Religions > Atheism > Probes Finds GOP Sen. Shelby Likely Leaked Secret Data (re: Why Are NeoCons Such Morons?)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2004 11:58:55 PM |
| Object: |
Probes Finds GOP Sen. Shelby Likely Leaked Secret Data (re: Why Are NeoCons Such Morons?) |
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2721691
Probe finds Sen. Shelby likely leaked secret data
Arabic messages came out after he headed committee
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
New York Times
WASHINGTON - A two-year investigation into how the news media obtained
classified intercepted messages has found that Sen. Richard Shelby,
R-Ala., the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was
almost certainly a source, a government official familiar with the
inquiry said Thursday.
The investigation remains open, but the Justice Department is unlikely
to file criminal charges against the senator, the official said. For
now, the department has turned its findings over to the Senate Ethics
Committee. A spokesman for Shelby, Virginia Davis, confirmed that the
ethics panel was looking into the matter.
Shelby left Thursday for an official trip to Australia and Southeast
Asia and could not be reached. Davis said the senator, who served on
the intelligence panel for eight years, and more than five as its
chairman, "has a full understanding of the importance of protecting
our nation's secrets, and he has never knowingly compromised
classified information."
She said, "He is unaware of any evidence to the contrary."
The leak investigation stems from news reports in June 2002 about two
messages intercepted by the National Security Agency just before the
Sept. 11 attacks. The messages, in Arabic, were not translated until a
day after the attacks, and said: "The match is about to begin" and
"Tomorrow is zero hour."
At the time, the messages were widely interpreted as referring to the
Sept. 11 attacks, though the commission investigating the attacks has
since concluded they more likely referred to a Taliban offensive
against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The messages were
reported by CNN and published in The Washington Post, which reported
the findings of the Justice Department's inquiry Thursday.
Intercepted messages are considered among the most highly sensitive of
all classified information, and the leak generated immediate outrage
in Washington. The chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence
panels, Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who
no longer heads his committee. took the unusual step of asking the
Justice Department to investigate.
Shelby, 70, has been a senator since 1987 and is chairman of the
Banking Committee. While on the intelligence panel, he was
instrumental in conducting the joint House-Senate inquiry into the
Sept. 11 attacks. A former Democrat, he has clashed with the Bush
administration on a variety of issues, and was an outspoken critic of
George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence.
The inquiry into his handling of the classified messages, which
occurred after his chairmanship, is one of several similar
investigations.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -935 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Middleton" |
|
| Title: BUSH COMPARES WAR ON TERROR TO WWII |
14 Aug 2004 02:02:48 AM |
|
|
BUSH COMPARES WAR ON TERROR TO WWII
File this one under "getting it right." In a speech to graduates at
the Air Force Academy in Colorado yesterday, President Bush compared
the war on terror to World War II. "Our goal, the goal of this
generation, is the same. We will secure our nation and defend the
peace through the forward march of freedom," said the President.
Despite The Poodle's incessant drumbeat about jobs and health care,
this is the most important issue in this election.
It's too bad, but typical, that a lot of people don't understand the
seriousness of this war on terror. They take our safety and security
for granted. How easily people have forgotten 9/11. It's been almost
three years...you remember, don't you? That's when the Islamic
terrorists killed 3,000 innocent Americans on our own soil. That's
when Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, after 8 years of appeasement from
the Clinton administration, decided to attack. They want to do it
again - and they're spending every hour of every single day planning
their next attack. Their next big thing will be to try and detonate a
dirty bomb in the middle of a populated city. How many people will
that kill? Hundreds of thousands?
In some ways, the stakes are higher in the war on terror than World
War II. Were the Nazis going to take over the United States? Hardly.
We dealt with them pre-emptively. Same thing with Saddam Hussein. It's
time to pay attention....we are at war...World War IV..the war on
Islamic terrorism. If you don't value your freedom -- and many
Americans don't -- then maybe you value your physical safety. Aren't
you just a little appreciative of the fact that there hasn't been a
terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11? Do you like being
able to go out for lunch without a suicide bomber blowing up the
restaurant?
Then vote for a candidate who has actually shown with his actions that
he will defend this country ... not one who changes his stance
depending on just who he's trying to impress at the time.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
Liberals HATE America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hitlery Clintoon" |
|
| Title: First Teresa Heinze snottily tells a reporter to "shove it". |
14 Aug 2004 01:47:16 AM |
|
|
First Teresa Heinze snottily tells a reporter to "shove it".
Then John lobs out one of the most embarrassing opening pitches of all
time. Every 12 year old at Fenway was embarrassed for John.
The August cover of Time Magazine will feature a close-up shot of
Kerry's Butler grimacing in the foreground as the sinker plows into
the dirt a yard short of Home Plate.
