the defensive on Iraq and losing credibility with the american people. these are poor rating and you know it anD all you on the right can do is bitch about the MSM.. why not blame the souce?: President George W. Bush HAVE A GREAT EVENING!!! |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:55 |
| #75 Of COURSE you don't take it seriously, dear -- you're losing the argument here. But it's a clever child nonetheless. Can't spell worth a damn, resorts to tantrums and namecalling to be sure ... but no doubt clever all the same. Must be, because it leans leftward - prima facie evidence, no? What a GOOD boy! |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 17:44 |
| #74 Bombarama: So when and if Bush gets impeached for illegalities associated with this controversy.. When he testifies before Congress he can say: "WHY YOU PICKIN ON ME? CLINTON DID IT TO" ROTFLMAO ...OH MY GOD...LOL |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:44 |
| #73 tu: I dont take this shit that serious..I'm just entertaining myself... I have been in Polipundit, Slates ballot box and in here and there is a consistent pattern in each one.. there is this group of about five guys who think they are the smartest mf's in the world..they follow each other around and make snide remarks about democrats/liberals..and they all act like a bunch of women...really I'm impressed..lmao |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:41 |
| #72 This is all very amusing. Billy J can't be used as an object of comparison or measurement because he's no longer in office. Never mind the fact that both he and the current president occupied/occupy the same office, served/serve the same term lengths, and had/gave the same presidential powers and authority. Nope, can't compare the two.....at all.....nosirree... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-19 17:41 |
| #71 "Here's", not "heres". |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-12-19 17:38 |
| #70 God, this is like cats with a ball of string! You wanna talk about your "quagmires", LA? 'Cuz it looks like you're in one... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 17:37 |
| #69 not at all..too each his own...so to speak lmao I knew you guys were a bunch of fags... |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:37 |
| #68 Here we go, when the left can not win an argument the name calling begins :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2005-12-19 17:36 |
| #67 You got a problem with gays, LA? |
| Posted by: big, strong and loves men 2005-12-19 17:34 |
| #66 truthfully speaking, heres a question: Do you guys belond to the Log Cabin Republicans? I notice there is a group of perhaps five of you. you all follow each other around, pat each other on the ass and make snide remarks...LMAO |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:32 |
| #65 True, but he loses 2 points for misspelling "geniuses". |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 17:32 |
| #64 G-E-N-I-U-S, LA. Not "genious". If you're going to use the word to rip somebody, make sure it's spelled right. It'll cut down on the snickering by your intended targets. Okay...genius? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 17:31 |
| #63 Heres a fact for your genious asses... Points tho for not whoring yur blog. |
| Posted by: Heartless Spemble1219 2005-12-19 17:28 |
| #62 ah, the neener-neener-neener argument. Gentlemen, I fail to see how any of us could possibly counter so telling a thrust. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-12-19 17:26 |
| #61 I think each should be judged on their own merits. Not a problem. If the Left is willing to back off and let the current President's term finish out, then make an appraisal, that's fine. But realistically, that ain't gonna happen. Not by a long shot. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-19 17:25 |
| #60 blah blah blah blah, whatever... Heres a fact for your genious asses... the Patriot act is being fillibustered with 5 Republicans joining the democrats because of this controversy. Republicans as well as democrats are calling for investigations.... DEAL WITH IT. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 17:25 |
| #59 well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner. This is the stupidest goddam argument I've ever heard. "It bothers you, so it must be true." Are you twelve? If I were accused of a murder I didn't commit, you bet your ass I would be defensive about it. Pull your head out and use real logic and real facts instead of reading into someone's actions what you want to see and then declaring it as fact. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-12-19 17:24 |
| #58 The evidence does seem to be stacking up that way Dave. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 17:13 |
| #57 "...it must be true because I cant see why Bush..." There may be other explanations for why you "can't see why" Bush is responding as he is, the most plausible of which is that you yourself aren't too fucking bright. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-19 17:08 |
| #56 well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner. This is the stupidest goddam argument I've ever heard. "It bothers you, so it must be true." Are you twelve? If I were accused of a murder I didn't commit, you bet your ass I would be defensive about it. Pull your head out and use real logic and real facts instead of reading into someone's actions what you want to see and then declaring it as fact. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-12-19 17:08 |
| #55 Sorry, LA. I tried to warn you...but some men you just can't reach. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 17:07 |
#54 well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner.That should win an award for the most parochial thing I've read on this web site since it started. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2005-12-19 17:03 |
