But I doubt it.
How can people not get it? I mean, the facts are out there. Truly, anyone with a clue and some desire to KNOW the truth, can find it.
I'm talking about the 'new' charges against President Bush that he's authorized eavesdropping on conversations carried by the majority of the phone companies in America, as published in the USA Today last week.
First of all, if it's published in the USA Today, it's obviously going to be either wrong, or horribly biased. In this case, it was both.
1. The phone calls reported by AT&T, SBC, Southern Bell, etc, are not being listened to. Period. End of story. The technology exists that allows certain 'key words' to be searched for. At that point, the data is mined and the numbers are noted. It's not that these conversations are monitored live.
2. George W. Bush didn't invent this. He didn't originate this. He's not even the first president to use it. The idiot peanut farmer from GA started this program in the 70's. Yes, the 70's. It's been used at times by EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT SINCE.
President Clinton used it for industrial espionage. Would we rather see the program used for industrial espionage than to observe potential terrorists? um..no
3. The calls that WERE monitored, were ones that either originated from US numbers to foreign states that were known to support terrorists, OR to numbers that were affiliated to known terrorist supporters. That's it.
How tough is that to write in an article? Oh wait, yeah, see, that'd require some research and folks at USA today aren't exactly known for their technical prowess. Other than being able to keep an article below one page and use all the pretty colors, I don't know what else USA Today would be known for. It CERTAINLY isn't for their crack reporting. Unless by 'crack reporting' you mean the reporters were ON crack.