PDA

View Full Version : Mike McConnell Withdraws Lies To Congress



Gayle in MD
09-13-2007, 08:45 AM
Sept. 12, 2007 - In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

The temporary measure, signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, gave the U.S. intelligence community broad new powers to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications overseas without seeking warrants from the surveillance court. The law expires in six months and is expected to be the subject of intense debate in the months ahead. On Monday, McConnell—questioned by Sen. Joe Lieberman—claimed the law, intended to remedy what the White House said was an intelligence gap, had helped to “facilitate” the arrest of three suspects believed to be planning massive car bombings against American targets in Germany. Other U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell's testimony and urged his office to correct it. Four intelligence-community officials, who asked for anonymity discussing sensitive material, said the new law, dubbed the "Protect America Act,” played little if any role in the unraveling of the German plot. The U.S. military initially provided information that helped the Germans uncover the plot. But that exchange of information took place months before the new “Protect America” law was passed.

After questions about his testimony were raised, McConnell called Lieberman to clarify his statements to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, an official said. (A spokeswoman for Lieberman confirmed that McConnell called the senator Tuesday but could not immediately confirm what they spoke about.) Late Wednesday afternoon, McConnell issued a statement acknowleding that "information contributing to the recent arrests [in Germany] was not collected under authorities provided by the 'Protect America Act'."

<font color="red">Read the fulll McConnell story at link at bottom.

Why does anyone in this country, believe anything from this White House, or anyone connected to them?

It has also come out that Petraeus got a hot phone call from the White House, during the break that followed his infamous answer to Senator Warner, shortly he admitted in that he did not know whether or not our people dying while in the combat, of another country's civil war, in Iraq, would make America safer, to which he originally responded "I...I...I don't know, actually" then after the WH call, he changed that answer over to the WH BS buzz words. He had stated several times, during his testimony, that his only focus was about the mission, and didn't contemplate beyond that, apparently an American version of, "That's not my job." How can a man send troops into combat, and not even contemplate whether or not there is any advantageous purpose in their sacrifice. This, is an honorable man? What the hell is that supposed to mean? He hasn't thought about that. Why NOT! I'm thinking about it, the whole country is thinking about it, but he hasn't thought about it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif</font color>





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/

eg8r
09-13-2007, 10:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why does anyone in this country, believe anything from this White House, or anyone connected to them?
<hr /></blockquote> Well the guy retracted his statement. You did not believe him earlier, but now that he is saying he lied before why do you all of a sudden believe him (he could be lying now)? You pick and choose when you want to believe someone and it is easy to figure out when you switch sides. You ONLY believe someone when the news is bad for the current administration. You NEVER believe anyone one if there is something positive being said.

If the tables were turned and this guy came out and said the act had nothing to do with the foiled plot you would have believed him right away. However, if he decided he did not think it was a good idea to lie and came back with the truth and said the Act had everything to do with foiling the plot, you would never believe his retraction.

You only think someone is telling the truth when they have something bad to say about W and his admin and that is just as dishonest.

eg8r

DickLeonard
09-13-2007, 03:06 PM
Eg8r the proof is in the pudding. How many lies must you hear to believe there not ever going to tell the truth. They have made a non-believer of Gayle and I. Lol Rip

SKennedy
09-13-2007, 04:42 PM
Gayle you want to know why the General claimed he didn't or doesn't think about "it!" The answer is simple....he's a soldier! A real soldier, not your version or hollywood's version.

pooltchr
09-13-2007, 06:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> They have made a non-believer of Gayle and I. Lol Rip <hr /></blockquote>

Now I'm sure that was quite a challenge!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Steve