A metaphor of Kerry's sinking bid for the Presidency...
He got booed out of his Home Stadium in his home State.
The Press has tasted blood, it's going to get messy.
St.Camerino Verantius
----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N0TSPAM" |
|
| Title: If old lies work, why tell new ones? (For Black Americans-Liberalism Worst Than Crack) |
14 Aug 2004 02:25:28 AM |
|
|
If old lies work, why tell new ones? (For Black Americans-Liberalism
Worst Than Crack)
I continue to find it interesting that for the bravado, for all the
garrulous talk, for all the race-baiting comments, and certainly for
all of the "Republicans are racist and interested in keeping you
[black] folks down" talk, Democrats are only able to choose white
liberals for national and key party positions.
Kerry seems to have taken this to a whole new level, having to first
be reminded that he had no blacks in key campaign positions, then
selecting the fourth-most-liberal senator in the senate as an
unambiguous example of white privilege and superiority.
Kerry-Edwards is yet another flagrant example of what liberals really
think of blacks. To the Kerry-Edwards liberals, it is sufficient to
show up on the church doorsteps, perform what amounts to a "Saturday
Night Live" rendition of "The Old Rugged Cross" or "We Shall Overcome"
while smiling and preening like Al Jolson without black face (my
apologies to Jolson).
One cannot help but wonder when blacks will realize the only thing
black about white liberals like Kerry and Edwards is their hearts. And
the only thing they view blacks as being good for is a few million
votes in election cycles.
Until their track record for appointing blacks to key national
positions improves dramatically, it would be good for them to stop
attacking conservatives. But we shan't hold our breaths for that one
shall we?
Once again I ask the question I have asked every presidential election
and off-year election cycle since Jimmy Carter: What have liberal
Democrats done for blacks other than raise the misery index?
Once again the answer is zip, nadda, nothing, zilch - unless one
counts delivering pre-packaged messages of inferiority as counting
toward something positive.
I don't hide my contempt for elite liberals as a whole - having pulled
my head out of that place which graces a saddle long ago. And coming
from a lifelong belief (even before I realized it) in meritocracy, I
don't want to hear how bad I have it - I want to hear how good I can
have it.
I don't want a slick, botox-lipped, snake-oil salesman to tell me how
he is my only hope for a better life. But I get ahead of myself.
Kerry believes in a woman's right to choose (read: a woman's right to
murder her unborn child). That notwithstanding, he has recently
claimed to believe life starts at conception, making all the more
deplorable his pro-abortion position.
Yet he claims to have blacks' best interest in mind. Has he not seen
national studies showing abortion as the No. 1 killer of blacks? Has
he not wondered why the majority of abortion clinics are located in or
near black and minority neighborhoods?
Kerry claims 1 million more poor and minority students will graduate
from college if he is elected president. My question to Mr. Kerry is:
Why does it take being president to be concerned about minority
graduation rates? When he loses his presidential bid, will he still be
interested? And where has he been all of the years he has been playing
the liberal playboy, marry-a-rich-widow senator role? Wasn't there a
college-graduation problem for minorities then?
Wasn't he concerned about the abuses to undereducated blacks, thinking
they could punt, pass and kick their way out of the ghetto only to
find themselves without professional contracts and without college
degrees?
Kerry tells black church groups he will encourage their students to
study math, science and technology by spending $100 million more of
taxpayer's money on scholarships for college with large minority
enrollments.
But he offers no insight into his plans to curb black-on-black crime,
disproportionate illegitimacy rates, homes without fathers, etc. He
offers no insight into the phenomena of black students purposefully
failing so as not to be like "whitey."
I submit blaming President Bush is not the answer. Nor is having
Kerry's vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, set his litigation
brothers on the schools for failing to prepare students.
I submit the only evil perpetrated upon blinded blacks greater than
crack cocaine, is liberal Democrats. Instead of treating minorities
with the respect and encouragement they give their own children, they
treat them as handicapped retards. And to their impassioned delight,
it still works.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39391
-----------
The Democratic party-Proudly Celebrating 60 Years of Aid & Comfort for
America's Enemies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N0TSPAM" |
|
| Title: Kerry MUST be Kidding, right? |
14 Aug 2004 02:31:18 AM |
|
|
Kerry MUST be Kidding, right?
This is oh so transparent. You've heard about that letter that John
Kerry sent to President Bush, haven't you? Listen to this: Kerry
wrote Bush saying "Over the last week you and your campaign have
initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to
speak out to end that war, and my commitment to the defense of this
nation." What B.S.
