We know that to be inaccurate
I'm going to take issue with one line in today's Union-Tribune editorial on the NSA phone database.
Earlier this year, when it was disclosed that the NSA was intercepting calls to and from foreign countries, the president told the nation that the program did not cover calls within the United States. We now know that to be untrue. What else aren't we being told?
They're two different programs -- it's not an untruth. It's like the President saying that Medicare only covers the elderly. Six months later, the press "uncovers" the SCHIP program and accuses the president of lying.
This isn't a difference of opinion, this is fact. The NSA has one program that listens in on international calls. The NSA has a completely different program that collects phone bill information (number called, time of call, length of call), but doesn't listen in to the actual contents of the calls. I bet that the NSA has at least one or two other programs that traitors within the government haven't leaked yet.
The fact that these other, unknown programs exist, doesn't make President Bush a liar.
Sloppy. Simply sloppy.
0 comments on “We know that to be inaccurate”
Tags
Actually I understand your point here. You used the same arguements with your parents. Tell some of the truth, but nit pick on the actual meaning. Your philosophy and President Bush's is to tell the truth, part of the truth, and nothing but an exact narrow answer to the question. Didn't work for you and won't work for Bush with a majority of Americans.
You're kidding right? You're comparing a teenager trying to avoid telling his parents why he's 30 minutes late on his curfew to the President of the United States refusing to tell the public -- and the terrorists who would like to see a million more 9/11s -- all of the details of our intelligence programs?
So, during WWII FDR should've told everyone about how we had broken the Japanese Naval codes. Churchill should've spilled the beans about what was going on at Blechley Park?
Does that ring a bell?
I hesitate to call your comment foolish, but seriously, what secrets are the president allowed to keep? I mean, should the press -- including the foreign press -- start asking hypotheticals at the next press conference about what the intelligence community is doing to keep America safe and expect the president to confirm or deny each and every one?
Al Qaeda certainly wouldn't use that information to change how they operate.
You've used PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). Should the President tell the "truth" that the NSA can break an 128-bit key, but not a 256-bit key? Or that they can crack this algorithm but not some other one?
Are you completely nuts?
I'll leave you to ponder that with a quote from the President's new press secretary, Tony Snow: "...al Qaeda doesn't believe in transparency. What al Qaeda believes in is mayhem, and the President has a constitutional obligation and a heartfelt determination to make sure we fight it."
Your point makes perfect sense if this is peacetime and nobody's plotting to kill 3,000 Americans. But it isn't peacetime and: