NYT: Hadley the Liar Defends Spying on US Citizens

like a good comrade....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/washington/15intelcnd.html?hp&ex=1147665600&en=b4bca53da7cef6ff&ei=5094&partner=homepage


WASHINGTON, May 14 — President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, insisted today that a newly disclosed government effort to compile data on millions of telephone calls in search of terrorist-linked calling patterns was a legal and "narrowly designed program" that did not involve listening to individual calls.

"The president has been very clear that we are to pursue our intelligence programs within the law," Mr. Hadley said, even as he declined to confirm details of the telephone surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency, which were reported Thursday by USA Today.

Mr. Hadley's comments came a day after Mr. Bush defended the program and days before its architect, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, is expected to face tough questioning about it during hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee on his confirmation as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Hayden is currently deputy to the national intelligence director.

Some top lawmakers criticized the surveillance program today and said that whether General Hayden is confirmed is likely to depend largely on how forthcoming he is during the committee hearings.

"This is the lawless White House, out of control with respect to a program like this," Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."

I figure that the fact that Hayden is even allowed to speak and defend
means he will be confirmed.

It's just a token questioning because the country really has no separation
of powers any more, just giving lip service to it once in a while to keep
the soporific public pabulumized.

Sue

is the careful avoidance of the question, "Since this evil administration has lied about everything under the sun and keeps getting nailed, time after time, with the truth after their latest prevarication, how the hell are we supposed to believe you now?"
If someone lies to me over and over, especially without ever owning up to the lies and attempting to modify their conduct, there is no way in hell I am going to be a wide-eyed suck up and believe the next tall tale they are selling.

Time and time again we get this 'just trust us' response from these guys and in the meantime, they have not given us reason to believe that they are trustworthy!!!

I heard someone the other day say that trust has to be earned. They simply have not given us a reason why we should trust them.