Eavesdropping Didn't Help Uncover Terrorist Plot 290
crymeph0 writes "Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asserted that the 'Protect America Act,' which frees the intelligence community from pesky things like judicial oversight while they eavesdrop on international conversations, was used to good effect in exposing the recently foiled terrorist plot to bomb US military facilities in Germany. Not so, according to other, anonymous, intelligence community officials. McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Turns out the military got wise to the bad guys months before the law was passed, simply due to alert military guards noticing odd behavior by some passers-by, a.k.a. good old fashioned police work."
Forced to admit his error? You mean his lie... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll say anything to try to garner the
Re:Forced to admit his error? You mean his lie... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the dictionary "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." This is not the progessive definition where a lie is saying something and then later it proves to be wrong.
Actually reading the full report, requires multiple source since the MSNBC does not contain it, shows he said it, he was then corrected, he then informed Congress and the press(since the comment was made in a public forum) that he had made a mistake and what the correct response should of been. All in a timly manner without any method of tring to hide it.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Florida. I've got acres and acres of swamp land down South of me that I'd like to sell you.
Re:Forced to admit his error? You mean his lie... (Score:5, Insightful)
he either:
1. lied about knowing the operation specifics
2. lied knowing the operation specifics
3. thought he knew the specifics but misinterpreted the report (which in his job may be the worst)
4. didnt lie, but the wiretaps are illegal in germany and would be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, and since the actual information regarding the case is clear that unwarranted surveillance had nothing to do with it, this means that either:
1) he was aware of the actual circumstances of the case, yet still claimed surveillance was the key or
2) he was (inexplicably for a man in his position) completely ignorant of the circumstances of the case,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really concerned with the other details, other t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't write to your congresscritter Put down that pen! Close that word processing program! Forget all that happy crap you learned in civics class about sharing your views with your "representative." You don't have a representative any more. You merely have someone who thinks he or she is your "leader," unfettered by either your opinions or the Constitution.
Marx was wrong: religion isn't the opiate of the masses, in modern America, the drug that keeps
Re: (Score:2)
Any better suggestions for people to vote for?
Re: (Score:2)
define "moderate", please. by some countries' government philosophies, the US government is so far right, that a radical left candidate would be "moderate".
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has to vote to stop a pay raise. If no vote is taken, the pay raise is AUTOMATIC
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Forced to admit his error? You mean his lie... (Score:5, Insightful)
Selling bridges == supporting terrorism (Score:2, Funny)
Therefore, offering bridges that you do not own is supporting terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone really believe him in the first place? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone really believe him in the first plac (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did anyone really believe him in the first plac (Score:5, Funny)
In his old age, Yoda's grammar worse and worse has gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did anyone really believe him in the first plac (Score:2)
Push the button, it's time for the cockroaches to have a go.
Re:Did anyone really believe him in the first plac (Score:2)
Remember to do something about this (Score:4, Informative)
Another deceptive political operative (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another deceptive political operative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another deceptive political operative (Score:5, Interesting)
In the past century, we shipped poverty to some backwater country in Africa or Asia. If people wanna riot there, who cares? We got cheap coffee, tea, metal, and everyone was happy here. The problem is that we now have to pay the price. Because of course jobs there are cheaper as well. And more and more jobs are shipped there now too, reimporting poverty.
I don't want to say that we're on the verge of a revolution not unlike the one in France of 1789, but I have a gut feeling that this won't go on that way much longer.
And that's where the total surveillance comes in. It does keep unrest manageable. For reference, see the GDR and its Stasi. You could tell by 1960 that the GDR is only held afloat by the suppression of its people. It managed to survive another 30 years until even the last person didn't care anymore whether he was imprisoned for being against the government.
And once this point is reached, when nobody cares anymore whether he's going to jail, a government has lost. You can't sustain a country only by your military and police. In other words, the whole surveillance crap will tide you over for a few years, when people actually still fear being seen doing something "illegal".
And that's what it's all about.
Re: (Score:2)
The frustrating thing is that none of the things we have been led to do (warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding and Guantanamo) have been the least bit effective at actually solving crimes
This is the Bush administration we're talking about here, results are not relevant. The people implementing the things that didn't work got promoted! ROFL! I'm surprised 'ol Brownie didn't get promoted to replace Chertoff.
The right wing in this country is sick. Conservatives have abandoned their values.
Re: (Score:2)
So "If we don't fight them in Iraq... (Score:2)
Or does Germany not count because it's not US soil?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody had invaded the US and overthrown its government and installed an even more repressive regime, wouldn't you expect more terrorism as a result?
