In his December 19th press conference regarding his secret and likely illegal program of domestic surveillance, an angry President George W. Bush took umbrage at suggestions that he believes in unprecedented, expansive and unchecked presidential power. A fuming Bush responded:

"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject."

Unfortunately, Bush's past statements show that far from rejecting dictatorial power for the President, he's actually quite enamored of it.

For the full story, see:

"Bush on Dictatorship"

The only explination I have for the Times holding the story is that they didn't want to tip the election in Kerry's favor which this revelation very well could have done.

As usual liberals like Jonathan Alter are wrong. There is no law which prohibits Bush from ordering wiretaps of suspected terrorists. In fact FISA specifically authorizes the President may do that

"In addition to existing restrictions under Executive Order 12333 and other internal limits, FISA states in 50 U.S.C. 1802 that, "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 . . ."

Once again liberals are wrong.

So, the New York Times conspired with the White House to conceal illegal activity? Can they be charged with anything, like conspiracy to commit fraud on the voting public?

Do we know the exact date the NYT first got the story? A year ago is not much different in time than 14 months ago, but potentially huge in impact. 14 months would have put it before the election. Do we know to some degree of exactness when the NYT found this out?

Note also that Reid was not advised of the program until "earlier this year" (according to Reid), meaning that the Bush administration did not advise any Senators outside of the two chairs of the Intelligence Committee until the NYT informed the White House that they were aware of the program and were going public. The White House gets the NYT to hold off on publishing it, apparantely to safeguard national security, and the NYT does so. The White House then used the bonus time to brief other Senators on it so they could say that Senators were briefed.

The NYT will have another page-one splash on this story tomorrow. My wager, based on Sen. Rockefeller's handwritten memo to Cheney, is that this whole thing has to do with foreign-owned communications equipment (e.g., satellites), or has to do with the FBI/CIA's mechanisms for mass-scanning of emails.

Alter says that Bush summoned both the editor and the publisher of the New York Times to the Oval Office a couple of weeks ago in an effort to keep them from publishing their story about the NSA program.

Say fucking what?

Al:

Is that a complete quote? Really? Wanna check to make sure?

'cuz, you know, you're full 'o crap.

Also notice the timeline. Members of Congress were only briefed on the program earlier this year, over two years after it started and only after the NYT brought the story to the administration.

This is why they rigged the elections in 2004, and will do so again in 2006. They simply cannot afford to let Democrats gain control of the investigative apparatus that would be at their disposal if they became the majority in either the Senate or the House. So they will steal the election in 2006.

Of course, they could probably retain control of Congress without do anything illegal, since our system is so polluted with money, Republicans are so good at framing the debate and the issues, and the media is so deferential to Bush.

Ergo, Bush's expanded definition of presidential power becomes the new normal.

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.

Al, you're missing part B of that law, which reads:

"(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

The problem is that up to 500 American citizens (United States persons) are under such warrantless surveillance at any given time. So, yes, the President is specifically barred by statute from undertaking these actions.

ALTER: If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

DRUM: On the other hand, there's still no word on why the Times held off on printing this story for a year.

Give it up guys. Al doesn't understand the law. He's a shill for the Bush administration. A monkey dancing to whatever tune they sing. He quit thinking long ago.

Al,

Come on. Really, you really could do better. Every one of us has read the FISA act at least once since this began.

Let's talk about the dog that didn't bark.

Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the year's biggest story -- the emerging democracy in Iraq and the overwhelming success story of our President's efforts in waging the war against terror(ists). Kevin, there was the third (and most peaceful) election this year in Iraq last week -- yet you take NO NOTICE of it. Why is that, Kevin? Is good news in Iraq bad news for you and your kind?

Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the leaks (to the New York Times reporter) about the President's authorizations for warrantless intercepts of communications between foreign powers and their agents within our borders. Surely, this disclosure harms all of us. And Kevin was apoplectic about the putative harm that the disclosure of the not-so-secret-agent Valerie-whatsername did and demanded time and again that the evil genius Karl Rove be disemboweled and beheaded. Why are you silent about these leaks, Kevin?

Now let's talk about this dog's barking.

The left's whining about these claimed "misdeeds" by our President is going to push his poll numbers well over 50% (he's back in the high forties now). The American public will overwhelmingly back a strong chief executive who takes our security seriously -- as opposed to you aging lefties who still want to party like it's 1999.

Now here's a lesson in Constitutional Law: No act of Congress can diminish the powers expressly granted to the President in our Constitution. It doesn't matter what's in or is not in FISA -- when the President acts in his capacity as commander-in-chief in defense of these United States, Congress may not interfere (and the Courts will not -- and have not).

Yeah, Kevin -- it's "ludicrous" that there's no case law on this. Right! And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Remember that many key players in this administration worked for Nixon. Cheney was chief of Staff, wasn't he? Rumsfeld. I don't know who else, but I'm sure there were quite a few. Lot of the Nixonites felt that Nixon should have stayed and fought.

What's the famous quote from Nixon: "It's not illegal if the President does it"? Sure seems to be the attitude here.

We've got secret prisons. Legalization and justification of torture. Denial of due process to US citizens. And now searches without a warrant.

If the Democrats ever get a majority in either house again to get supeona power, then things will get very interesting.

Oh, it's not that Al doesn't understand nor that he doesn't particularly want to. He's trolling.

But he's doing such a pathetic job of it. The real Al at least had some talent.

Senator Rockefeller's note about the program said it reminded him of Poindexter's TIA program (Total Information Awareness) which sought to aggregate all commercial and government databases to search them for patterns of terrorist planning. Considering that the NSA's chief mission is eavesdropping on all foreign communications (and I mean ALL), it's not a leap of imagination to assume that they have been scanning traffic into and out of the US. There would be no spying on any one particular individual per se but on everyone in aggregate, scanning and parsing all traffic for certain words or phrases and only truly spying when certain calls or messages were flagged by the computer. It would explain why the FISA judge would not allow evidence obtained this way to be used in obtaining a warrant. It's the mother of all fishing expiditions and clearly a violation of the 4th admendment.

"Surely, this disclosure harms all of us."

So far, nobody can explain HOW it harms us. The administration is engaging in a practice that is PERMITTED BY LAW, but chosing to do so in a *manner* that is not permitted by law. In other words, for the terrorist plotting within our borders, nothing has changed. The administration is simply chosing not to get warrants for the wiretaps they're allowed to do.

"No act of Congress can diminish the powers expressly granted to the President in our Constitution."

And no President can diminish the protections guaranteed us by the Constitution.

Furthermore, would you care to explain exactly which portions of the Constitution give the President this power?

Of course, even the fake Al is better then the disappointingly uncreative Norman.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?--Norman

yeah,(snicker) I'm sure he's awake all night pondering that question, psycho.

Keep singing that song, Norman. Perhaps it will provide you some comfort as reality bites.

Oh, and this? "Now here's a lesson in Constitutional Law: No act of Congress can diminish the powers expressly granted to the President in our Constitution."

Buzz - you lose. As did Nixon when this went before the Supreme Court in the first place.