| #53 Old Patriot: With all due respect sir, Bill Clinton isnt president anymore. In this case, even republicans are calling for investigations and if Bush is charged with doing something illegal: "CLINTON DID IT TOO!!! isnt goingto be a very good defense.... with all due respect sir. lmao |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:56 |
| #52 well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:52 |
#51 From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq Ah. SO now we've reached the "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2005-12-19 16:47 |
| #50 We bring out the crap about what Bill Clinton and the dummycritters did during his tenure in Washington, LA, to show the absolute hypocracy of the dummycritter party in their behavior toward anything that George Bush does, especially if it proves successful. The dummycritters attack the sitting president at every opportunity, often showing their own insencerity and absolute stupidity in doing so. Most of us aren't children - we have long memories, and access to data to prove our point. That only makes the hypocrites and idiots in Washington look worse by comparison. Even someone with your limited understanding of politics should grasp THAT! |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-12-19 16:47 |
| #49 tu: I know youre being facetious, so you think this is going NOWHERE? |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:46 |
| #48 "From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq Peace Movement." You already claim this is a fact. I don't see that supported anywhere but it is being touted on extreme lefty blogs. The FACT is no-one in the media knows who was wiretapped. Anything at all right now is speculation, not FACT. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-19 16:44 |
| #47 LA, when you write about members of the "Peace Movement" being targeted, you aren't referring to Lynne Stewart? Personally, my background is in damage control and I like to keep an eye on what can go wrong with a system. When planning a hostage rescue, I think it is entirely pertinent and valid to look back at what went wrong during the Mayaguez Incident (Ford), Grenada (Reagan), and Desert One (Carter). Out of the three rescues and attempted rescues, I would argue that Desert One was planned the best. When evaluating the Patriot Act, Echelon is certainly valid to discuss. While I am a great believer in civil liberties, I am not so worried about protecting the privacy of anyone who chooses to place a phone call to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad. I am a cautious supporter of what Bush allowed the NSA to do in this case especially since it appears that he kept Congress informed. I am cautious only because of what you would call my fascination with the Clinton Administration (or I would call my fascination with what could go wrong.) If a second Clinton Administration comes to pass, I could certainly see NSA being tasked to monitor the Minutemen or Brothers to The Rescue. If mine isn't a valid point of view than why have I continuously been bludgeoned with Watergate for the last 30 years? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-12-19 16:44 |
| #46 Good job, LA. Let us know how you make out. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 16:42 |
| #45 Deacon Blues: (thats a great Steely Dan Song) that's the controversy I think. Suppose they AREN'T tied to terrorist groups?...Man that is going to open up a big can of worms.... I'm gonna be watching this very closely. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:38 |
| #44 According to Fox news on yesterday only 36 people had been wiretapped and those were of people with known ties to terrorist organizations, which probably would include members of the "Peace Movement". |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-19 16:31 |
| #43 anon: I'm not sure which ones, they havent disclosed that information yet. But from what I have read THAT is the primary reason for the controversy and for the filibuster on renewing the Patriot Act. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:24 |
| #42 which ones, la? the ones like galloway and his crowd who were on the take from Saddam? |
| Posted by: anon 2005-12-19 16:07 |
| #41 You know where I think Bush is running into a problem with this? From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq Peace Movement. THAT is what is rankling not only democrats but republicans also. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 16:05 |
| #40 Maybe if we told Left Angle that Bush only wiretapped Branch Davidians he'd suddenly approve. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2005-12-19 15:09 |
| #39 I don't see anyone here making the claim, and I haven't heard any Republicans who have been interviewed, saying, Clinton did it so it's OK for Bush". What I am hearing is the hypocracy of the Democrats and media attacking Bush but they gave Clinton a free pass. That's what the Republican response is, not that it's right but there is a double standard in the Media and in the Democratic Party. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-19 15:04 |
| #38 Note, please, that I'm not saying "Clinton did it so it's okay for Bush". I think Bush's legal stance is probably pretty strong quite without reference to Clinton's actions, which were IMO far less defensible. I will, however, continue to excoriate the Democratic leadership and the left for its massive hypocrisy on this issue. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 14:52 |
| #37 I think somebody is an obtuse angle, guys... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-12-19 14:51 |
