Today's Washington Post has an article today that conflates the two NSA programs that have been leaked to the press. It implies that administration officials lied when answering questions about the first leaked program.
When he was asked about the National Security Agency's controversial domestic surveillance program last Monday, U.S. intelligence chief John D. Negroponte objected to the question and said the government was "absolutely not" monitoring domestic calls without warrants.
"I wouldn't call it domestic spying," he told reporters. "This is about international terrorism and telephone calls between people thought to be working for international terrorism and people here in the United States."
Negroponte's answer is not inaccurate. The data mining is not "monitoring" domestic calls, and the reporter should know that. Taking numeric data is not the same as listening. These are two completely different programs. If an official had answered a question about the terrorist monitoring program by revealing the data-mining program, that person would have been guilty of revealing classified information.
Like the source(s) of the USA Today story are.
Please let's not add fuel to the fire by misrepresenting things like this.
I really haven't commented a whole lot on the case of Valerie Plame other than to say I was (and still am) disturbed by indictments for perjury and lying to investigators when no underlying crime has been committed. Judging by the story in the Washington Post today, I think everyone should be worried about this trend.
Fitzgerald does not allege in his filing that Cheney ordered Libby to disclose Plame's identity. But he states that Cheney's note to Libby helps "explain the context of, and provide a motive for" many of the later statements and actions by Libby. Libby was indicted last year for making false statements to FBI agents, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on Libby's testimony that he did not confirm Plame's involvement in conversations with the two journalists.
Not as a partisan, but as a citizen of this country, if this is the kind of evidence they are planning to use to convict someone, we have a major problem. This is pathetic evidence by any measure. If this is what years of investigation and millions of dollars can come up with, it says more about the special prosecutor than about the alleged crime.
It's apparent from the stories coming out that Bush will send National Guard units to the Mexican border. Mexico's president Fox has called to complain. Bush assured him it was only going to be temporary.
"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border but support of Border Patrol capabilities on a temporary basis by National Guard personnel," said White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri.
Yet the idea has further stirred an already volatile debate about immigration on both sides of the border even before the president makes his prime-time speech from the Oval Office at 8 p.m. A number of Democrats and even a few key Republicans voiced skepticism or outright opposition to the reported plan yesterday, calling it a politically motivated move that will only further strain units already stretched by duty in Iraq without solving the underlying problem of illegal immigration.
Which is fine, but is also what I'm afraid of. In other words, I do not want troops deployed indefinitely, but only until a permanent fence can be built. But the sheer gall of the Mexican president is apparent:
The president's plan could increase the strain with Fox, who has grown disenchanted with Bush's failure to ease immigration rules as promised. Fox for years has pressured Bush to help the 11 million illegal immigrants now in the United States, many of them from Mexico, with little to show for it. In their 15-minute call yesterday, "the president reiterated to President Fox his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform," Tamburri said.
Tonight's speech is aimed at assuaging House Republicans who have insisted on tougher enforcement measures against workers illegally in the country. If the House contingent feels action is being taken, White House officials hope they may yet sign off on some version of Bush's guest-worker proposal, which would provide a way for undocumented immigrants to stay here legally if they pay back taxes and penalties.
We'll see, I guess.
Media | Gaius Monday, 15 May , 2006 | 
Comments (25) 