I wonder if it's some software for picking keywords out of sound conversations. I doubt that the accuracy would be particularly great; voice recognition of arbitrary speakers outside of very defined contexts and favorable signal-to-noise rations isn't all that great. Yeah, I know it's the NSA, but still, the problem of understanding human speech is rather tricky.

Some in the blogosphere have pretty much figured out what Bush refuses to say, which is: WHY they aren't asking for warrants when FISA (national security) warrants are so easy to get.

It's the technology. The NSA is able to listen, not just to individual conversations, but to ALL conversations in a communications channel from point A to B, perhaps even in all channels. Their computers are so big and fast that they can process multiple streams and catch a word or phrase, like "Al Qaeda", then isolate that conversation and record it for later human review.

(Of course most of us have heard rumors about this capability already, but we assumed it was only being used on people in foreign lands. And, until Bush, it was.)

In other words, they aren't just wiretapping specific people, they are wiretapping EVERYBODY.

Well, you can't get a warrant to wiretap "everybody." There's no such thing.

Furthermore, once you've isolated a particular person or conversation this way, you can't use the info you just got illegally (by wiretapping "everybody") to justify a warrant for wiretapping that particular person or conversation.

So the Bushies didn't merely skip the FISA step. They COULDN'T have gotten a FISA warrant!

It's that simple.

As for the NY Times, maybe they didn't quite believe the story, and it took a year to find scientists (outside the NSA) who could confirm the capability existed - or could exist.

It's spectacular when you think about it. That the technology has gotten to point where Big Brother is really, really possible. Kinda sneaks up on you, doesn't it.

Norman, it's good to have you back! We've missed your biting wit. Where you been hiding lately?

The Times may never have printed it, if rumours are true that this material was going to be released in a soon-to-be-published book by a NY Times associated writer.

Basically, the Times may have had a choice to get scooped by this book, or continue to capitulate to the Bush Administration.

They made the right decision, in both a business and journalistic sense (at least to finally publish the story).

Those spreading rumours about this being just a promotional thing for the book don't seem to have a good handle on journalism, since the Times is not going to want to be scooped by this book, and especially by another news organization printing excerpts from the book.

Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the year's biggest story -- the emerging democracy in Iraq and the overwhelming success story of our President's efforts in waging the war against terror(ists).

Iraq has indeed voted.
They voted that they want all the fuck ugly yankees out of their country.

They voted that loud and clear in public polls.
And they are voting that loud and clear with bombs.

Nevertheless, since I realize you are an especially dim yank, let me put it in the King's English for you:

Get the fuck out of their country and honor their democracy that way.

Until then... nigger norm, you are just another ugly American hiding behind his keyboard with a full pallet of Halliburton stock.

Fraud.
Phoney.
Pinko Elephant who shaves his anus...

Reverend claims, "So far, nobody can explain HOW it [this disclosure by the NYTimes] harms us"

I guess the good reverend doesn't understand that if the bad guys know we're watching them, they change their behaviour (wintess Usama's (then) sudden aversion to satelite telephony in the nineties when this little secret was spilled by the working press). Good thing you morons are kept far from the reins of power, no?

And for those of you who have never read the Constitution (it's really short -- you really should), the President is Commander in Chief. Article 2 Section 2 - Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

As I understand it, the President has obtained legal opinions to the effect that Congress authorized the present use of force against Al Q & Co and he is exercising his authority in this regard -- this is all part of military intelligence.

You all may not like it (you certainly don't like him), but this is well grounded and will certainly resonate with the American people.

OBTW, Ducksass -- Nixon asserted "executive privilage" -- something not found in the Constitution (perhaps it was in the "penumbra"?)

Congratualations, morons -- You've picked another losing fight.

Who let Norman out of the secured location? Wait a minute, didn't Cheney just go to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Saaaaay...just when Cheney emerges, Norman starts posting.

Coinkydink? You decide...

Of course, such a system as Libby describes isn't particuarly intelligent.

It relies on key words. So, say instead of the term "al Qaida" your said "the auto shop." They'd never catch it, because they aren't looking for it. Now, imagine you say it in your local dialect of, say, Arabic (various national versions are mutually unintelligible), with a strange accent, over a cell phone, by a freeway.

Not only is voice recognition a hard problem, the logistics of a meaningful program like you describe are really difficult to overcome. Not impossible, given input from other sources. But hard.

Maybe the technology isn't related to voice recongition at all. Maybe they went ahead with TIA, and they're doing taps based on that. They didn't want it known that they pursued a program that wasn't allowed to go forward, so they decided not to make it known.

I was just watching Senator Russell Feingold on C-Span and I thought he made an excellent point. He said if that the NYT had not released this story, the senate would never had found out about the illegal wiretapping. It made him wonder aloud what else we don't know about that the Bush White House is doing that they NYT has not published. I thought it was an excellent point. When the president has shown that he keeps important secrets even from congress, you have no way of knowing how many of those secrets there are. Feingold said the thought was scary. I agree.

Norman: Those terrorists plotting within our borders were likely very much aware that the government could (and probably would) tap their phone lines without informing them. Nothing about the NYT revelations changes that, except to further publicize what is already known, and to draw attention to possible misuse or illegal use of powers granted by law.

Nothing in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution could be construed to grant the Executive grounds to ignore oversight and direction by the Congress. The President is, indeed, the sole high commander of the military, but even the Congress has the power to regulate the President, and the Congress, holding the power of the purse, may require that certain actions be taken in particular manner in order to receive funding.

Yes, according to Norman, the President can also declare war.

So why doesn't he do so and be done with it? Patriot Act? Whatever! Just write out an executive order and be done with it!

Augustus Texacus Andovericus Yaleus Bushicus, Emperor and Defender of the people.

The word "megalomaniacal," when used to describe the President of the United States, scares me. Especially when it is used accurately.

"Saaaaay...just when Cheney emerges, Norman starts posting."

Thanks Pale Rider...

That explains my spontaneously combustible phrase: "pinko elephant that shaves his anus."

I must have realized intuitively that Norm-speak was created by a character that would choose five deferments with one hand while waving the flag with the other.

Fraud.
Phoney.
Pinko Elephant with a greased anus.

He publicly admitted to an impeachable offense, a clear violation of the very Constitutional protections he swore to uphold at both of his inaugurations. Then, when questioned on this, he even claims that he will willfully continue this. His legal counsel supposedly was complicit in this action by persuading the idiot that it was "legal".

If he was a street criminal publicly admitting guilt and the intention to continue his crimes with on-duty police officers present, he would be immediately boot-heel-face-planted with a shotgun to his head, then cuffed and hauled away before the camera crew got their gear packed.

Instead, we have our propaganda-promoting "press" essentially covering his ass by telling us that since 9-11 our Constitutional protections no longer apply, and the mythically-inclined GOP lapping up all of it.

Pale Rider: Augustus Texacus Andovericus Yaleus Bushicus

Is that Latin for asshole?

Plame vs. Terrorists w/ suitcase nukes.

Times is guilty of hypocrisy.

Their calls to investigate and force them to reveal their leaker should be consistent with their position on the Plame investigation.