| #36 Well, the repubs/cons in this site are arguing it as "precedent" and if I'm intepreting what they are saying correctly, they believe that Bush is subject to a double standard in which Clinton is accessed by a more lenient standard particularly in the so-called MSM. I think each should be judged on their own merits If you argue on individual merits, it's hard for me to see how Clinton comes out better than Bush on this one, for the reasons I mentioned above. Bush's use of warrantless taps occurred with oversight, in the context of deadly attacks and the likelihood of additional attacks, was limited to situations in which one party was overseas and was adjusted in response to feedback from the FISA court. Clinton's had no oversight, did not appear to actually address terror threats, included extensive data collection within the US itself and did not seem to occur with any accountability at all. Judging them ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS which situation would YOU think is a better balance of civil liberties and national security? The massive surveillance of Clinton which was not effectively aimed at national defense and which had no oversight? Or the targetted surveillance of Bush, aimed at specific threats in the context of several thousand dead in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (and a plane that was intended for the White House or Congress but came down in PA instead) - a limited surveillance that did have oversight and accountability? |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 14:50 |
| #35 tu: "It IS what it IS..LMAO ok, I mean we can parse words if we want to but it just that i think: "Clinton did it too"!!! isnt a good defense. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 14:47 |
| #34 Well, LA. Since we're getting into semantics here, I think that would depend on what your meaning of the word "is" is... Hey! Clinton already said that! Silly me! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 14:40 |
| #33 lopt: Well, the repubs/cons in this site are arguing it as "precedent" and if I'm intepreting what they are saying correctly, they believe that Bush is subject to a double standard in which Clinton is accessed by a more lenient standard particularly in the so-called MSM. I think each should be judged on their own merits. It's almost as if the repubs/cons have this rule, that whenever Bush is accused of something or criticized negatively, they automatically go back and check if there is something in Clintons' record that is similar or sets a "precedent". |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 14:37 |
| #32 If what Clinton did was illegal I'm a little bit puzzled that repubs/conservatives that demonized him and impeached him never brought it up when it happened. The reality as I see it is that the legal issues around surveillance of communication that is either entirely executed overseas or at least terminates in another country are fairly fuzzy. Clinton was quite highhanded in his abuse of the presidential powers. Republicans - and civil libertarians like myself - did indeed protest this use of Echelon quite loudly. But by the time it came to light Clinton had already faced impeachment, his presidency was almost over and the issue was allowed to drop by the side of the road. But not to be forgotten. I doubt that Bush will point to Clinton as a precedent. He is arguing that his actions were a) well within the purview of the presidency, especially after the attack of 9/11 and credible reason to believe more attacks were being planned/attempted and b) occurred with proper oversight, notification and accountability. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 14:24 |
| #31 Pappy: Sorry I misintepreted your response. I'm doing several things at once. If what Clinton did was illegal I'm a little bit puzzled that repubs/conservatives that demonized him and impeached him never brought it up when it happened. My point is that if charges are brough up against Bush that he did something illegal, is this the defense that he will use? |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 14:10 |
| #30 LA, you appear to be agreeing with me about who is being disingenous? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-19 14:07 |
| #29 That's exactly my point. Whenever Bush gets into trouble, instead of responding to the specifics of that accusation the repub response is always: "Well look at what Clinton did." And my point is: If it was wrong then, especially with with such dubious usage as industrial espionage, no warrants, no FISA, no informing Congress, no DoJ oversight, why didn't Congress, the New York Times, and the rest of the media get spun up about it then? This instance, there were warrants, DoJ oversight, briefings with Congress and the purpose was specific to national security, reviewed and adjusted. Why the 'outrage' now? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-12-19 13:58 |
| #28 Left Angle, I'm not sure how long you've been hanging around Rantburg. You may not be aware that there are regulars here - including people who have commented on this thread - who have real-world experience in and with the intel community, over the course of several administrations. I suggest you consider the possibility that the responses you read here are informed in some cases by that experience and expertise. To put it more bluntly, there are people here who know whether and to what degree abuses happened under one or the other president. Clinton does not come out well in their eyes. He does not come out well in MY eyes - and I voted for the man twice. Consider for a moment the argument you make: that Clinton's actions - which were done with no oversight, no warrants, censure - should not be invoked when discussing what you call the "possible illegal" actions of Bush, which by any measure had more oversight, more accountability and were moreover aimed at a direct national threat. You can't have it both ways. You cannot gleefully hope that Bush will be nailed for alleged illegalities without opening the door to a discussion of the precedent set in the Clinton administration, in which far greater abuses were committed with no sanctions applied. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 13:54 |