Or were the Iraqis just supposed to smile and say, "Thank you for bringing more torture, death and paranoia to my front door. Why, yes, you can have all this oil for free"?
Basic justification for Patriot act is misreported (Score:3, Insightful)
The core of the Patriot act is not intelligence gathering but sharing. This was prompted because different agencies had information about 9/11 which, had they been able to share that information, they would have been far more likely to prevent the attack. There were situations where one person down the corridor from another couldn't share their notes.
Lacking hard evidence to go by, let's give privacy advocates the benefit of the doubt and say that in principle Patriot overreaches. The fact remains that the core of it is reform of our intelligence operations that was prompted by a very real attack and any reforms need to preserve the codification of that hard won lesson.
Re:Basic justification for Patriot act is misrepor (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the case, then I agree with you in principle. Information sharing in this case is most likely a good thing, provided that the information was gathered ethically and legally in the first place. Sadly, while the current gang of idiots is running things, that cannot be assured, and therefore IMHO the whole thing should be scrapped in favor of a new act that explicitly defines what kinds of information can be shared and how said information should be acquired.
What needs to be remembered here is that with every erosion of our civil rights, those who would seek to destroy our way of life through acts of terror realize a victory without ever 'firing a shot', so to speak. Privacy, while perhaps not explicitly laid out in the Constitution (and that's debatable under some interpretations of the Fourth Amendment) should be protected in the name of Americans who have fought, bled, and died to ensure our rights (not to mention the civilians caught in the crossfire, both domestically and abroad).
Re:Basic justification for Patriot act is misrepor (Score:2)
I actually do agree with you that our agencies need to share more intelligence more efficiently. After all, if the CIA sees J.
Sources. (Score:5, Funny)
Thus say anonymous intelligence community sources who were eavesdropping on the phone conversation. It has been confirmed that eavesdropping doesn't work.
Told You So (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I want to know why, though the NY Times knew McConnell was lying, it didn't report that in that important original story.
And what will Lieberman, the Republican pretending to be a Democrat, do to a lying spook like McConnell? There's got to be a punishment for being a bad liar, even if we expect spooks like McConnell to lie. We expect them to do it competently. This clown is just another Bush chump who can't even lie straight.
I love you, Doc Ruby. I really do. (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue at hand, which is commonly misunderstood, is that:
- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:
- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;
- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) ou
You Love Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two issues here, not just the one you'd like to compartmentalize into.
One is indeed whether the government can wiretap people. There is a very clear law, that has been regularly updated to keep pace with both technology and threats, the FISA. It is already an exception to the Constitutional requirement for any wiretap to be allowed by a warrant after evaluation by a judge under Congress' laws, to ensure the Executive doesn't just wiretap whoever it wants. Any wiretap without a warrant is by definition not reasonable. The FISA makes an exception to the usual requirement that the evidence on which the warrant is based be subject to argument, making the court hearing it and the proceedings secret.Then it makes another exception, a really extraordinary one, that allows warrants to be obtained even after the wiretap, for 72 hours. In other words, legalizing warrantless wiretaps to accommodate emergencies, after which the wiretappers can get a warrant on evidence they already had, or, if they really took a gamble without evidence but on a "hunch" that proved correct, with the contents of the 72 hours of the tap. The Executive even gets to assign the secret members of the FISA court, and its chief judge.
That court issued something like 18,000 authorizations, and rejected something like 20, in the year before Bush started ignoring it. But there weren't really 18,000 emergency terrorist threats, or anywhere near the number of wiretaps the FISA court has issued in its 30 years of operation. It's easy to convince that court. Too easy already, given that its procedures are unconstitutional, but there are emergencies and we tend to err on the side of caution when "national security" is invoked. At least the FISA is a way to track the circumventions of the Constitution - and therefore, the abuse of our rights by our government we create to protect them. So we can try for overall oversight down the road, even if "a few eggs are broken to make the omlet" along the way.
Of course, there's a bigger issue: these rights are inalienable, not given by the Constitution or any other feature of being American (or just living here). So violating those rights abroad, for US citizens or foreigners, also violates the rights that are America's basic ideology. But we make the exception to protect ourselves more easily, quickly and cheaply, rationalized on the grounds that we create our government here to protect our rights; foreigners can create their own governments to protect their rights if they want. But of course the accumulated rights abuses abroad have made it that much easier for our enemies to recruit allies and attack us. The tradeoff is probably a losing one, when our greatest threats are terrorists, and we're alienating even our allies.