Funny, about how 'unbiased media' conveniently drops the issue of congressional oversight on this issue.

Get the fuck out of their country and honor their democracy that way.

Posted by: Christian Charlie's Ghost on December 19, 2005 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?

Reverend writes: Those terrorists plotting within our borders were likely very much aware that the government could (and probably would) tap their phone lines without informing them. Nothing about the NYT revelations changes that, except to further publicize what is already known, and to draw attention to possible misuse or illegal use of powers granted by law.

And you wonder why we want you idiots far from the reins of power? Publicizing a secret intelligence operation won't forewarn our enemies?

Of course, Kevin thinks that anything the Administration did to call attention to the CIA cabal and the actions by Valerie Plame to send her bumbling husband to gin up some dirt to try to use against our duly elected President is somehow a terrible crime -- but you idiots don't see any harm in disclosing real secrets in a time of war.

And no, Reverend, Congress has no power to curtail or to regulate Powers expressly granted to the President by the Constitution. Yes, they can refuse to pay our soldiers. And yes, they can try to tie strings around the use of funds. But no court and no court of public opinion will permit our President's hands to be tied in time of war.

Why did they put off aiding-and-abetting a crime for a year, you mean?

TOH

Tremble before my boundless wisdom, morons!
I am strong.
I am invincible.
I am Norman.

The Objective Historian: Why did they put off aiding-and-abetting a crime for a year, you mean?

What's that you say, they aided and abetted a crime by witholding information about it for a year? Yeah, I agree.

Libby probably nails it, IMO.
It's the technology. The NSA is able to listen, not just to individual conversations, but to ALL conversations in a communications channel from point A to B, perhaps even in all channels.
Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that not even the NSA can do serious speech-to-text monitoring on all telephone conversations. Yet.

It is however straightforward to work out a large list of distance 2 or 3 or even 4 (friends, friends of friends, friends of friends of friends) contacts from a small initial list of telephone numbers, and concentrate some serious automated attention on them.

Aristotle's Shaved McAnus:

"What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?"

Yanqui.... get out of their country:

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

VOR: Rove was part of Nixon's "CREEP". (apropos as it ever was).

Let's talk about the dog that didn't bark.
Posted by: Norman on December 19, 2005 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

Can we please refrain from talking about your mom for one thread? Jeez.

Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the year's biggest story --

. . in your mind. . .

the emerging democracy in Iraq

. . . for a sufficiently loose definition of "democracy". . .

and the overwhelming success story of our President's efforts in waging the war against terror(ists)

. . . is it a success if it bankrupts the nation both fiscally and morally?

Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the leaks

What do you want him to say? If the law was broken, the lawbreaker should be punished. End of story, nothing more to see. Nobody's defending the leaker.

And if Bush broke the law - he should also be punished.

Surely, this disclosure harms all of us.

Yes, especially those terrorists who didn't suspect they were being spied on. Dumbass. When privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

And Kevin was apoplectic about the putative harm that the disclosure of the not-so-secret-agent Valerie-whatsername did

Good evening, and welcome to another episode of "Apples and Oranges". Tonight, we'll talk about how outing an agent working on nonproliferation for purposes of political revenge, character assassination, and obstructing the investigation on intentionally faked intelligence, bears absolutely no equivalency to blowing the whistle on an illegal state surveillance program that violates the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans.

The left's whining about these claimed "misdeeds" by our President is going to push his poll numbers

Bush's poll numbers right now, are a function of election hype. In twelve months time, when the mullahs are having women stoned, and adulterers beheaded in the public square in Iraq, and their economy is still in the shitter, and the Iraqi prime minister starts singing a duet with the Iranian prime minister of "Let's burn Israel off the map with nukes" - will Bush's poll numbers be so high?

Now here's a lesson in Constitutional Law: No act of Congress can diminish the powers expressly granted to the President in our Constitution.

False pretenses=false war=false powers.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 19, 2005 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

McAristotle: Times is guilty of hypocrisy.

Their calls to investigate and force them to reveal their leaker should be consistent with their position on the Plame investigation.

Great joke. Hilarious. For those of you who don't get it, remember what the NY Times position was all along in the Plame case, as far as Judy Miller being compelled to reveal her sources?

Otherwise, the Plame leak was not whistleblowing, while this case clearly is, since we have illegal activity.

"Kevin has had NOTHING to say about the year's biggest story -- the emerging theocracy in Iraq"

Fixed it for you, Norman. No charge.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that not even the NSA can do serious speech-to-text monitoring on all telephone conversations.

Speech-to-text monitoring is not necessary. Signal processing and pattern recognition can infer relationships and raise red flags for a human operator to investigate a particular transmission futher. A computer doesn't have to know the ASCII code or the dictionary meaning of a speech signal in order to process or store it, or compare it to another. True, the signal to noise ratio would be pretty low. Unless they've got some processing technology that the rest of us are not aware of. The only other potential use for such technology might be for the RIAA to scan P2P files looking for copyrighted material, so I doubt there's any commercial products that would even remotely have such capabilities.

Christian Charlie's Ghost,

Yanqui go home? This Yanqui is all for it (though I do wish they'd learn to spell it right).

It's the technology. The NSA is able to listen, not just to individual conversations, but to ALL conversations in a communications channel from point A to B, perhaps even in all channels.

Sounds like limited and incomplete technology to me, rather than a breakthrough, since it is not lawful and definitely unconstitutional for the state to be monitoring all conversations without prior suspicion or any cause, and, as such, a real technological breakthrough would allow them to pinpoint the conversation they want to monitor (not violate however many people's rights to find one conversation).

Further, one wonders if this is not TIA in another disguise.

Augustus Texacus Andovericus Yaleus Bushicus

Now that I've had a chance to think about it, you have to add the countries or places that the Emperor has conquered.

Augustus Texacus Yalecus Iraqnia Afghanica Bushicus

Norman is his own special level of insanity. No amount of parody or mimicry can rise up to his level. I think that's why Kevin gave him a shout-out.

When the real Norman wanders in, all hell breaks loose.

We're talking full-bore, drank the Kool-Aid and licked it off both eyebrows and howled into a southerly wind for more kind of insanity, framed in moonlight and bathed in the glow of a blinking 'no vacancy' sign. Blood red eyes, sneering lips and words that just jump out of the thread and grasp your neck, desperately trying to strangle you before you can scream and go on to the other thread where rdw is bleating on and on about France...that's the real Norman. More machine than man, more animal than anything else...nothing will stop him. Cisco engineers have spent an entire year trying to build a router that will stop him but, sorry kids, Norman invented the Internet Protocol addressing system and has foiled them at every turn. Not even a silver bullet can stop him, and I don't mean a can of Coors. I mean, you could shoot him and the doctors that he has on his personal payroll would revive him, cryogenically freeze his severed head and put his skull back on the shoulders of a freshly exhumed cadaver. Then, he would come back to the blog and look for a fresh victim...always looking for...another kill...

What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?
Posted by: McAristotle on December 19, 2005 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe THEY can pay the $100 Billion/yr tab.

