Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

But WHY did * admit to spying on Americans out of the blue?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BlueStateBlue Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:20 PM
Original message
But WHY did * admit to spying on Americans out of the blue?
Two options come to mind for me:

He was about to be accused of spying for political reasons, and they're spinning it to the anti-terrorism slant, or

They're hoping to expand the powers of the executive branch, and this was the launch of the new product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shenmue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. His Xanax wore off...
he'd been reading Tolstoy, maybe?

:7

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrioticLeftie Donating Member (909 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Freudian slip? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Or maybe...
he's dumb as a fence post and doesn't have enough sense to keep his pie hole shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. It was a speech
so his speech writers must be the fence posts. Bush is the fence post turtle. You know, like the ones you see on the fence posts in Texas. The poor thing doesn't know how it got up there and doesn't have a clue how to get down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. LOL!
You're correct. It was presented in speech form. I had pictured a 'Karla Faye Tucker' moment where * exposed himself as the callow, brainless, hearless prick that he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Extemporaneous
is not something Shrubby does very well. Of course, I can't rightly think of anything he does very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WannaJumpMyScooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. It was going to come out
and they did not want to have to lie about something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStateBlue Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. But they've lied habitually for five years
Why is it different this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. A secret in Washington has a "critical mass" and a "life cycle"
Any "soft" secret (release of which doesn't risk American lives, just political reputations) in Washington has a "critical mass." Once enough of the "right people" know it, it "seeps out" - then it just explodes like a chain reaction and "everybody knows it."

One can argue that the NYT was playing both sides - holding back until after the rumors seeped - but before the explosion.

(You didn't catch the rumors - you're just not with it :shrug: - That's ok - I didn't either :shrug: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemInDistress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. He fessed up because he was busted..
when the news got wind of "snoopgate"there was no turning back. He had to admit publicly he was spying. Many
scholars believe he broke the law and so do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Out of all the answers, DemInDistress gave the BEST one !!!
(In my opinion)

~~~ Rock on DemInDistress !! ~~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemInDistress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
26. thank you larissa for that "pat on the back" ..this spy stuff is
kind of like you stepped in shit and you cant hide it because we have eyes and suspicious noses. You can fool
my eyes but boy you cant fool my nose. Prominent scholars and other professional people strongly feel and believe bush broke the law now, if only dems in congress can dig deep dig in public and hope the patient dies.

lol..

Thanks again !!:hi: :hi: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. he was catapulting the propaganda n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
30. That's right, he had no choice
and the Rove way is to admit whatever it is they say you did and claim that it's a god given right for the president to do whatever he wants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. He did it to protect us, of course
You know, protect us from ourselves because you know how seductive those crazed Islamic terrorists can be, recruiting normal people from all walks of life. You never know who your enemies may be, right?

Well, that's the justification, anyway, and they knew they NYT had been sitting on the story for over a year, so they'd had plenty of time to come up with it.

Few people are buying it, though. We've seen it before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. The whore NY Times grew cajones
and was going to publish the story after sitting on it for a year because 2 of their reporters were coming out with a book about it. * called the NYT editors into the oval office and tried to strong arm them but for once they hung tough. * didn't know how much they had so he admitted the most he could without admitting he spied on political opponents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. cheney used a sith mind trick on him to save his own ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. He honestly believes his base supports the spying
after all, they want to keep America safe from terrorists, damn those ACLU types.

Bush (or his handlers) understand the type of authoritarian personality that forms his backbone of support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. Correct on both counts, with additions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. That is a very excellent question !
Why indeed??

Was it to protect someone else? That's not his style unless it is to protect himself also.

Was it to convince his followers that he only did it to protect them? And by doing so, they would stand behind and protect him?

I thought it rather strange that he came forward so quickly and admitted it was his decision? Was it really his decision? Or was it Condi's decision? Is he doing it to protect Condi Rice? After all, she was the head of the NSA at the time...

But to admit that he was out of the loop and not "responsible" would be to admit that he was irrelevant. So, bottom line, he is protecting himself. That's all he cares about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
17. Because if he gets Americans to accept it,
he truely has more power than he supposed to and will essentially become untouchable as far as the law goes (unless Fitz has a way).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-28-05 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. I think it's full-arrogance.
Edited on Wed Dec-28-05 11:56 PM by AtomicKitten
A way of dealing with the controversy head-on, bullshit as it is.

BushCo was expanding presidential powers BEFORE 9/11, and their contention it is BECAUSE of 9/11 is BS.
The secrecy with the Energy Commission records and curtailing access to past presidential records are examples of their drive to expand executive power before 9/11.

Ironically, the in-your-face admission may be the lynch-pin to his impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
20. Here's a thought
According to Randi Rhodes, Bush has distanced himself from everyone except from a few women. So MAYBE perhaps there's something going on here where there's a play to set up Bush to remove him? I mean look at what he's doing to their party. Look at how many people he's probably threatened. I mean there's got to be a laundry list of reasons why people from his own party, or his own administration would have motive.

Tinfoil Hat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Yep, distancing himself from all but a few women...
But somehow Anna Nicole isn't one of them!! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif



What do the "War on Christmas" crowd think about that anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
21. Rove could have scripted it to distract from a much larger scandal
It could be a "limited hangout" type "true confession" that draws media bandwidth away from some other area that they were getting dangerously close to uncovering.

The technique, which is the Mark of Rove, is the same one used by stage magicians. It is the specific direction of attention to something so you do not see something else.

Watergate was a "big scandal" which brought down the Nixon administration, but it drew fire away from COINTELPRO which was much bigger. While Watergate was a one-time break-in to one building to influence the outcome of one election, COINTELPRO was a decades long series of break-ins, domestic spying, infiltration and disruption of various legitimate political groups.

But the media and the American people were so obsessed with Watergate that they barely commented on or covered COINTELPRO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
23. He probably really believes he's everything
they've told him he is. I think they tried to talk him out of admitting it. Remember, he was angry when he gave that little speech. Like "I shall not be questioned on what I do, cause I'm the boss, and I'll do what I want, and here's what I did. Like it or lump it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
25. The NSA and CIA are starting to bite him back.
And I think there's much more to come.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
27. B/c he can.
Who's tried to stop him w/all the evil he's committed? Loyal nazi party members? Gelded democrats? He admitted it b/c he's drunk w/power (among other things) & knows he'll get away w/it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
28. Since Slumpy never admits to being wrong...
Edited on Thu Dec-29-05 03:18 AM by Contrary1
he knew it was about to hit the fan, so he had to start catapulting
the propaganda as to why spying was the "right" thing to do.

Poor Dick, I wonder if they have upped his heart medication yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. "Slumpy"? That's brilliant.
I'm using that from now on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nimrod2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
31. Or, the story is alot bigger than we know, right now...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-29-05 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
32. He doesn't feel he did anything wrong (and never does)
He's all about expanding the powers of the executive branch (which should scare true conservatives a lot more than it seems to). The question is why, since none of the excuses he's put forward are legit, would he keep this a secret. My bet is the spying includes political opponents as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC