Wiretapping - What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander
September 12th, 2006 | by Jersey McJones |So, HP was taking a gander, huh?
(LA Times, Sept. 12)
The scandal over the snooping of confidential phone records at Hewlett-Packard Co. widened Monday as Congress and the FBI launched investigations and the company’s board debated the fate of Chairwoman Patricia Dunn.
Federal investigators want details on the methods used by HP as it tried to ferret out leaks to the media this year. That hunt, it turned out, included potentially illegal looks at the call records of HP directors and reporters covering the company.
Remember the Clinton sex-scandal years? If you recall, one of the Rightwing Rabbling Rilers Rallying Rhetorical Ruses was to cry, as The Simpsons character Jessica Lovejoy often laments, “Think about the children!”
Here’s Bill “Jesus H Frist” Frist back in ‘99…
We in the Senate faced the difficult choice of deciding whether to remove President Clinton. To find him `not guilty’ of perjury and obstruction of justice and leave him in office would corrode the respect we all have for the Office of President. More troubling, the example to our youth would be destructive. I have three sons, 15, 13, and 11 years old. As anyone with children knows, President Clinton’s conduct has undermined all our efforts to instill in our children two essential virtues: truthfulness and responsibility. If we allow a known perjurer and obstructor of justice to continue in the Office of President and lead us into the 21st Century, we set a sad example for future generations.
And we all know just how much American kids pay attention to, and model themselves after, their political leaders!
Of course, if your teenage kids want to spy on people - well, that’s okay!
Remember, Bill Clinton lied at an Arkansas deposition regarding a matter unrelated to the investigation at hand in answer to a question that would never have been allowed to have been asked of him at trial, had there been one. The only reason anyone ever knew of it was because Kenneth Starr was investigating a cheeseball land deal down in Jesus Land, again completely unrelated to the Lewinsky scandal, and decided to tangent that investigation into something a little sexier. Talk about circumloquaciousness!
George Bush has steadily lied to the American public about the wiretapping right on national TV for all to see and hear.
Said Bush back in May:
“First, our intelligence activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans.
Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.
Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat.
Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.”
First, the NSA could be dragnetting “almost anyone.”
Second, they are not getting court approval.
Third, there is no law to allow this - certainly not FISA.
Fourth, yes, they are “mining” and “trolling.”
Nevermind that, though. At least Bush didn’t lie at a Deliverance State deposition about a blowjob!
So now, while Congress wants to look into HP for doing something eerily similar to what the Administration is doing to the American people, they are also looking into a way to gut FISA and allow for Warrantless Wiretapping for Bushco!
What a world.
Well, if the kids weren’t paying attention to Clinton’s sexcapades, the Corporate World is sure paying attention to Bush’s spycapades!
JMJ
14 Responses to “Wiretapping - What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander”
By Manny on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
I think the difference between Clinton and Bush is that Clinton lied once, and Bush spoke the truth once.
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Amazing how wiretapping never bothered anyone before. That’s if anyone even heard of it or simply chose to ignore it. Or didn’t have the media all over it like they do now. Sounds like preferencial treatment if you ask me.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=124592
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
You do realise Bush is using Echelon and no one is complaining about that, don’t you, tos?
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Anyway HP is a business. I used to work for a company that had a relative working at a competitor and was planning on coming to our company by transferring accounts to them. It comes down to money. A little different than trying to monitor terrorist activities trying to protect people rather than hurt them.
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
My point exactly Paul. Most people don’t care but when the media and the democrats start hyping it up now when before they downplayed it well to me it just go to show where their preferences are nad whos’ side they are on and who they are against.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
But, tos, you miss the point again. Bush is doing exactly what Clinton did and then doing something more. So even if Clinton’s behavious is bad, Bush’s is worse, and according to at least one judge, illegal. Do you think the President should not be criticised for breaking the law? The last one got impeached for lying about his affair, after all. I think ignoring the FISA laws might be a bit more serious, don’t you?
By Jersey McJones on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
I guess Tos loves Big Momma Government afterall…
JMJ
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
You people crack me up. What you fail to admit is that why is it any different now, when it was done before without warrants? You use the term breaking the law so loosley. If it is breaking the law now,.what was it called then. Like I said no one knew or seemed to care about it before but now because it’s a republican using the same program everyone is all up in arms about it or at least they pretend to be. So one liberal judge hates him too,that all that proves to me.
I am only trying to show how a republican government is treated differently than a democratic government. You even had the Times defending Clinton using it saying it was neccessary. But now they report that “Bush is taking away our civil liberties” because they have no other valid arguement.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Well, tos, it was evil and wrong for a Democrat to increase the budget, but now its fine for Republicans to do it. So can we have the same consistency from you?
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
Isn’t that a different post Paul? Of course there are things I don’t like so are you saying it’s okay for a democrat to increase the budget but not a republican?
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think so. I’m just pointing out that Repbulicans who campaigned on a platform of smaller government are guilty of hypocracy without a peep from you. That is your main charge against people here about Clinton, isn’t it?
By tos on Sep 17, 2006 | Reply
So it doesn’t always work out that way. So now more than ever we need to keep this program and it’s one tool we have to track suspicious calls and everyone acts like it’s the biggest infraction of civil liberties when it doesn’t effect ordinary citizens like everyone is all bent out of shape about.
By Manny on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
tos
This is America. We only have one government. It’s democratic.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 18, 2006 | Reply
Tos, you screwball, the government can do it if they want - and congress makes a law to allow it, and the courts play their part, and the people review the law and take it to the courts for review should there be concerns. That’s the part you refuse to grasp. We have a balance of estates in America. We have no king, genius.
JMJ