And maybe we can conscript Malaysians to serve instead of Americans.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that not even the NSA can do serious speech-to-text monitoring on all telephone conversations. Yet.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Not THAT's comedy, people.

In other news, the DoHS is busy monitoring important terrorist threats:

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

So we're happily selling our country to China, but if you request a book by the founder of their gov't, you get a visit from the DoHS. Lewis Carroll would have a hard time topping this.

Christian Charlie's Ghost:

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

You might try a poll a bit more recent than April of 2004. Try this one.

Posted by: December 19, 2005

"Publicizing a secret intelligence operation won't forewarn our enemies?"

Again, from what we currently know, the President is exercising a power that is already publically known and legal. However, he's skipping one of the steps (getting a warrant) to exercise that power. For a terrorist, nothing changes: they'd have not been told that a warrant has been issued to tap their communications if the effort were persued using legal, appropriate means.

That is why such groups already (presumably) speak in code and not outright language.

"Congress has no power to curtail or to regulate Powers expressly granted to the President by the Constitution."

Presumably speaking, then, the military and the President are above the law in "times of war". The President can order the military to execute American citizens who vocally disagree with his actions. He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and the Congress can make no law restricting his exercise of Section 2.

Agree or disagree? Why?

What if the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?
Posted by: McAristotle

then they probably wouldn't have gotten elected, dipshit.

Victory in Iraq?

Remember - today's Iran news

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_music_ban

. . . is tomorrows Iraq news.

He publicly admitted to an impeachable offense, a clear violation of the very Constitutional protections he swore to uphold at both of his inaugurations. Then, when questioned on this, he even claims that he will willfully continue this.

There's a great Mr. Boffo strip with a politician standing on a stage cheering and smiling, balloons, flags, etc...

Behind him is an immense poster that says: "He did it, he's out, and he's ready to do it again."

It would seem they are implying that not only the judiciary, but even the judges on the secret court, are liable to leak the information and/or be in league with the terrorists.

Since they don't really want to imply this, they quickly leave that point and go to the "speed" issue, expecting that shallow news coverage will never prominently mention that warrants can be obtained 72 hours later.

Since they can't be sure that the media will not report the information sans the 72 hour clause that makes it absurd, they promote the "technological" breakthrough, which has the benefit of never having really to be identified or explained (and may not even exist).

This is classic Rove White House PR crap, where they throw as many possible defenses as possible out there, no matter their soundness, in hopes the moment will pass, and, when it does, that most people will just remember the surface arguments that underneath are absurd and patronizing.

tbrosz,

Good link:

Fewer than half [of Iraqis], 46 percent,
say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it
was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

There’s other evidence of the United States’ increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

Maybe those flowers they want to throw at our troops are on backorder?

In the end, they fall back on the hope that it's legal, just as in the Plame case.

If I'm right, there will be no doubt that in their arguments explaining the legality, they will obsessively focus on statutes that are positive for their case, and ignore statutes that are negative (IIPA v. Title 18 Espionage Act).

History repeats itself. We should take advantage of it.

Looks like Drudge has a NYT story coming up tomorrow on the FBI watching domestic groups.

We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

The Democrats have stood up and pretty much called Bush a liar about briefing anyone from Congress.

What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay? Posted by: McAristotle o

Mcaristotle do you work for Abramhoff who lobbied for Malaysia?

1)Jack Abramoff's firms represented the government of Malyasia. The government's goal, as far as I can tell, was to improve its image in this country. Because the government jailed the scholar/human rights activist Anwar Ibrahim, it had congressman barking mad. Mayalsia also wanted to expand (and protect) trade with the United States….

3)A whole huge army of right wing groups were involved in Mayalsian lobbying. The Washington Post, led Tom Edsall, has explained this dirty lobbying network.

4) The Mayalsian account was just a foothold for Abramoff. He wanted to get lots of clients in the Muslim world. That's why he set up a front firm called the Lexington Group. This group was run by Khaled Saffuri, a long time protege of Grover Norquist.

On the other hand, there's still no word on why the Times held off on printing this story for a year. I can't imagine that's going to stay a secret for very much longer.

I would beg to differ. We knew about Bush's little espionage act against AmericanS because we've all heard the stories throught the grape vine. Hell, Kevin, even members of SCOTUS, including Sandra Day O'Conner were saying that we, Americans would have to give up some of our "liberties", trade it all for national security - AND they all took oaths to protect the US Constitution JUST like Bush.

WE KNEW THAT BUSH WAS INVESTIGATING LIBRARY RECORDS and yet Kevin wants to insist, that centrist Dems were oblivious to what Bush was doing - and that's nothing but lie Kevin.

On the other hand it's nice to see Dems acting like the opposing party, for once. And for record Jonathan Alter has been a stupid ass.

We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

...yes, well, all of it ended up being true, people like Mark Felt went to jail for it, and all of which you cite led to the creation of the laws that Bush broke when he ignored the FISA court and used NSA to collect on Americans...

Brilliant, Mr. Brosz. You make things so much easier when you post well into the evening.

tbrosz: We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

Oh, you mean the last time Americans had to defend the Constitution against a president who thought he could wipe his ass with the Constitution? I find it heartening too.

alex:

Everyone should read that poll. All the results.

Amazing how "nearly half" and "less than half" sound so much different when applied to the same statistic.

I was thinking of our trolls here when listening to NPR tonight. Doctrine conservatives and Libertarians are outraged at Bush too--so it is obvious that the Trolls here are paid by the administration--there is no other constituency for his antics now. Weird to think that administration toadies shill for the dictator. Paid propaganda should make its way into the articles of impeachment too.
Bush and Cheney should resign now. That list of the spied upon? It will be outrageous. It will also come out, just like the torture, the secret prisons, and the vote tampering. The list won't include terrorists either--they used FISA for them. Rove is behind so much of the President's humiliations and evil legacies, and yet there is still the stupidity to get Vivaca's husband a job.
Clueless. We can't afford such staggering incompetence.

We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

tbrosz, as a good libertarian, you should be outraged by the abuse of power that would monitor dissenters. you're a tool. the predictable part is that the right wing would start spying on these lawful groups and associations once they regained power and thought they could get away with it again (though it's also predictable that red-blooded freedom-loving Americans would get pissed off about this abuse of power, and seek to do something about it).

We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

Well! Well! Well!

Bush is Nixon re-incarnate.

for the record, the real tbrosz never ignores me for this long, or ends up taking such partisan ideological positions without some poking at the GOP, so I'm beginning to suspect this is a fake tbrosz...still, a productive one for the discussion.

Good night.

I was thinking of our trolls here when listening to NPR tonight. Doctrine conservatives and Libertarians are outraged at Bush too--so it is obvious that the Trolls here are paid by the administration...

Paid or laid?

Let's be clear here children.
The most damning truth is this one:

If Clinton had done this the trolls would be screaming to have his penis strung from the nearest oak.

The early headline from the NYT says that the Bush administration was spying on 'povery relief' groups.

Now, if the little sisters of the poor can't get a break in this country, who can?

Pathetic.

Bush on dictatorship now:

"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject."
- President George W. Bush, December 19, 2005.