Drop1
09-13-2007, 09:37 PM
Yeah,and real soldiers don't think. My brother was a real soldier,that got his masters,and doctorate in two years;Claremont college in Pomona Calif,and the doctorate from Berkeley. My other brother was a real soldier,and today at the age of sixty nine, is an author,lawyer,and college professor. Look up "Paul Brian Gray" in your browser,and be sure to use the quotes. Oh I almost forgot,if you go back to nineteen eighty one,and check who the head of the joint chief of staff was,you will run into another Gray,and his speciality was mathematics,and a rela tive,I never met. I will tell you one thing,and that is don't put people in a box,because you live in one. Real soldiers think,feel,cry,and bleed red,regardless of what you think.

eg8r
09-14-2007, 05:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r the proof is in the pudding. How many lies must you hear to believe there not ever going to tell the truth. They have made a non-believer of Gayle and I. Lol Rip <hr /></blockquote> You are right, the proof is in the pudding. The proof that you pick and choose when you want to believe anything is proof you are as dishonest as they are.

eg8r

SKennedy
09-14-2007, 09:32 AM
Gayle questions the man's integrity because he does not hesitate to send men into battle, and questions his honesty or intelligence? She claims to know many soldiers and veterans, and that may be true, and she may also have a lot of knowledge. However, none of those things imply she has any true understanding, especially when it comes to the military. Soldiers obey orders. Period! You can not form committees to discuss objectives and the moral implications of an order, or mull it over for awhile. Do you think this general enjoys sending young men into harms way? I am not envious of his position and the things he has to live with.
Drop1, you may enjoy my posting under "Vietnam Civil War." Sounds like your brothers are some of the successful veterans I was referring to in my last post.

Gayle in MD
09-19-2007, 03:03 PM
I think the military has failed their soldiers miserably throughout this mess in Iraq. He's a senior commander, he's not a soldier. He has a duty to his people, who take their orders from him. He knows damn well, this war in Iraq, cannot be won. All he's doing is keeping the lid on for Bush, until he can get the hell out of the White House. He knows damned well that he's breaking our army, and putting our country at greater risk, so says all of our National Intelligence Agencies. When the military fails to insist that their troops be given proper rest and equipment and training, they should be ashamed of themselves. These same people have been re-deployed, over and over. He's sending them into battle, and he doesn't bother to think about whether or not it's worth losing two to three men and women a day? What kind of man is that?

He's no soldier, he's a senior commander, who is failing his people, by not demanding that they be treated humanely, and according to the Army Regulations.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
09-20-2007, 08:22 AM
Old officer veterans out there help me....
Gayle, I assure you he is a soldier first above all else, who also happens to be a senior commander. Yes, he is responsible for his men, as are many others at various levels of responsibility. But, the General does take orders from his commander. The buck does stop at the Commander-in-Chief. That's my only point. You are asking (or complaining) a General to make or change policies that are well beyond his directives.
I assure you if you sat down with the man and had a resonable conversation he would confirm that he is a soldier first......unless the military has changed drastically over the last 3 to 4 decades.

Gayle in MD
09-21-2007, 09:04 AM
I think you don't know me well enough to make judgments about what I know about the Military. I worked at Andrews Air Force Base from the time I was twelve, until I was about sixteen. Growing up, as I did, near Andrews, with many many military friends, and being a USO volunteer throughout my life, and an avid reader, I have learned a few things. One of those things, is that when a President has escalated an unwinnable war, Military Generals have been known to opt for spreading the lies about the campaign, and covering up the actions, and failing results, rather than taking up for the soldiers who are being sacrificed in the unwinnable campaign.

Also, I know a few things about men, in general, and have seen quite a few leaders, Military and otherwise, such as Rumsfeld, for example, who fall in love with their own illogical master plan, and refuse to acknowledge they have failed, and that it was flawed, even when others are dying due to their poor judgement. This President, in particular, has consistantly refused to acknowledge his own stupid mistakes, and shown us over and over that anyone who exposes him, is going to be axed, or slandered, or both.

No war, in our history, has ever been so poorly prosecuted. Correct decisions, are followed by successful results of correct predictions. When estimates of results are consistantly inaccurate, it is obvious that the "Decider" has piss poor judgement, and that in the case of war, others are dying daily, due to his poor judgement.

