When Qwest was waiting for government assurances that the wiretapping programs were legal the figure of "3 to 5 billion dollars" was going to be paid to them for their cooperation. They never got those assurances and refused to participate. At least three other telecoms did, larger than Qwest. So the "cash cow" is now, say 10 to 15 billion dollars. No one knows how much money has gone to the telecoms....because it's a secret! It's the people's money and no one knows how it is being spent. It's going to the telecoms, and it has to be lots of $$$ to get them to break the laws of the land, and they are now taking it and putting it into lobbying efforts to perpetuate their "cash cow." Now it has become the "cash cow" for members of congress.....and it's our money!! Does anyone really think that the telecoms aren't going to granted immunity? That immunity will lead to a continuing degradation of our democratic process.

If immunity wasn't granted, these figures would come to light in legal investigations into the telecoms activities. Another thing that would come to light is when these activities were first started and when the telecoms were first approached to wiretap in noncompliant manners. In a Qwest inside trading law suit I believe the date mentioned was April 2001....pre-9/11, not post-9/11 like the government would like us to believe. That means the plan to "rob" us was either up and running pre-9/11 or in place.

So, we can cry First Amendment and privacy issues all we want were the real issue "is all about the money!........stupid!

Boy Howdy

sysprog, thanks for finding that release from the White House. For anyone thinking of reading it in detail, I would refer you first to this AP story:

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said he could not comment on the study because he had not seen it.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

Of course, Bush was the champion for the number of false statements, coming in at 259 documented lies.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2zpyy4

I have been advocating for some time on these pages for a large nonprofit journalism effort. This investigation and story was funded by the Fund for Independence in Journalism. I would love to see their effort expanded greatly. From their website: In 1983, 50 corporations owned a majority of the news media. In 1992, fewer than two dozen owned 90% of the news media. In 2006, the number fell to a total of four corporations: Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, and Bertelsmann.

I have no doubt that if a functional journalistic operation with the quality of the Center for Public Integrity but with sufficient size to cover government fully and in real time, we would not have invaded Iraq. Further, the illegal wiretapping program would have been exposed well before the 2004 election and the public would be fully aware of the folly of granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.

It would be interesting to know if the telecoms exported any jobs overseas. My main point is to link the telecoms with all big business emphasizing following the law will not hinder us from finding terrorists who want to do us harm while ignoring the law and giving in to those who want an empire free of any restrictions from the congress or the people is far more dangerous. It is time to tell them breaking the law is wrong and until we know what has really happened and who is most responsible, we can’t let those money interests and government empire builders keep getting away with murder. If we wait any longer to stand up to them, it may be too late even if one of the three presidential candidates gets elected and we have a true Democratic control of the congress and legislation. How do we know that a Democratic president will give up such powerful powers or that congress can take them away?

You're willing to give your life in protest of call traffic patterns, and keyword searches? That seems like a waste to me, but to each his own. Heh....

This selfish and short-sighted eedjit isn't willing to pay anything to get what he thinks he so richly deserves ... which is why he's not getting his nutz blown off over in Iraq defending "democracy at gunpoint". It's all Nemo's seagulls, "Mine, mine, mine...." with him, and he thinks opportunity costs are free ... for him. I'd say it's about time he gets what he really so richly deserves (and maybe he got it today, unless he's one of those leeches on people's misfortunes that had the temerity to push for the conditions that led to today's massacre and then to 'short' it when the fit hit the shan.....)

Cheers,

One thing that may bear a bit of investigation is the possibility of links between Massimo Calabresi and Frederick Kagan. Both grew up in New Haven, CT. They are both children of Yale faculty members--Guido Calabresi was Dean of the Yale Law School, and Donald Kagan is a Professor of Classics and History at Yale. Both boys attended Yale, and it is entirely possible that they have had interactions not only at Yale, but possibly as they were boys, in high school, in college (could they have been in the same secret society, or both members of the Tory party) and afterwards.

Frederick Kagan is described on his Wikipedia biography as having been born in 03/70. Massimo Calabresi was 29 when he had his wedding banns published in the NY Times (Google 'MFT Calabresi') in 06/96. Although the 3 year age difference makes it unlikely that they would have been in the same high-school class or played on the same youth hockey or soccer team, it is entirely possible and plausible that their paths crossed extensively as they grew up, and that their shared New Haven heritage has led to mutually reinforcing alliances as adults.

New Haven is a small town. Quite small, at times. It'd be fascinating to have the time to poke around in sources in the libraries in New Haven--to see whether any supporting evidence can be identified for the hypothesis advanced above.