Bush on dictatorship then:

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."- President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.

You might want to check Intel Dump about now.

Shorter tbrosz:
The more Bush spies on liberal traitors, the less likely they are to win the next election and raise my taxes. So that's just fine.

The word "megalomaniacal," when used to describe the President of the United States, scares me. Especially when it is used accurately.

That sent a chill down my spine.

This morning when I got home from work, I looked at the headlines of the paper "Bush Insists we are winning in Iraq and I heard my father, a saw-combat-in-three-wars retired Chief Petty Officer shouting from the grave "Oh yeah? Show me one fucking solid benchmark that we can peg our survey too, you warmongering little chickenhawk."

What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?

Posted by: McAristotle on December 19, 2005 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Noticed you reacted poorly to this.

Every major party in Iraq has indicated they need the Americans for 1-2 years more. You haven't noticed from your bubble - but this is pretty likely.

Although, in the long run (5-10 years) few Muslim countries will tolerated a foreign presence, the culture is too xenophobic. The presence of Americans in Saudi was the irritant that set Osama against his own country.

Malaysia hired Abramoff. Cool, at least they hired the best for once. You may not have noticed but foreign countries lobbying is legal and routinely done. Remember Gore's China donations?

Oh crap!

Everyone knows now, that’s just great!

Uh uh, your not done, there’s more to tell.

I dunno Pale Rider; I went to Catholic School all my life, and there is a case to be made against those nuns. Last I heard Sisters Hermann Joseph and Mary Margaret were in witness protection with a group of Emperor Penguins...

saw-combat-in-three-wars retired Chief Petty Officer shouting from the grave "Oh yeah? Show me one fucking solid benchmark that we can peg our survey too, you warmongering little chickenhawk."

Posted by: Global Citizen on December 19, 2005 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Just curious. Which 3 wars?

My benchmark is election turnout. 70%!

My father joined the navy on December 8, 1941 and he retired in 1974. He saw duty in the south pacific during WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.

I hope the election was the boon to democracy that it is touted to be, but I have niggling doubts.

And I'm really pissed about the NSA spying against Americans...

Remember the outrage by the Freepers over a couple of boxes of FBI files? The clamor, the hysterics, the conspiracy theories, the personal indictments against Clinton, how they just knew he was guilty of something?

Now we have a president who has admitted that he can and does spy on whoever the fuck he pleases for whatever the fuck reason he wants without any fucking oversight --

-- and the Freepers want us to believe there's nothing to see here, to move along, stop being hysterical, relax, chill out, and if anything to blame the coupla Democrats who knew bits of informatio for not somehow singledhandedly bringing down the Executive Branch over it without ending up in federal prison.

There were hearings -- hearings -- over the "W"s that were missing from some keyboards in the White House. There was endless press from Barton and others over that one. It was treated like a capital crime.

But here? Nothing to see here.

What disgraceful fucking political zombies.

What dishonorable, weak-willed, traitorous, nithings. I wouldn't trust my dogs or horses to these people, and certainly not my family. My land spirits reject them and may their own tribes and ancestors do the same, forcing them to wander the world without law or honor until they make restitution for their cowardice and greed.

My benchmark is election turnout. 70%!
Posted by: McAristotle on December 19, 2005 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but that's flawed. I'd explain it to you, but you refuse to accept facts, so it would be a waste of bits.

My benchmark is actual freedom, and actual security, and a functioning economy.

Oh yeah, and zero dead innocent Iraqis. That would be a good benchmark too.

I suppose if George W Bush bombed your country and killed 30,000 innocent Malaysians, you'd be cheering "Hooray for Bush!"

suppose if George W Bush bombed your country and killed 30,000 innocent Malaysians, you'd be cheering "Hooray for Bush!"

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on December 19, 2005 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

Well. A parallel would be the British conflict with Indonesia making sure Malaysia got its independence... I'm not pretending there were no civilian deaths in that mini-war.

By the way. A benchmark is a number. Osama - name a statistic. Then compare Iraq now under that statistic to the pre-war period. You might find significant improvement in nearly any economic statistic.

My land spirits reject them and may their own tribes and ancestors do the same

Posted by: Windhorse on December 19, 2005 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

May I presume you were cursing Bush in the 2004 election too? If so, your land spirits don't look particularly effective.

May I presume you were cursing Bush in the 2004 election too?

You presume falsely, as usual, without full understanding of the topic, as usual, and with your typical wildly misplaced smugness.

As for Iraqi indicators, tbrosz posted a link to the most recent poll on one of these threads. You should read it. Percentage of Iraqis who hate us? Up. Electricity -- same or worse. Gas -- worse, with people waiting in days for lines. Cooking fuel -- worse, again people often waiting days in line for it. Iraqis who think the U.S. is responsible for reconstruction efforts? 6%. Iraqis who believe there isn't any reconstruction going on at all -- a LOT.

Oh, and huge majority would rather see another strongman rule than a democratic government.

I know; as long as their GDP is up from what it was when the country was essentially destroyed at the beginning of the war, then one of your Vanguard Mutual funds goes up, and that's all that really matters.

From the NYT:

> "People are running around saying that the United States is somehow
> spying on American citizens calling their neighbors," Mr. Gonzales
> said. In fact, he said, it was "very, very important to understand"
> that the program is limited to calls and communications between the
> United States and foreign countries.

Thank you, We-don't-need-no-steekeng-Geneva-Conventions Gonzalez.

"...their neighbors." Right. White Miracle Whip America
needn't worry at *all* about this. Just thim greasy furriners.

Hey listen up, asshole -- I have a very, very good friend overseas I
speak to about three times a week. I suspect that many Americans do
as well, not to mention those of us with family in the middle east.

> Bush said, "People will say, if we're trying to make
> the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq,
> therefore how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?"
> Later, he added, "It's no question that the credibility
> of intelligence is necessary for good diplomacy."

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock.

What a fucking *imbecile* this guy is ...

Bob

Osama Bin Laden is the greatest thing to ever happen to George W Bush. It's no wonder he didn't want to catch him at Tora Bora, the "war on terra" would've been effectively over in late 2001.

Bob,

Your post got me thinking and I remembered that in my last email to a friend who is a *liberal* pastor and *Islamic scholar* in *Egypt* working to build bridges between *Islam* and Christianity, we exhanged words in *Arabic* about esoteric practices including *numbers* and *names* which very well may have seemed like a *code* to someone poring over it.

Unbelievable that I now have to wonder if I'm being monitored.

Windhorse:

I'll say the same thing to you that alex said to me on the newer thread:

Oh, so you *admit* you're a terrorist?

Bob

Oh, so you *admit* you're a terrorist?

Funny!

That was probably settled in their minds way back when I voted for Kerry and gave money to Earthjustice.

I'd been feeling a such a disconnect, listening to Jonathan Alter go off on Bush on the Al Franken show, while holding back entirely writing on Newsweek. Good to see he's writing tougher stuff.

By the way, how can Bush "summon" the editor and publisher of the NYT to the White House? He's not THEIR commander-in-chief.

