From: "Gary Britt" 

The fact remains clerks at wall mart weren't reporting people for buying
1000's of cell phones PRIOR to the leaks.  This is clear evidence that the
enemy changed their behavior AFTER the leaks.  How smart or not smart
terrorists are is NOT the issue.  Its quite clear that PRIOR to the leaks
multiple Arabs in multiple locations around the USA were NOT buying
thousands of untraceable cell phones.  It is NOT an excuse for treasonous
disclosures of national security secrets to argue that one didn't know the
terrorists would pay attention to the reports and change their behavior.
Bush and many in the intelligence community confirmed weeks and months ago
that the terrorists changed their behavior as a result of the leaks.  The
fact that only AFTER these criminal acts in aid and comfort of the enemy
were committed by and defended by various liberal no it alls we begin
catching Muslims with 1000's of cell phones is CONFIRMATION that Bush and
others weren't blowing smoke when they said these criminal leaks hurt
national security and caused the terrorists to change their behavior.

Its plainly obvious except to those who feel culpable in their support of
the prior ludicrous pooh poohing of the harm caused by these traitors.

Gary

"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:44de3949$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Were they even looking before the stories ?
>
> Using hard to trace cell phones has been on TV for YEARS. If the
> terrorists are so dumb as to use readily traceable phones until a story in
> the NYT appears  then why do you assume they are smart enough to read the
> NYT but not watch TV?
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:44de36f6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Both you and Rich miss the point of my post entirely.  I didn't claim
>> that catching these guys with 1000's of cell phones was due to NSA
>> surveillance. I'm saying that this is clearly a sign that the NSA leaks
>> did in fact damage our intelligence gathering and that terrorists did in
>> fact change their behavior AFTER these traitorous leaks because PRIOR to
>> these leaks we weren't apprehending people with 1000's of cell phones.
>> We start apprehending them only AFTER the leaks and would be terrorists
>> begin to CHANGE their behavior as a RESULT of the NSA surveillance leaks.
>>
>> I'm saying this fact that NOW we catch guys with 1000's of cell phones
>> and BEFORE the leaks we didn't put the LIE to the liberal traitors pooh
>> poohing the effect of the leaks as being inconsequential.
>>
>> And for Rich to paraphrase your little snark to me.  Don't let the FACTS
>> get in the way of defense of the traitors who leak our national security
>> secrets.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
>> news:44de3034{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> I remember all that.   Strange that if these liberal traitors more
>>>> interested in political power than the safety of our children were
>>>> correct
>>>> in their assertions above, that PRIOR TO THESE LEAKS WE WEREN'T
>>>> CATCHING
>>>> NUMEROUS AND SEPARATE GROUPS OF MUSLIM CRIMINALS WITH
1000'S OF PREPAID
>>> HARD > TO TRACE CELL PHONES IN THEIR VEHICLES.
>>>
>>> Trying to make some sense out of all that.
>>>
>>> The arrests, as I understand it, were prompted not by any sophisticated
>>> surveillance but by shop assistants (clerks) at Walmart becoming
>>> suspicious - their awareness having been raised by earlier reports and a
>>> directive from their management.
>>>
>>> The directive was apparently the result of an FBI Advisory dated 3
>>> August.
>>>
>>> I don't see where the New York Times, the NSA, leaks, surveillance or
>>> anything else fits in this.  It's plain, simple, boring and very
>>> effective
>>> police work.
>>>
>>> http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27267626.shtml
>>>
>>> "During a telephone conversation between British Prime
Minister Tony
>>> Blair
>>> and President George W. Bush regarding the terrorist plot and arrests in
>>> the
>>> United Kingdom, Blair warned Bush about possible intelligence leaks in
>>> the
>>> US, according to Fox News.
>>>
>>> There is fear that the ongoing investigation into a large-scale
>>> terrorist
>>> attack on airline flights between the UK and US will be compromised by
>>> leakers and the American news media, who in the past have compromised
>>> national security."
>>>
>>> Why do you think we didn't ****ing tell you until the arrests were
>>> underway?
>>> Your intelligence services leak like sieves.
>>>
>>> I have a friend who is involved in another issue - not directly
>>> terrorist-related.  He passed information to two US officials on a
>>> "need-to-know" and strict non-distribution basis. 
And read it in the
>>> papers
>>> days later.  He (and his department) now pass _NO_ information to US
>>> authorities.  It just blows their operations.
>>>
>>> And note - this isn't legitimate whistle-blowing like in the NYT case -
>>> this
>>> is someone leaking a story for personal gain of some kind.  I support
>>> whistle-blowers, but these ****s should be shot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5