People with integrity, step up to the plate and admit when they've made horrible mistakes, with humility, and grief, for those who had to pay for thos mistakes, they don't just try to blame someone else, and continue on with a failing policy, lying to everyone about the many failures, and lack of good judgement, and scurrying around to pull others into the fray, who will help them cover up their failures, and jury rig the statistics.

Patraeus is a man, not a saint, and the Military, has been known before to cover up their wrong doing, used questionable methods to avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes, and go head long forward, into illogical, unwinnable wars. We have many many headstones, to prove it.
And there are graves all over the world, shrines to the humongous male ego, and they represent the horrors of all military campaigns, originally marketed as unavoidable, but some having had absolutly no positive results, or justifiable cause, in hind sight.

Men of great integrity, are men, first. They may be military, but they don't suspend their own logical judgement about what is right, and wrong, in order to get yet another star on their chest. The military, is not devoid of corruption. To suggest that anyone is not subject to human weakness, just because they wear a uniform, is, IMHO, absurd, and short sighted.

A man of integrity, does not suspend critical thinking, out of a flawed sense of duty, when the operation is ineffective, sending more and more to their deaths, and injuries, regardless of the likely outcome, or whether it was even justifiable in the first place.

We have all seen, throughout, that anyone of integrity, cannot remain in the Bush arena for very long, and in fact, will be banned from participation, slandered, or forced into retirement. Remember Shinshekki? Turns out he was right, but he was quickly axed, along with many others.

For a president to hide behind someone else's medals, in his on-going campaign of dishonesty with the American Public, is repulsive, IMO. For a president, to send more and more into a battle which has failed for over four years, which all experts acknowledge is militarily unwinnable, and is failing to this day, and doing so against all odds, and without conscience, or truth, on his side, is a disgrace, and IMO, absolutely criminal. Sending the same poor people, over and over, without rest, proper equipment, and training, and with the on-going unconscienable support of the entire Republican Party, is without a doubt, the most disgusting political behavior I have witnessed so far in my lifetime, or atleast since the Vietnam tragedy. The lessons of that historical failure, however, have been thrown out the window by the Bush administration, which would prefer more death and destruction, in lieu of accountability for the failure.

Any man, regardless of rank or position, who sends troops into battle, day after day, and endeavors to promote a falacy of success, and progress, onto a losing battle, in order to provide political coverage, for the idiot who started it, George Bush, without asking himself...."Is it worth the sacrifice these kids a making" to provide Bush the excuse to prolong the strife long enough to leave it to the next guy, and jump clear of accpeting the responsibility for the disasterous results, does not have my respect, nor should he.

Above all else, we must be human, first. Patraeus is a man, not a robot. I have sat with many troops, and marched with them also, who know, and have long known, that this occupation can never succeed, is not worth their sacrifice, and was wrong from the start. No amount of military testimony will change that fact. And no cockeyed optimist, who claims to be directed in his mission by the all mighty, can change reality. Denial, is not reality. Personal responsibility, is required in all actions, and not excused from them by medals, and traditions. The burden of truth, remains, regardless. Overblown versions of results, speak for themselves, and are not subject to duty, when lives are at risk. Our soldiers deserve to be led by commanders who have questioned the worthiness of their sacrifice, regardless of the fact that George Bush is unable to do so.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
09-21-2007, 01:08 PM
Gayle are you joking? You worked at an air force base as a 12 y/o until you were 16? OK.....I actually grew up as an air force brat and started caddying at the base golf course at the ripe old age of 10 for $2.00/18 holes. I then spent 4 years in the Navy (as an adult) averaging about $0.26/hour.
As for knowing men? I am a man (or at least I think I am)! And I know a few of them as well, but likely not in the same manner as you. As a man, I probably know men better than women. And while women think they know men better than men know themselves, we men know women well enough to admit we don't have a clue about women.
The only judgement I made was an assumption that I know more about the military than you since I was in the service. And in spite of the fact you worked at a base for 4 teenage years and "know" are few men, I still think my opinion about serving in the military is every bit as valid as yours, or more!
And we were talking about Generals, not men in general.