What prompted this letter? A statement from Georgia Senator Saxby
Chambless saying "When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut
defense programs and cut defense systems folks in Georgia are going to
look beyond what he says and look at his voting record."
No look again at what Chambliss said:
"When you have a 32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and
cut defense systems folks in Georgia are going to look beyond what he
says and look at his voting record."
And look again at what Kerry wrote to Bush:
"Over the last week you and your campaign have initiated a widespread
attack on my service in Vietnam, my decision to speak out to end that
war, and my commitment to the defense of this nation."
You did notice, didn't you, that Chambliss' statement made absolutely
no mention whatsoever of Kerry's service in Vietnam or his speaking
out against the war. Chambliss' statement was directed at Kerry's
voting record. Kerry knows it, and he knows that his voting record on
defense is indefensible. So ... the game plan here is to turn every
single criticism of Kerry's voting record in the U.S. Senate into a
slam on his service in Vietnam and his antiwar activities.
The Democrats want you to believe that if you go to Vietnam, suffer
three minor wounds, two of which don't even take you off the
battlefield, and then head back to the United States with four months
of Vietnam service under your belt, you are forever inoculated against
any charge that you have a weak voting record on national defense.
That's the Max Cleland approach. Cleland goes to Vietnam, suffers
greatly as a result of an accident that did not occur in battle, and
then becomes a United States Senator who believes that he can use his
Vietnam service as a protective cloak while voting repeatedly against
homeland security measures until government employee unions are
satisfied that they will be essentially running the show. If your
political opponent happens to mention this pandering to government
employee unions, you are assailing his patriotism.
If you have any rational and logical thought capabilities at all ...
in other words, if you don't vote Democratic .... you can easily see
how John Kerry formulated his game plan for seeking the presidency.
When Kerry first started dreaming of a run for the candidacy he knew
that he had some pretty tough things to overcome. His protests
against the Vietnam war were going to be somewhat of a problem at a
time when American soldiers are fighting terrorism abroad. Kerry knew
that his Vietnam protests problem would be compounded by his
association with Jane Fonda and the statements he made to congress
about the actions of American soldiers in Vietnam. He also knew he
would have a problem with that event staged for the media where he
claimed to throw his Vietnam medals over a fence at the Capitol. (It
was later revealed that Kerry actually kept his medals, but threw away
the medals of another Vietnam vet.).
Then there was Kerry's voting record in the Senate. It wasn't exactly
the voting record one would want to bring to a campaign at a time when
America is fighting a war against terrorism. Kerry has voted against
almost every new Pentagon weapons program since he was sworn in. He
voted against pushing Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991 and voted against
continued funding of our efforts in Iraq in 2003.
Antiwar protests --- an association with Jane Fonda --- slandering
American soldiers --- propping up Saddam --- an anti-military voting
record --- plus a record in Vietnam that isn't quite as gleaming as
the media portrays ... all campaign problems to be dealt with.
So ... here's the plan:
First you start bringing up your service in Vietnam in every single
campaign appearance. Every single time you open your mouth before a
group of people you mention that "Oh, by the way, I served in
Vietnam."
After virtually every American with a television set knows full well
that you served in Vietnam, you send your myrmidons out to question
Bush's service in the National Guard. Democratic party hacks and
operatives are enlisted to use terms like "AWOL" and "deserter" in
describing Bush's service. All the while you pretend to take the high
road by staying above the fray, though you do make a public statement
that equates service in the National Guard with dodging the draft.
OK ... the stage is set. You are a Vietnam hero ... and Bush, having
hidden in the Air National Guard, is essentially a glorified draft
dodger. Now every single time your protests, your association with
Fonda, your lies about American soldiers in Vietnam, your strongly
anti-military voting record in the Senate, and your absurd idea that
terrorism is a law enforcement, not a military problem is brought up,
you can bellow that a man who didn't serve in Vietnam is challenging
the patriotism of a man who did.
Do you want to see the Kerry game plan in action? Just this weekend
Kerry told reporters "I don't know what it is that the Republicans who
didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who
did."
See how easy it is? His anti-defense voting record means nothing.
His vote against continued funding for our troops in Iraq means
nothing. His vote against pushing Saddam out of Kuwait ..... all of
this doesn't matter because HE served in Vietnam and the people who
are criticizing his votes didn't.
Thankfully, the Bush campaign folks aren't going to be intimidated by
this "You can't criticize me, I served in Vietnam" tactic. Yesterday
the Bush campaign responded to Kerry's absurd and transparent letter:
"Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or your military
service, but your votes and statements on issues now facing our
country. Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting
against the weapons systems that are winning the war on terror."
Just watch the campaign ... and see how well the Kerry strategy works.
The media will love it and will prop it up until they look ridiculous
doing so.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