On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin brought up the interesting point that nobody will ever be able to go to court over this abuse. You would only have standing if you've been under surveillance, yet nobody is about to know if he/she was...

Windhorse: The flag my husband was presented with upon his retirement is hanging in our patio doors: AT DISTRESS.

Globe:

You know, I've seen more than one flag flying at DISTRESS recently and wondered if people just didn't know how to properly fly it. Good for you for putting out the signal.

Let's hope that distress call is answered.

In the meantime, shouldn't your husband be working on a book about his experiences?

Those thoughts are churning. He can safely tell the Titan tales without fear of reprisals, since they are all gone. (The very last one launched a sattelite a while back.) Leavenworth is close if the Bushistas take exception. Gitmo, on the other hand...

I am Norman, I’m a bore
But I post too much to ignore
And I know I’ve not got much to say but pretend
you’ve not heard it all before
And I'll shout right from my core
And no one's ever gonna lock me up again

CHORUS
Oh yes I am not wise
But it's daftness born of pain
Yes, I've got a price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I will say anything
I’ve got a dong (dong)
It’s not invisible (invisible)
I am Norman

What does a flag flown at DISTRESS look like?

Looks like Drudge...

Tommy boy, have you been surfing porn again?

We can thank the Repuggies for lowering the bar on impeachment so far that nearly any kind of offense causes people to bring up the subject. This crime, of course, is far more serious than lying about a private sex act. If they have any sense of consistency they will join us in demanding that the man who would be king be removed from office. But we dare not with Jabba the Cheney still there! Hmm, I’m beginning to see why Bush chose the man.

What does a flag flown at DISTRESS look like?

The field of blue is in the lower right corner, vs the upper left. In other words, it is upside down. Ships at sea invert the flag when they are taking on water, under duress, etc. Troops pinned down and needing help signal aircraft the same way. An upside down flag is the universal sign of distress.

The Times may never have printed it, if rumours are true that this material was going to be released in a soon-to-be-published book by a NY Times associated writer. Basically, the Times may have had a choice to get scooped by this book, or continue to capitulate to the Bush Administration.
They made the right decision, in both a business and journalistic sense (at least to finally publish the story). Those spreading rumours about this being just a promotional thing for the book don't seem to have a good handle on journalism, since the Times is not going to want to be scooped by this book, and especially by another news organization printing excerpts from the book.

What is with the casino and poker links, passing themselves off as comments of import? GTFA, losers!

I thought the new york times was supposed to be one of the most liberal newspapers in the country. Makes you wonder why they didn't release this information which could very well have made Kerry win the election.

"What is the new elected government asks the Americans to stay?"

Posted by: McAristotle on December 19, 2005 at 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Noticed you reacted poorly to this."

Noticed you don't even correct your typos and grammatical errors when you quote yourself. Hmmm, could this blindness extend to other McAreas?

Noticed you don't even correct your typos and grammatical errors when you quote yourself. Hmmm, could this blindness extend to other McAreas?

Posted by: Kenji on December 20, 2005 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

Ad hominem response again.

Just wait and see on the Iraqi's. We'll hear from them in 20 days or so after the horse trading is done.

Well McS, for the Iraqis' sake, I truly hope it's the golden ending you're so certain we'll see. It'd be the best ending to a completely unjustified undertaking... I just don't share your certainty. As for the Americans though, I'm not so sure. Something construable as success here could be cursing them to a Spanish style historical detour (well at least until the bond markets react).

Re. the ad hominems, I'd feel more sympathy if you didn't sling them around so readily yourself. Liberal this! Liberal that! Half the time you're not arguing with someone, you're arguing with your caricature of someone. Nah, dele that 'Half.' Change it to 'Most of.' There is of course unjustified name-calling at times but most of the time I feel people largely invite the ad hominems. Face it, you write to get a rise.

Ad hominem response again.

This from the guy who used the term 'Polack' in one of his posts.

You squeak like a titmouse when people treat you the way you deserve to be treated. Boo hoo, little McGriddles. Boo hoo.

And that reminds me--when McGriddles made his little 'polack' joke he was taking a cheap shot at our delightful coalition of the willing...

Hey...

Where'd our coalition of the willing go?

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Ukraine began pulling its remaining 876 troops out of Iraq on Tuesday, the defense ministry said, making it the latest nation to wind down its presence in the U.S.-led coalition. The multinational force has steadily unraveled as the death toll rises and angry publics clamor for troops to leave.

In the months after the March 2003 invasion, the coalition numbered about 300,000 soldiers from 38 countries - 250,000 from the U.S. and 50,000 from other countries.

Now the nearly 160,000-member U.S. force in Iraq is supported by just under 24,000 mostly non-combat personnel from 27 countries. Britain has the second-largest contingent with 8,000 in Iraq and 2,000 elsewhere in the Gulf region.

Ukraine initially contributed 1,650 troops to the U.S.-led force in Iraq. The 876 Ukrainian troops still in the country are serving under Polish command in southern and central Iraq.
i>

This from the guy who used the term 'Polack' in one of his posts.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2005 at 7:45 AM | PERMALINK

Really? When.
feel more sympathy if you didn't sling them around so readily yourself. Liberal this! Liberal that!

Posted by: snicker-snack on December 20, 2005 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

Only if you think Liberal is an insult.
The terms knee-jerk and moron stand though.
The logic used justifies the adjectives.

Really? When.

When?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007630.php#761150

Too bad, you guys didn't pull it off and keep the Cold War from ending. Them dumb Pollacks and Hungoulashians, just deserved to live as servant states....

I applaud you for your valiant but failed attempts to keep the Gulag's running and the Berlin wall up.

Be proud.

Posted by: McAristotle on November 24, 2005 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Somewhere in Malaysia, a man was heard to scream "holy shit!" as he hurled himself through a plate glass window...

nicely done Pale Rider.

Only if you think Liberal is an insult. The terms knee-jerk and moron stand though.

McS, Liberal is never, ever an insult. Great word. Wonderful pedigree.

Nah, what's an insult are your moronic (this term stands, yeah?) caricatures of what it means to be liberal. They kind of make me consider the source a, a....

c'mon, help me out here. It's in your list of standing words.

And here's the context. See below.

Some nutty liberal talking about how much he resented US bases 'cos nobody was dying during Cold War. I think the dismissive 'never happened' approach to the Communist oppression of Eastern Europe dehumanises populations and is racist.
I was being sarcastic, because the ability of liberals to forget mass imprisonment and work camps when it doesn't fit their world view ultimately dismisses whole populations as nobodies.

Liberals are racist, and show it whenever a foreigner challenges their world view.

Same way they are ignoring and dismissing actual developments in the Middle East. Free and capitalist third worlders is a bit of challenge to most lefty's. After all, we might take your jobs.

--------------
Did Germans think they were being "occupied" by the U.S. during the Cold War?

I hate to break it to you, but some Brits resent the US bases there. And I'm not talking about granola eating tree huggers, either.

But your argument contains the seeds of its own destruction. If Americans don't care, as long as nobody is dying (which, by the way, I think is true), then it naturally follows that they are not interested in Iraq. The whole "fight them over there" thing: they don't buy it. The "look out! Nukes!" thing: not biting on that either.