The undeniable issue here is that Bush has ignored even the easy FISA court. So there's no oversight. Instead, there's lawbreaking by the Executive, as has been found even after due process in binding Federal court with proper jurisdiction. Violating the Constitution, and then breaking the FISA. Even the 4th Amendment that's being broken is itself an extra statement of what's already implicit in the Constitution, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's how important our right to privacy is. And how likely is an abusive ruler to violate it.
The other issue is that Bush cannot be trusted with this power. The FBI, for example, lied to Congress when reporting that there were no reported examples of their abusing the Patriot Acts, but there were indeed hundreds. The guy running these wiretaps, Alberto Gonzales, led a career of lying to Congress, hounded out j
I love considered thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's humorous that you seem to.
One is indeed whether the government can wiretap people.
Replace "people" with "American citizens, permanent residents, and/or persons with a legal status within the United States", because they're two very, very different things, and you seem to conflate the two.
There is a very clear law, that has been regularly updated to keep pace with both technology and threats, the FISA. It is already an exception to the Constitutional requirement for any wiretap to be allowed by a warrant after evaluation by a judge under Congress' laws, to ensure the Executive doesn't just wiretap whoever it wants. Any wiretap without a warrant is by definition not reasonable. The FISA makes an exception to the usual requirement that the evidence on which the warrant is based be subject to argument, making the court hearing it and the proceedings secret.Then it makes another exception, a really extraordinary one, that allows warrants to be obtained even after the wiretap, for 72 hours. In other words, legalizing warrantless wiretaps to accommodate emergencies, after which the wiretappers can get a warrant on evidence they already had, or, if they really took a gamble without evidence but on a "hunch" that proved correct, with the contents of the 72 hours of the tap. The Executive even gets to assign the secret members of the FISA court, and its chief judge.
The main purpose of FISA is to govern the collection of foreign intelligence within the United States, and explicitly restrict and control application of surveillance of US citizens within the United States.
Foreign intelligence collection where the target, and sometimes indeed both endpoints of a communication, are outside of the United States should not require a warrant.
Of course, there's a bigger issue: these rights are inalienable, not given by the Constitution or any other feature of being American (or just living here). So violating those rights abroad, for US citizens or foreigners, also violates the rights that are America's basic ideology. But we make the exception to protect ourselves more easily, quickly and cheaply, rationalized on the grounds that we create our government here to protect our rights; foreigners can create their own governments to protect their rights if they want. But of course the accumulated rights abuses abroad have made it that much easier for our enemies to recruit allies and attack us. The tradeoff is probably a losing one, when our greatest threats are terrorists, and we're alienating even our allies.
That's a philosophical and ideological issue. If you believe we need court oversight and a warrant process for foreign intelligence collection, that's fine. It just runs counter to the very purposes and functions of intelligence, and would put the United States at a distinct disadvantage with respect to how other nations, including adversaries, collect intelligence. Our Constitution and the beliefs within it applies, by definition, to our own citizens and by extension to other persons with a valid legal status within the United States. To argue that it should apply to everyone on earth flies in the face of the current state of affairs of the world and the very notion of nation-states.
The undeniable issue here is that Bush has ignored even the easy FISA court. So there's no oversight. Instead, there's lawbreaking by the Executive, as has been found even after due process in binding Federal court with proper jurisdiction. Violating the Constitution, and then breaking the FISA. Even the 4th Amendment that's being broken is itself an extra statement of what's already implicit in the Constitution, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's how important our right to privacy is. And how likely is an abusive ruler to violate it.
Foreign signals intelligence collection should, fundamentally, never require a warra
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The German response (Score:5, Insightful)
One reporter dared to be so indiscreet to ask the question whether the fact that that attack was avoided isn't proof that the current ways of dealing with the threat are adequate.
And there was silence. Next question please?
It's funny that this avoided terrorist attack proves both, that the (questionable) systems implemented are good for us, and that the (questionable) systems they want to implement are critical because current systems are just not enough. Now, which one is it?
You know how I know a politician is lying? (Score:2, Informative)
No, really. This is why there is ZERO point listening to what these people say about anything. When they talk, I just think:
Get out of here! Go on! I don't believe it. You don't say! Really?! Get out of here! Go on. I don't believe it. You don't say? Get out of here! I told you that bitch crazy!!!
Allow Me To Quote Myself (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=294029&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20554673 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that one guy would have been ignored under the old system. Ever think of that?
