Since we are all speculating hereâ?¦

Quite so, Tom. But that's one of the most disturbing things about this whole affair. A free society cannot exist without a transparent government. Sure, there are things, operational specifics, that need to be kept secret. But any government that claims to be representing its citizens must allow some sort of open discussion on what kinds of things they're doing, and what we're willing to allow them to do in our name. Normally, that's supposed to be done via Congressional oversight, but the so-called permanent majority gave up on that responsibility long ago...

First of all, Bithead, â??Verizionâ?? is not the same as â??all telcosâ??

True.

Now, there's also BellSouth which gave comments and word parsing similar to Verizon. But still, that's not all of them.

So, go and dig up quotes from the other companies cited, where local calling info was given up. I'm convinced you won't find any.

Note also, the different tone and very different word parsing taken by AT&T/SBC, whose records WOULD help the program, being as they're LD oriented.... specifically international traffic.

I say again, it's international traffic they're after. And I note that Hackbarth and I are on the same page, here.

And RA, since outfits like Fox News, the Washington Times, and the WSJ are also part of the MSM, what exactly would you consider a 'reliable source'?

Local records would not entail calls made to another country. Iran, for example.

But let's see, here.
First, we hear that Rove has already been indicted. (Untrue)
Then we hear the telcos are coughing up local calling records... (also not true.)

Almost makes you wonder what ELSE the press is lying to us about to cast this WH in a bad light, doesn't it?

James,

I'm not 100% sure they have. Remember one of the "Bush is the devil" scandals, the media ended up blaming Bush for their bad reporting since he didn't deny it fast enough they assumed it was true? (I forget which faux scandal it was)

My point being, the government is a very big place. And no one person knows about every program. (especially the secret ones) I would not be at all surprised if the WH didn't even know anything about the program and had to research it themselves.

In the mean time they fall for the trap that the reporter got it mostly right and they make statements that appear to support its existence.

-It's happened before.-

As you note, the confirmation is squishy. I'm not so sure they ain't just treating water till they get their facts together.

Or maybe I'm over thinking it. ;-)

P

I think all these press releases by phone companies has more to do with lawsuits than with what the NSA did or did not do.

Bingo. If the telcos provided these records, it was almost certainly in direct violation of their customer privacy policies. Unless there's some sort of warrant or gov't authorization to lie about it. But if that authorization is itself classified, the telcos can't defend themselves in court from evidence that is already public, like gov't admissions (implicit or otherwise) about the program.

If my logic here is correct so far, it looks like any public admission by the gov't utterly sabotages the telcos' ability to stave off gi-normous settlements in civil cases. In which case, the Bush admin may have just seriously screwed that entire industry...

Could it possibly be that part of the counter-attack against the leaks is to put out more FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) to confuse the bad guys (by this I mean the terrorists, not the MSM). If the Nazi press were to ask Ike about the Allied invasion plans for Norway or Greece, do you think he would immediately say "No, we are going in to Normandy, not those places". If you notice in Snow's first briefing, he was very careful to answer Helen's questions by first saying the administration neither confirms nor denies the USA today story.

I admit I have my doubts, but I would love to believe that the people hunting the terrorists are smart enough to make the terrorist chase their tails on occasion.

I think all these press releases by phone companies has more to do with lawsuits than with what the NSA did or did not do.

Also, since the USAT story cited AT&T and not BellSouth, which was recently bought by AT&T (and according to the quote above, AT&T isn't commenting). The whole this company buying that company thing complicates all of this. For sure these companies are trying to avoid lawsuits.

Further, there is still the matter of Qwest stating publically that they were asked for the records in question. As such, something isn't connecting here.

In regards to FISA: it is better than nothing, but to simply "inform" two FISA judges strikes me as wholly inadequate. It is like the wiretap briefings to a handful of Congressional leaders. Simple briefings are not oversight. I commented on that here.

The whole thing is a jumbled mess, to be sure. However, I don't find that either of these stories settles much of anything.