So the whole mission is pointless to its real target market - the American voter. And when people die for something pointless - strangely, that's unpopular.

Posted by: craigie on November 24, 2005 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Did Germans think they were being "occupied" by the U.S. during the Cold War?

I hate to break it to you, but some Brits resent the US bases there.

Posted by: craigie on November 24, 2005 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Too bad, you guys didn't pull it off and keep the Cold War from ending. Them dumb Pollacks and Hungoulashians, just deserved to live as servant states....

I applaud you for your valiant but failed attempts to keep the Gulag's running and the Berlin wall up.

Be proud.

Posted by: McAristotle on November 24, 2005 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

How about your people, dumbass? Forced to live in abject poverty on the fringes of cities teeming with flowing chemical waste, not even free to pratice Falun Gong or put critical comments on the Internet?

Bowl haircut wearing freaks like you cannot even comprehend what real freedom is. You're used to being told what to think and how to act and what bucket to pee it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 24, 2005 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

And here's Pale Rider at his best. Liberals, so not racist!

Oh McSpittle, is that what you were trying to do? Is my monicker for you wrong? Is it now to be McSarcasm? You were attempting another of those (dare I say it) moronic caricatures? - a reference to the logic employed of course.

Sorry, still not feeling any sympathy.

How about your people, dumbass? Forced to live in abject poverty on the fringes of cities teeming with flowing chemical waste, not even free to pratice Falun Gong or put critical comments on the Internet?

Yeah--China pollutes its environment, kills villagers who complain, and persecutes Falun Gong practitioners. They also put people to death at an alarming rate, leave hundreds trapped in unsafe coal mines to die and oppress their people in ways Americans cannot begin to imagine. Are you saying that you're proud of that? Because I condemn China's repressive regime and have no qualms bringing it up.

Bowl haircut wearing freaks like you cannot even comprehend what real freedom is. You're used to being told what to think and how to act and what bucket to pee it.

Well, a bit strong perhaps, but compared to 'polack' and 'hungoulasharians' or whatever you said, that's fairly tame. I should have included the fact that you probably have buck teeth, but I was trying to be polite.

Got anything better to throw back at the Pale Rider? I've made tons of mistakes and said many, many hurtful and awful things. Yet, somehow, I manage to acknowledge my mistakes and apologize to the offended while still defending liberalism from people like yourself who think that they can shout out from the armpit of the world and condemn us.

Don't forget, McGriddles--shortstop reproached me for insulting the way Chinese people speak.

If you go back prior to the permalink I gave you, you should be able to find the post I made where I simply got tired of your rightwing hackery and went after your Chinese heritage.

Post that one.

Let's see, there's tons of Donna Pissypants in the November and December archive--post some of that and you could probably call me racist, too.

Do you want me to go back and get more of this stuff for you? Just say the word. I'll give you more permalinks so that you don't have to do anything. I'm sure you get tired of having to beat your chubby little Malaysian boys who don't service you fast enough--what do you use? Bamboo or mahogany? Perhaps just a belt or a rubber hose with a thumbtack through the lip?

You're obviously not intelligent enough to find it on your own...

McGriddles,

Don't forget all my 'confucious say:' parodies, my religious stuff, and all the bad things I say to idiots who drop in for one post and run like squealing man babies.

Still searching for good stuff? There's tons of it.

Holla back if you need permalinks.

I swear--I won't send you to gobbledy-gook.

"Norman, it's good to have you back! We've missed your biting wit. Where you been hiding lately?"
~KEVIN

Norman's biting wit, e.g.: "you're a moron."

On the other hand, there's still no word on why the Times held off on printing this story for a year. I can't imagine that's going to stay a secret for very much longer.

It's because The Times is Bush's ass-licking bitch. No secret there.

(Apologies for the vulgarity).

They will never allow enough Democrats to win in 2006 to tip Congress toward impeachment. They own the voting machines and will manipulate the vote to insure their wins across the country. The Republicans just don't get it. If my rights are violated, don't they know their own rights are threatened? They may one day want someone other than a Bush as president and they will then come under the scrutiny we and our Democratic leaders have.

We're pretty much running through the entire routine the Left went through back in the 70s with the CIA and the FBI. Almost word for word.

Uh, yeah, no surprise there, really, given that the whole reason we're having the discussion is that Bush is breaking the law that was put in place because the Left won that argument the first time, after Nixon decided he could spy on everyone he wanted in the country without justifying it to anyone so long as he waived around the specter of security threats.

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

I wonder if Jamie is willing to represent GWB at his impeachment hearings? I was going to suggest Bill Clinton represent the Administration at the Supreme Court but alas, Bill can't practice law before the supreme court.

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches

Yeah, so? Clinton was wrong a lot, just less often, and less disastrously for the country than some other Presidents, including the present one. The whole right-wing "Clinton did it first" argument for, well, almost everything, regardless of whether or not there is any factual basis for it, would be a clever rhetorical trap for the left -- if members of the left had the same irrational inability to see any wrong in Clinton that many on the right have with Bush.

But the funny thing is that so many on the right seem unable to conceive that the left isn't full of blind sheep who follow Clinton the way they themselves blindly follow Bush.

Alter's column is a particulary weak effort. It is based almost entirely on Alter's speculations and reveals a disturbing moonbat type hostility toward President Bush.

He says the Times would not talk to him and neither the president nor anyone in the administration talked to him. So where does he get the information? In the one accurate part of his column, he writes "one can only imagine the president's desperation" which is exactly what Alter did -- imagine - the rest of the column. He writes mostly about the President's motives/intentions, which Alter cannot possibly know. To top it off, he speculates about what "any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists--in fact, all American Muslims, period--have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. . . . "

How could possibly know what all those Muslims have long since suspected?

It is a very weak intellectually and an embarassingly venomous piece. Why wouldn't their be some editorial control over this type of piece?

It is like he has been stewing with venom about the President and his socialist/liberal feelings exploded in an immature attack on the President.

Brian:

I know this is hard to take but Jonathan Alter is not the problem. George Bush is. Alter is not illegally spying on Americans, Bush is. Alter didn't take an oath to uphold the Constitution, Bush did. Alter isn't the one with a record of deceit, and incompetence Bush is.

I know these are difficult times for Bush supporters but you might as well face the truth sooner rather than later-the guy has been breaking the law and violating your 4th Amendment rights. Difficult to take I know but you and tbrosz and Al and Norman are just going to have to grin and bear it. Your guy has betrayed what you thought he stood for.

I know it is difficult to stomach but everyone is wrong sometime-in this case you were wrong about Bush's capacity to be a good President. But just because you supported him before doesn't mean you have to support him now. You were wrong about the guy admit it, accept it and move on.

yeah, so? Clinton was wrong a lot, just less often, and less disastrously for the country than some other Presidents, including the present one.

So it's political gold. Jamie looks like a moron getting cauight talking out of both sides of her mouth. Foxnews and the WSJ played it up big. Slick Willie and the rest of his administration are now nicely frozen since they took the identical position. They'll be savaged if they try to lie now. They'll make a few unchallenged claims on Russert and ABC and pull that off but as we know the MSM is not driving the debate. Actually I think ABC will be very careful seeing they'll get creamed. They do not want to become Dan Rathers station.