By the way, how did surgery go? Hope all went well for him.

Gayle in MD
09-23-2007, 01:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One of those things, is that when a President has escalated an unwinnable war, Military Generals have been known to opt for spreading the lies about the campaign, and covering up the actions, and failing results, rather than taking up for the soldiers who are being sacrificed in the unwinnable campaign.

<hr /></blockquote>

The military is not the same animal that it was back in the days of WWI and WWII, IMO. I have many friends who served in both Vietnam, and in Iraq, and I'm not trying to say that I know anymore than anyone else, only that I have learned by reading, and also through friends, not above lying to the american people, during unwinnable wars, that they KNOW are unwinnable, while their soldiers die for nothing. Are you saying that that never happens?

I venture to say this much. You'd have to look long and far to find anyone who has "Been there" with as many soldiers as I have. Certainly not on a battlefield. I respect your service to the Military, but I do not respect any General who puts a winning face on a losing situation, and allows the President to lie to the American public, and continue to sacrifice our young troops, in order to leave the mess to the next president, without taking responsibility for screwing everything up from the outset. Patreaus did just what Franks did. Even Powell, has not fully admitted his deciet, and failure to speak out. I admire those Generals who retired, in order to speak the truth, and hence made the effort to protect our troops from Bush's delusions. Patreaus, so far, doesn't seem to fit anything other than just another future Medal Of Freedom recipient, IOW,one of Bush's liars.

Gayle in Md.

DickLeonard
09-26-2007, 07:05 AM
Gayle I remember a famous General[Patton] after listening to a long winded Politician going on and on while his troops stood in the hot Sun. Finally when ask to say a few words He Said Get the F#%King Troops out of the hot Sun.

It had be reported that He was pissed off because he was held back ,so the Russians could get to Berlin first. He wanted to go thru Germany and then Russia. Some people found his death to be a convenient solution to silence him. A move that cost the World millions of Russian people and us a 50 year Cold War.

Strange that men will give up their life for a piece of silk. Napolean.####

Gayle in MD
09-26-2007, 07:54 AM
Dearest Dick,
Where are those American Heros of yesterday? Those men of honor, and legitimate commitment to truth, and the desire to avoid the horrors of war, and go only as a last resort as a moral, legal effort.

There is a great book about Eisenhower, surely a great President, who certainly had his little escapades outside his marriage vows, but as a general, and president, he was an American hero, the title of the book is; Ike: An American Hero. Ike kept us out of war for eight years, the mark of a good president, IMO. That was before our country was taken over by power and money mongering neocons, and religious fascists, both determined to destroy our Constitution, and lead our country into the depths of fascism. The signs are all there, such as the vast wealth controlled by the very few at the top, who own 90% of the wealth in this country.

A quote from Ike, a man who knew the dangers of the military industrial complex.

"The U.S. has no business transforming itself into an occupying power in a seething Arab world. I am sure we would regret it."

How very prophetic!

Bill Clinton, and Al Gore, both intelligent men, who wished to avoid war, also believed in Ike's philosophy on occupation, particularly in what is still a seething Arab World. They each realized, also, the foolish mistake in facing such dire circumstances without overwhelming force. Ike sent the entire 101st Airborn into Little Rock, for God's sake!

I'd give you odds that had Wesley Clark, for example, been calling the shots, or Shinshekki, we'd have been out of Iraq in three to four months. Bush and Cheney, never intended getting out in the first place. They have been nothing but oil operatives, seeking to sacrifice the blood of our troops, for the benefit of the military industrial complex. Cheney's 38 million from Halliburton, was a damned good investment. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif Unfortunately, only the corporate fascists will capture an advantage, while Americans, on the other hand, have lost on all fronts.

Love,
Gayle