As a matter of fact, similar warnings were lost and ignored prior to 9/11. It takes reforms to be more responsive to these kinds of tips, while at the same time filtering out the false leads.
Same as 911, but the Germans did something (Score:2)
The front line folks doing the job are not politicians or career managers, and they don't get promoted for doing a great job.
I remember on fed-manager saying "We can't promote her, we need someone that can do th
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not really. His nickname isn't too long by /. standards.
Based on the false dichotomy presented in your analogy, however, I'd say he has a point about yours.
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd actually rather have them watching the bad guys' every move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Funny)
They have beards, goatees or moustaches. For examples see Roger Delgado as Dr Who's The Master, Ming the Merciless or Spock in the alternate universe. Continually stroking the beard is a dead giveaway.
How would they be able to decide that you or I am not worth monitoring because we don't pose a threat, but that Ahmed and Yasir and their connections are worth investigating?
Ahmed & Yasir aren't bad guys. ok, so they sold some bad meat one time... but their deli is the best value in town.
It's called "behavioural profiling". (Score:5, Insightful)
In your scenario, what happens when the bad guy isn't doing anything bad during the time that he is being monitored?
We have over 300 million people here. The number of false positives in your plan would mean that we couldn't track any of the bad guys. We'd have spent all the money on following innocent people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1) That it is impossible to judge the menace of any particular person at any particular time because they may not give signs of their badness at the moment they are monitored
2) That bad people associate with bad people
3) That it is possible to decide who is bad by monitoring them and monitoring those who associate with them.
I hope you see the circular reasoning in step 3. Likewise, I hope you understand that bad people also interact with good people, especially with the kno
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you are suggesting: 1) assume the position, 2) bite down on something, 3) etc..
If you want the long penii of the law probing your nether regions,
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know who the bad guys are when it comes to potential terrorists, any more than you know who is a wife-beater, a tax cheat, a rapist, or any other malfeasant character. When I walk down the street, how do I know the next person I meet isn't going to pull out a knife and stab me? Either you have to be paranoid, assume that everyone is guilty, then start exonerating/condemning people, or you have to assume everyone is decent, and start looking for overt signs that they are not. I say overt, because the 9/11 hijackers did a pretty good job blending in to their surroundings, and only certain aspects of their behavior (e.g. riding in a jumbo jet flight simulator and telling an instructor they only wanted to learn how to fly it, not land it) marked them as suspect. Whould surveillance have tipped anyone off? Sure... if anyone had actually known where they were.
Look, you have to pick your poison. I don't want to live in a police state. I don't like the idea that people I do not know and have no idea if I can trust are watching me, listening to me, judging me. I'm not the world's best person -- I do bad things. Does that make me a potential terrorist? No. But while someone in the government is busy wasting time watching me, the guy five cities away with a bomb-making factory in his garage is getting busy. The Oklahoma City Bombing should have taught us that ultimately it's futile to think you can see things like this coming. If someone is determined enough, fanatical enough, and smart enough, they will get past any kind of spying/surveillance you can think of.
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but we shut down all subsequent threats from those groups by arresting and holding without trial at Gitmo all of those ex-military Christian guys with crewcuts. Remember?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Er, wait...
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that, ultimately, is what our wealthy, coddled society has produced; a couple of generations of people with no sense of proportion, who love to watch vicarously through entertainment and the weekly news the real and imagined sufferings of others, but are utterly incapable of accepting that the world can be a dangerous place, and no amount of supposed government protection or vigilance will ever produce the results that they want.
Previous generations, spanning thousands of years, lived a life much closer to the edge. Diseases, famines and wars were ever present. Life was frequently short and happiness was largely measured in getting some of your offspring beyond childhood. I'm not saying that's the way we should live, but we are a spoiled, detached civilization that has expectations beyond all reality. There are always going to be enemies inside and outside the gates, there are always going to be self-righteous lunatics ready to sacrifice innocent lives in the name of whatever cause strokes their egos and madness.
That's not to say that government and society as a whole doesn't have a role to play in trying to catch bad guys, and if possible, prior to some attack. But the failures of 9-11 and other terrorist attacks appear to be more about failures and ineffeciencies in the intelligence community rather than because previous legislation was to weak. But I think it is beholden on all politicians and bureaucrats to tell the truth; we cannot absolutely guarantee your safety from killers, toxic toys, storms and just plain old bad luck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming he wasn't lying about being the 20th hijacker because he was feeding his own ego. I have never seen or read anything that indicates the Government had phone records indicating that the 9/11 group communicated with each other by phone on a regular basis. If they did, they might have done it through pay phones. Even if you know who the bad guys are, it doesn't mean you're going to learn anything by listening to them.
