Is there ANY reason to trust BushCo hasn't used "data" against Democrats?

Is there ANY reason to trust that this regime has phone records of every Democrat and other political opponents (including those evil Quakers and anti-war groups) and has NOT used them for political purposes?

Is there ANY reason to trust that their "surveillance" is limited to phone records?

Is there ANY reason to trust their secret, unmonitored, unlimited, unlawful spying is only about "terrorism?"

Is there ANY reason to trust anything they say?

Dems: Get the Spying Issue Right This Time!
Zack Exley

--snip--

--snip--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/dems-get-the-spying-issu_b_20829.html

They'll simply say "that's classified" -- that it would endanger security to reveal that.

There has to be bipartisan oversight SOMEwhere along the line -- and clearly, there isn't.

for the most part, have been so VERY "yes sir" at this fascist pig. Too much to lose--and I don't just mean their jobs.

Blackmail?

stealing elections.

And now that the public doesn't seem to mind much, the Dems are going to let it
fade away.

Which means it will also be used to destroy their chances of regaining power.

But what the hell. Nobody really believed in America in the first place.
Politics is just another version of the mob.

I doubt if any of it is about "terrorism". I think it's mostly to monitor envrionmental groups, peace organizations and anyone else they think is a threat to the bush regime.

of terraists working to subvert Murka today. They are all the more dangerous because they seek to overthrow the government by darkly sinister, so-called "peaceful" means, such as trying to mislead large numbers of people into voting against the President.

They lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder.

When Bush says we can trust him on domestic spying...well, I trust him about as far as I can throw a Steinway (and his sons!)

you would have about 98% in favor of impeachment. I'm not even sure the Hanitty's would try to defend that.

But we would have to make the accusation 1st- and not one DEM seems to have the guts to do that.

a bit sleazy.

The RW has done dozens of similar things to put us on the defensive--holy hell, with the pRez polling at 29%, will there ever be a better time?

We seem to equate being creative & agressive with being "dishonest" or "sleazy."

I never suggested we lie- I suggested we accuse Bush of spying on Democrats and question his honesty.

in Congress point-blank: "Are you being spied on? ARE YOU BEING BLACKMAILED? Do you think there's a possibility that the NSA knows something that could be used against you?"

What would be ideal of course would be if a member of the press were to ask these questions on our behalf, but considering the state of so-called "journalism" these days we'll all be dead before THAT happens.

But these are not unreasonable questions, and they've been haunting me for months. I keep asking myself the why the Beltway Dems never stand up to the Bush mafia when it counts, and the only reasons I can come up with are that they are bought off or blackmailed or both.

I'm not interested in precisely what the NSA has or might have on them. I just figure nobody in Washington is so squeaky-clean they don't have SOMETHING that would embarrass them if the whole world knew about it. Okay, with the possible exception of John Conyers and Dennis Kuchinich, I doubt that there's anyone. That doesn't make them criminals.

I'm just angry enough now that I might write to my rep (a Dem) and ask her personally, not because I think she's guilty of anything but just to get the word "blackmail" into the public forum. I might even ask her if she believes any of her colleagues are being blackmailed.

As much as I'd love to put the Repukes on the defensive and make them deny they are spying on the Democrats, I know they'd just lie like they always do. So failing that, I'd like to make the Democrats deny it. Somehow, I have a feeling they wouldn't be very convincing.

n/t

I wonder if they have something on Pelosi.

Read Mary Mapes book "Truth and Duty". She makes an excellent case that the document that the Georgia attorney/Republican activist who claimed to be a type specialist obtained before 60 Minutes aired its Bush AWOL piece was the FAXED transmission of the CO's letter. A fax changes characteristics such as type and spacing, making it impossible to tell what kind of typewriter produced a document. The easiest way to intercept a fax from Mary Mapes or another CBS employee to Dan Rather or another CBS employee would be if the NSA was already wiretapping all the phone calls that 60 Minutes made in order to jump the gun on any stories they did that might damage Bush.

It is their job to prove they are not by asking a judge. If they are not asking for permission as the law requires, it is a given they are doing something terribly wrong.

That is a good reason for your average voter to assume it is not happening- Democratic silence.

I think DEMs should make Bush deny that he is doing it- then they should ask him to say it under oath becuase "we cant be sure he is not lying again."

of course, you would have to have a spine to do anything like that.

the WH was putting more time, effort and muscle into taking down Kerry than they ever put into Bin Laden.

POLITICAL reasons?

I don't doubt this is the initial kernal for STARTING it WHEN HE ASSUMED OFFICE!

Only the usual suspects here will continue to doubt this.

that carried Texas legislators to Oklahoma so they could stall the vote on redistricting?

Once the tools are there, they'll be used by those in control for whatever they damn well please, and anyone who thinks differently should think again.

White House? Our country is not built on TRUST, it is built on LAWS and concepts like warrants and probable cause. I would not place blind trust any administration

... what it was used for or if it was used at all. The headline will be "Kerry's Phone Records Tracked in 2004". That's another reason Bush should have done it legally. If he had the law on his side and was tracking the data under proper oversight by Congress and the courts, there would be no cause for suspicion. But if you do one thing that is sneaky, people start to think you're sneaky.

Didn't Bolton get into hot water during his confirmation hearing because he had tracked his opponents in the State department using the NSA?