Here's something I thing we can agree on.

The fact that Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorlich felt they had the right to do what GWB is doing at least establishes it as a reasonable assumption.

We have two dramatically different administrations and their justice departments coming to the exact same conclusion in the same context.

Thanks to Fox, WSJ, Rush Limbaugh, etal., a majority of Americans already know this. I would suggest a large majority of the politically astute.

This means that reasonable people can disagree as to the constitutional powers of the Presidency in this regard but you positively cannot suggest this was a reckless and out of control operation. Not without looking like your hair is on fire.

They also know this WASN'T A SECRET! They briefed Cogressional leaders a dozen times! They also monitored the program and designed it so GWB had to reauthorize every 45 days. Comparisons to Nixon are silly. Make it and make a fool of yourself.

It's fair to disagree with the operation and to question the separation of powers but this impeachment stuff is nonsense. This will settle down and next year it'll be something else and you'll yell impeachment and no one will listen.

rangler,

Alter is a flake. The guy wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter. How sane can he be?

GWB is doing a great job and I think god he's in there. I want a President protecting Americans not worrying about terrorists rights.

cmdicely

The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Seems to me the Dems have a real hard call here. Presumably if they impeach they'll have to prove he did something illegal 1st. Do they want to give GWB a decisive Supreme Court victory? I think not!

cmdicely

You have got to stick a sock in this bufoons mouth. From a webite:

From Defeatocrat Chair Dr. Dean's e-mail today:

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

Of course the opinions/memos almost certainly discuss in detail methods and sources, the release of which would greatly damage the national security. Howard Dean is thus either a fool or a deeply cynical operative. In either case, he is the Chair of a Party that is sending itself over the cliff on a daily basis.

The man is incompetent.

rdw,

where I come from people say "Excuse me," after they belch, especially if they belch several times in succession!

GWB is doing a great job and I think god he's in there. I want a President protecting Americans not worrying about terrorists rights.

I'd give rdw the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not actually professing a belief that GWB is God if it weren't for that peculiar lapse in capitalization. The deity? Lower case. The head of our civil government? Capped, of course.

I noticed that first since I'm a copyeditor and that's the sort of thing I'm paid to notice, but I point it out because it's a perfectly faithful (ha!) representation of rdw's blind adoration of GWB and all His works.

And what does "rdw" stand for? really dumb & witless? rapidly declining wattage? rubbishy dreck & waste? ridiculous droning & wanking? religious denial of what's obvious to anyone who's not polishing dubya's knob with professional skill and amateur enthusiasm all day every day but only metaphorically because actual knob-polishing makes Baby Jesus cry and forces the loyal opposition to initiate impeachment proceedings?

Yet, somehow, I manage to acknowledge my mistakes and apologize to the offended while still defending liberalism from people like yourself who think that they can shout out from the armpit of the world and condemn us.

Posted by: Pale Rider on December 20, 2005 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider. You are a typical liberal. Unprincipled and selectively using outrage to support a dogmatic belief.

You can wax lyrical about the wonders of Cuba and its health care system - ignoring its human rights situation. You can whitewash pre-invasion Iraq.

However, when you run into an alternative point of view by a Malaysian Chinese. You suddenly notice China is Communist like Cuba and has a human rights problem. Or bitch about Malaysian human rights when its one of the more advanced Islamic cultures from that viewpoint (which is a sad comment on the Islamic world).

I can respect principled liberalism. But American liberalism is not it. It shifts its views to score anti-Bush and anti-business points. Or to attack anyone who disagrees with your views.

I'm a third-worlder who believes in competition, free trade, modernization and fighting terror. I'm not sure how any country or culture I'm identified with automatically gets 'armpit of the world' status.

America may have a strong position in today's global arena. But Americans who hate their own country and its allies like you, have had very little to do with it. Part of the amazing thing about America, is it can actually function with
so many disfunctional Americans...

snicker-snack,

glad you're enjoying it. I aim to please.

juju,

What is this constant fantazing about impeachment? Are your panties still bumched up over Slick Willie? This had to be the 15th crime GWBs committed for which liberals need impeachment proceedings.

Looking forward to President Cheney are you?

You can wax lyrical about the wonders of Cuba and its health care system - ignoring its human rights situation. You can whitewash pre-invasion Iraq.

Never 'waxed lyrical' about them. In fact, while in the military, I was helping to fight them and contain them.

I'm a third-worlder who believes in competition, free trade, modernization and fighting terror.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You don't believe in a goddamn thing except staying rich. In fact, one would surmise that a Chinaman in Malaysia is actually an invader. Real Malaysians living in poverty would just as soon skin you alive and sell your kidneys for pocket change than claim you as one of your own.

Stop kidding yourself--you know nothing of the world.

domineer steep sesame guilty animations!refrained manes watchfulness eschewing world series of poker tournament texas hold em world series of poker tournament texas hold em http://www.freaky-cheats.com/wsop.html http://www.freaky-cheats.com/wsop.html Hesse?Nathan accuracies fathered internet poker review poker rules internet poker review poker rules http://wsop.play11.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play11.zindagi.us/ minimizing signet contraptions odds of each hand in poker poker rules odds of each hand in poker poker rules http://wsop.top-rooms-2005.com/ http://wsop.top-rooms-2005.com/ consistency wars couples contradicted texas holdem strategy poker hand rankings texas holdem strategy poker hand rankings http://wsop.transcendentalartscouncil.org/ http://wsop.transcendentalartscouncil.org/ Bellini:crop.carefree.brickbat wsop wsop http://wsop.pileband.com/ http://wsop.pileband.com/ gunnery?annexation whirlpool predicted. wsop wsop http://wsop.az-greenvalley.com/ http://wsop.az-greenvalley.com/ handily?nationalists.slamming persuasiveness wsop wsop http://wsop.play10.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play10.zindagi.us/ predicated furlong differs,commonplaces. wsop wsop http://wsop.play13.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play13.zindagi.us/ renames repelled,Kuala poker games national poker tour poker games national poker tour http://wsop.play14.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play14.zindagi.us/ tininess temper trades raft.imprint party poker play online live poker party poker play online live poker http://wsop.play12.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play12.zindagi.us/ controller crankshaft terroristic peanut best online poker hold em online best online poker hold em online http://wsop.ws-op.com/ http://wsop.ws-op.com/ unarmed many restricts,avaricious, poker online cut cards poker poker online cut cards poker http://wsop.play15.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play15.zindagi.us/ accented.backspaces jerky:Forrest. pacific poker poker table chairs pacific poker poker table chairs http://wsop.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.zindagi.us/ unharmed snare beseeching assists online party poker four color poker cards online party poker four color poker cards http://wsop.play8.zindagi.us/ http://wsop.play8.zindagi.us/ lieutenants justices Hebrews.correlated,preconceived online poker site poker review site online poker site poker review site http://wsop.rohkalby.com/ http://wsop.rohkalby.com/ ...