Telling All
There have been recent revelations of conversations held behind closed doors of a Congressional hearing. The conversations were about comments overheard when monitoring telephone conversations by one of our intelligence organizations. The telephone conversations were recorded on September 10th 2001 and translated on September 12th due to limited translation service capabilities. Shortly thereafter the telephone conversations were reported in the New York Times. The President then asked Dick Cheney to chastise the Congress over the intelligence leak.
Many in the news and in the public have questioned why the Vice President needed to call into question the leaking of this information and request an investigation to determine the source of the leak.
What most fail to understand is that, not only is the American public reading the contents of this monitored conversation, but so are the terrorists. They may not all be geniuses, but it doesn't take a genius for them to figure out what kind of phone they were using at the time and to STOP using that means of communications from now on. Now our intelligence services have to determine what the terrorists will begin using as a replacement and how to monitor the new means of communications.
Even worse, if the information leaked had to do with a US intelligence agency spy, that spy would already be dead by now. So much for the public's need to know all that our intelligence agencies have uncovered.
06/23/02 ( 462 )
© Copyright 2000-03 www.mypov.org - All rights reserved.
Post Your Views On This Topic
As a "flaming populist" I find most premises and/or inferences in the
conservative credo to generally threaten fact and/or logic hence universally
unacceptable. If and when agreement appears possible I can usually dismiss
it as flawed reasoning or misunderstanding on my part, and/or a case where
"the exception proves the rule".
Factually, conservative and liberal viewpoints never have been and logically
they can never be reconciled but as with a marriage going badly and divorce
is impossible, modern weaponry's sophistication now forces these two
viewpoints to get along and to live together. I don't envision
liberal-conservative PESTEE (political, economic, social, territorial,
environmental and ethnic) philosophies ever being compatible but the
economic strategy I propose (RTT/GDS) i.e. Rational Tax Technique/Gov't
Debenture Service can provide such a tumultuous, even exponential fiscal
benefit for each point of view that fiscal comity between them prevail.
It isn't necessary for Peter, squires and haves to like Paul, Robin Hood and
have-nots (and vice versa), but today's sophisticated weaponry eliminates
both option and possibility of a conservative- liberal divorce, failure to
get along, living in such disparate, fiscal universes. "Rob Peter to pay
Paul" methodology won't/can't preserve the "marriage" (economy) but even
were separation possible the Peter-squires-haves resources simply aren't
"sufficient unto the day", they don't now have nor ever will have enough
money to buy fiscal comity. "Rob Peter to pay Paul" is easy to legislate
but the factual, logical essence of a successful economy, marriage, union of
"We the People..." (i.e. a guaranteed living income) can be provided only if
RTT/GDS administers the GDP.
Charles B. 7/08/02