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the FBI and the CIA had a pretty good idea who the suspected terrorists were (this was part of the investigation of the Cole bombing). The CIA had bugged some of their conversations while they were in the Philippines (I think). Unfortunately the CIA did not tell the FBI that some of those suspected terrorists were in the US. If they did FBI would have no problems obtaining proper warrants.
This is all described in the book "The Looming Tower" [blogspot.com] - I strongly recomend it. Even though the end is heartbreaking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh, they have middle-eastern names. Hasn't Fox News managed to convince us all by now that middle-eastern Muslims are the ones who we should be scared of because they blow things up? Like the Oklahoma federal building?
Re: (Score:2)
McVie isn't an Arabic name.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing this whooshing sound. Maybe it's a flight of Tu-160s off to drop strategic bombs on a carrier battle group.
Oh, and it's McVeigh.
Re:So what are you trying to say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: silent eavesdroppers or armed soldiers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why Benjamin Frankin's statement about those who value security over freedom end will end up having neither is so prescient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the larger fiascos boiled down to a few individuals
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly did you establish that these are the only two alternatives?
It is not the eavesdropper that I object to. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Armed Soldiers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It is banned by the third amendment to the US constitution:
Since we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, war on terror, and a domestic war on drug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which piece of lefist nonsense said (Score:3, Informative)
WARNING: Trick question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cue leftist nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
John dean and other conservatives from the 60's (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IOW it was a standard campaign promise.
In my honest opinion, it'll come to killing, probably a civil war, before we see a smaller government, and that would depend on which side wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a few things remain the same in politics: Its a dirty game, and everyone lies. Everything else changes with time.
*Yes, I know its not politically correct. When the NAACP quits calling themselves "Colored" I'll change as well.
Re:Ok (Score:4, Insightful)
That question is irrelevant. The question should be, "However why is it assumed that when I use someone else's network that my conversation isn't monitored by the government without a warrent?". And the answer to that question is: the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Your IT department can read it all they want, but the government (even if given the data by your IT department without being asked) would need a warrent to read it.
At least this is what decades of legal precedent have said. There have recently been moves to roll back that protection which is what many (including myself) are against.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they have probable cause to think a murder has been committed fine, otherwise they should arrest you for stealing his gun.
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't. Even after its in the garbage bin, they can't search it because its still your property.
Your work can search your network traffic only because the courts have stated that there is a lowered expectation of privacy at work than at other times. The government doe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
why is it assumed that when I use someone else's network that my conversation is secure? If I hand someone a sheet of paper with stuff written on it what guarantee do I have that the person transporting it for me will not sneak a peek at what is written on the sheet of paper.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! It's a federal crime to open someone else's mail, you gorram sheep!
When your government says "bend over", stop asking "how deep?"! Seriously, you're arguing AGAINST your own rights! What the hell is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the converse of your question? If even one person is arrested, shipped to some secret CIA prison, where he/she is waterboarded over and over again, but is ultimately determined to be totally completely freaking innocent, and you were the one that allowed the government to tap the phone call that lead to their arrest, could you live with that? I couldn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Like dissolves in like".
Considering that their greatest friend and ally was known as Tony Bliar waddaya expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, an organization which has a tag line of "Fair and Balanced" can't be lying, can it?
Bush Voters die by IED. Good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true if the government in question is exceptionally small, and heavily restricted.
I really wish we could drown THIS Administration in a bathtub.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Those who employ overused quotations from intelligent men to support their own nebulous point have neither intelligence nor a point.
--Mr. Underbridge
Re:politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Howzat? Are you seriously dismissing the Director of National Intelligence as "one guy who works for the intelligence agency?" That's not even understatement. It's plain misrepresentation of the person who (according to IRTPA 2004 which created the position) is "the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security" and "serve[s] as head of the intelligence community."
I mean, did you not RTFA, or did you just decide to comment on it without knowing such as basic piece of information as the position of DNI Mike McConnell?
Really? Really? McConnell is a political appointee of the Bush administration, while the individuals who flagged his factually incorrect statement are career intelligence personnel. McConnell is the only person in this affair who falls under the "Bush Administration."
Did you just copy/paste your post from FreeRepublic, or did you come up with such an obtuse and uninformed comment on your own?