Seeing as he has no dog in this fight, I take it he’s just a rabble rouser.
If every other fucking website on the interweb didn’t use web tracking and cookies, there might be a reason to be concerned that a government site did so. Now, even though this article is about a government site that didn’t do this, that’s not enough to keep idiots like rjung from running around wringing their hands and screaming “The sky is falling!”
The article specifically said that the White House webpage didn’t do that. Now, are you going to pony up like you have a pair and admit you were wrong, or are you going to continue with the hysteria, distortions and lies you thrive on?
“The NSA disabled the cookies this week…” What, you mean they disabled the stuff they weren’t using?
I made no claims as to what the NSA was or wasn’t doing; I was merely refuting Sam Stone’s oversimplified flatulence that this was nothing but a glorified hit counter. But then, you’ve never met an excuse for this Administration you didn’t like, so I’m hardly surprised by your outburst of indignation.
Hey Sam? If you love Bush so fucking much why don’t you just move to the US instead of sitting there in another country telling US citizens how we should shut up about OUR government?
Feel the love. Happy New Year, everyone.
Happy New Year, y’all.
This does make me wonder why most other government websites have this disclaimer on them:
Yea, I know it’s DoD as opposed to the White House, but hey, the Feds are the Feds, right?
Hey rjung, it’s amusing that you feel compelled to try and tag me as an apologist for an adminstration I didn’t even vote for, but what the hell, facts and you are strangers, people on these boards actually willing to think all know that. Nevertheless, the facts in the article are very clear: the White House site didn’t do what you are getting so upset about, so I present the ethecal delema to you again: Do you have the stones to admit you were WRONG with your hysteria in this instance? It’s a simple question, it all comes down to one little thing: Do you have any honor, or are you just a knee jerk political hack? I think, based upon your posts, that you are the later, but I’d love for you to prove me wrong. Ball’s in your court big guy.
Since you already admitted that you’ve pre-determined the result, I don’t see how anything I say will change your mind. Much like the Bush Administration and Saddam’s WMD capabilities, in fact.
And for you to accuse anyone of political hackery is like Bill O’Reilly calling his foes bombastic liars. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
shakes head
Sad. No, pathetic.
Yes, you are, but don’t despair; there’s still a chance you’ll someday develop a rudimentary conscience of some sort.
WHAT? 30 posts and nobody saying how this was a white house leak to deflect attention from the real spying it’s been doing on citizens without getting a warrant, after-the-fact or not?
People must be hungover 
Let’s jsut say that thw whole “illegal spying on your own country” would be far too strong a term for it. The law on this is certainly not against Bush here, and whether you’re left or right he closed down some parts of the program because of legitimate concerns. However, whoevere it was in the Justice Department that blabbed may have commited a major foul.
Hence the investigation, and the fact that the story died before it even got launched. The news agencies abruptly realized they have jumped head-first into a load of hooey, and Congress (right and left this time) pretty much rolled their eyes at the clueless reporters who thought they’d just earned a Pulitzer.
The rumors of the death of the illegal wiretap issue are greatly exaggerated. At least one law, FISA, is against Bush here, and I’m always leery of a President, especially one who constantly insists on a 'strict" reading of the Constitution, relying on “inherent authority”. I also have not seen a death of the story, rather I see the story going beyond the hype of him spying to a more in-depth look at the legal issues involved. I also haven’t seen Congress lying down on this issue yet.
Maybe we read different news outlets though.
The only thing certain in this case is that nothing is certain until after a Congressional investigation and possibly a SCOTUS opinion.
Heehee This is funny. Love how your reaction to being exposed as having posted something that’s just flat out wrong is to fling shit at other people rather than just saying “My bad, I made a mistake.” IME, this is also one of those things that generally do a good job at demonstrating the difference between an adult and a spoiled, whiny brat. You want to be treated like an adult rjung, start acting like one. Now feel free to come in here and throw more insults around rather than just admitting you mistake. We don’t expect any better of you.
Well I disagree there. What is also certain is that Bush lied, clearly to the American people in this case. I dare any Bush apologist to argue differently now. From this article http://www.yahoo.com/s/135782/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
Bush said “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.”
Now, he clearly says court order, and terrorists. His defense of saying it was about the patriot act is disingenous. Words such as “any time” you hear about a wiretap implies, hmm, ANY TIME- henceforth all circumstances. But, it is made even more clear when he gives a clear picture of the subject, fighting terrorism, and reiterates the court order.
Does he mean “some other terrorists now” or some form of wiretapping that is not included in “anytime”?
Please, all of you Bush supporters, admit he lied. Then think about how you would have felt about a Democratic president doing the same thing. This is huge. He was under criticism for eroding civil rights and lying to the American people when these debates were going on in 2004. He, therefore, lied about protecting the civil rights of Americans and now claims that those who exposed him were “damaging America”. How much more evidence do people need?
Regardless of who leaked what, whether the surveillance was legal or how extensive the surveillance was, is moot in regards to this point. Bush lied.
As a non American I can say it is a bloody good thing that George hasn’t been listening to me.
For some reason I think the 1000’s of US lives lost in Iraq pale into insignificance to the Iraqi lives lost. Statistics are horrible things.
Quick question: did the parts that he closed down because of legitimate concerns get closed down before, or after someone “blabbed?” Just askin.