| #27 BS, Left Angle. The specifics *ARE* discussed. Just because you don't like the discussion or the conclusions reached doesn't mean it isn't happening. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-19 13:54 |
| #26 Mebbe the word LA is looking for is "precedent", namely, if all other presidents did it, there is (a lot of)precedent. If W. J. Clinton did it, there is (some)precedent. Doesn't make it right - or wrong - it just puts it in context. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-19 13:51 |
| #25 "Repubicans ALWAYS invariably start talking about what Clinton did in the past." Left Angle, how about providing links to ALL examples of your assertion. I don't believe this to be a true statement. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-19 13:50 |
| #24 The point is that EVERYTIME Bush gets his ass in a sling, Repubs/Cons ALWAYS bring up Clinton.EVERYTIME What escapes your thick skull is that more often than not, he'd get a free pass. As the saying would go, it would be time to "move on". Move on, move on, move on. Nothing to see here. On the other hand, everything, EVERYTHING, GWB does is subject to the most glaring scrutiny and the most outlandish assertions, all does in the most shrillest of tones. Bush "lied" about the pre-war intel, holding illegal enemy combatants is some sort of violation of the Constitution, and NSA monitoring of communications between the U.S. and foreign countries is the beginning of some sort of police state. In the end though, it doesn't matter; anyone that sits in the Oval Office will always be compared to his/her predecessors at some point in time. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-19 13:49 |
| #23 dumber than usual LA - not even a chew toy. I'll pass, TYVM |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-19 13:47 |
| #22 Pappy: That's exactly my point. Whenever Bush gets into trouble, instead of responding to the specifics of that accusation the repub response is always: "Well look at what Clinton did." |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 13:45 |
| #21 Let's try this again. President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use Echelon to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade. Echelon has been around for awhile. It existed during the Clinton administration. The then-President was not accused of "domestic spying" or violating the Constitution by the media and members of Congress. Applying Echelon to engage in industrial espinonage and boost U.S. trade is a questionable act. The Europeans were upset, but not much was made of it by either the U.S. media or Congress. There were no warrants. No probable cause requirements. No FISA court. Members of Congress were not informed. The Justice Department was likely not consulted. Information intercepted was communicated solely between U.S. citizens within the U.S.. That may not have been the purpose of the program but that is a consequence of the application. If it was wrong then and nothing was said or done, why is it 'discovered' to be wrong now when it is applied for a narrow and specific purpose? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-12-19 13:37 |
| #20 testing 1,2,3 |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 13:31 |
| #19 phil b: My point is that there is a pattern to repub/con responses to Bush controversies. Instead of discussing the specifics of what Bush is being accused of or how or why it happened. Repubicans ALWAYS invariably start talking about what Clinton did in the past. So if Bush is impeached for doing something illegal in this matter, his defense will be: "Well Clinton did the same thing"? I dont think that will go over to well..lol |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 13:05 |
| #18 If you were to show outrage over anything he did, why didnt you do it when he was in office. Careful, LA. You are not playing with children here. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 13:01 |
| #17 Not the devil incarnate. Just a cheap southern courthouse pol who made good and brought his bad habits with him to Washington. |
| Posted by: Fred 2005-12-19 13:00 |
| #16 Of course there's an even more damaging possibility, Left Angle: namely that the NSA surveillance under Clinton WAS tied in part to monitoring terror networks and the corrupt export by European firms and governments of dual-use technology to regimes like Saddams. That was, at the time, given as one reason for the warrantless surveillance under Clinton. And I say "damaging" because it is truly unforgiveable that they collected information and then did not act on it. Except to keep the Clinton economy going. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 13:00 |
| #15 tu: what i really was refering to was the Echelon program specifically. It didnt come out that way when I typed it..lol for sure I know repubs thought Clinton was the devil incarnate..lol |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 12:57 |
| #14 Left Angle, disingenous doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. Essentially it means insincere (deceptively so). I fail to see how pointing out that the same or equivalent activities have occured in the past is disingenous. Rather its the opposite, and Bush critics are being disingenous by cloaking partisan attacks in the guise of matters of law, principle, whatever. If you want to debate the issue, go ahead and prove me wrong that I think you are being disingenous. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-19 12:56 |
| #13 Left Angle, it would help if the Democrats did not strike massively hypocritical poses and attack Bush onthe most disingenuous grounds. There's lots about the Bush administration I dislike or disagree with. But I have the honesty to admit the things I do agree with him on and I don't try to hide my knowledge of decisions -- unlike, for instance, Reid and Pelosi on the intercepts issue post 9/11. The point is that there was a huge, and publicly disclosed, surveillance effort authorized by Clinton with the full knowledge and support of the Democratic leadership in Congress - NOT in a time of war, mind you, NOT to prevent massive attacks on civilians here, but for econonomic competition - and yet for the last 4 days we've heard nothing from the Democratic leadership except that they are SHOCKED at the transparently ILLEGAL surveillance of people after 9/11. Surveillance which, if they are forced to admit, they knew all about. The comparisons with Clinton will stop when the rampant, destructive partisan-attack-at-any-cost hypocrisy of the Democrats and the left stop. And I say that as someone who was, I strongly suspect, an active Democrat for longer than you probably have been alive. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 12:56 |
| #12 LA. See comment #2. You could also look at #5 again, if ya want. God, you're easy! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 12:53 |
| #11 I'm sill waiting for the NYT and the MSM to develope Clinton Dérangement Syndrome. |
| Posted by: Stuck On Stupid Liberal 2005-12-19 12:53 |
| #10 Why is it that everytime President Bush gets into controversial situations that bring him bad publicity with possible negative future ramifications, Repubs/Conservatives ALWAYS bring up President Clinton? Because Clinton truly abused his power. He was a criminal, running a crooked administration. If you got too loud in calling attention to that, he'd sic his goons on you, and either try to destroy your reputation or have the IRS go through your life with a microscope. In contrast, Bush is accused of all that, but it's simply not true. I constantly hear whines about Bush "trashing the Constitution", yet when I ask for examples, nothing is given. For four years we've heard about the "stifling of dissent", but when you press people on it, they wave vaguely at people being criticized. Bush has been called a "criminal" for the practice of "rendition", yet it was Clinton that started the policy, and no one batted an eye when he did it. Unfortunately, we have a press that worships the naked use of power, if the power is used under the cover of being a Democrat, "progressive", or outright anti-American. So Clinton's abuses were ignored long enough to dismiss them as "old news"; on the rare occasions when a story was given notice, the facts were twisted to make him look like a victim. For example, he was impeached for lying to a jury, not for having sex. But what did the press want us to believe? Bush is the wrong party, the wrong ethic, he speaks and believes in a way that grates on the nerves of the self-declared elite. So the press takes every chance it has to describe his policies as crimes. He's slandered at every chance -- often by anonymous accusers. When he says something it's declared a lie, when it's shown to be true the proof is denied. His motives are always impugned. Whenever he addresses his critics -- no matter how mild the words -- he's "attacking" them. We're supposed to long for the days of the Clinton administration, because he'd bite his lip to show he cared, and could read from a teleprompter well, and because reporters openly declared their desire to fellate him. But he accomplished meaningful things only because he was forced to, or by accident, but somehow that's considered better, because he always had the approval of the elites. Feh. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-19 12:51 |
| #9 The point is that EVERYTIME Bush gets his ass in a sling, Repubs/Cons ALWAYS bring up Clinton.EVERYTIME |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 12:48 |
| #8 Guess you were sleeping during the whole Whitewater, Travelgate, FBI Files, Paula Jones, Brodderick, "did not have sexual relations", Impeachment Process, "what the definition of is is", and Presidential Pardons. Yeah, the silence was deafening |
| Posted by: danking_70 2005-12-19 12:47 |
| #7 Agreed, tu3031 - and against stiff competition, too. Wow, left angle. Wow ..... |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-19 12:45 |
| #6 Hey LA, we did show lots of outrage when Slick Willie was president. We're still cleaning up after him. If you think that GWB compares negatively to Clinton, then no one can help you. Your selective outrage (evil Republicans) shows who you are. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-12-19 12:44 |
| #5 Bill Clinton isnt president anymore, If you were to show outrage over anything he did, why didnt you do it when he was in office. Well, it looks like someone obviously wasn't paying attention from from 1992 to 2000. That's about the dumbest thing anyone's ever said here... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 12:42 |
| #4 Bill Clinton isnt president anymore, If you were to show outrage over anything he did, why didnt you do it when he was in office. It's disengenous that everytime Bush gets his ass in a sling instead of addressing the issue repubs/cons bring up what Clinton did in the past. |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 12:32 |
| #3 Clinton also used the IRS to punish critics. And somehow -- mysteriously -- got hold of hundreds of FBI background check files for Republicans. Yet we're supposed to ignore all that -- and ignore the continuing campaign to bury the Barret report -- and instead get outraged that the Bush administration ordered the tapping of phone numbers found in terrorist leaders' cell phones. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-19 12:25 |
| #2 I dunno. Maybe because...he did it? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-12-19 12:21 |
| #1 Why is it that everytime President Bush gets into controversial situations that bring him bad publicity with possible negative future ramifications, Repubs/Conservatives ALWAYS bring up President Clinton? |
| Posted by: Left Angle 2005-12-19 12:18 |