drip, drip, drip...

As Arthur Schlesinger says, whenever we do things like this, we always regret it in the morning.

Kevin, why would we regret it? Look at the last four years. How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero. If we had followed your advice and gone to the courts many Americans might have died in terrorists attacks instead. Those dead Americans would have been blood on the liberal hands who hate George W Bush so much they are willing to stop him from doing whatever it takes to protects American citizens.

What was that saying about absolute power and corruption?

drip, drip, drip...

Indeed. Here's hoping the whole dam busts open on this one and there's no hiding it anymore.

Also, my favorite part from the WaPo article about the judge resigning:

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

Riiiight. I wonder sometimes if McClellan is embarassed by the poor quality bullshit he's forced to try and pass off.

What was that saying about absolute power and corruption?

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, except if you're a guy like George Bush because he's really strong and moral and good and if you don't agree with him, you hate America."

Kevin, why would we regret it? Look at the last four years. How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero.

Al, didn't anyone ever teach you that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logically invalid means of argument? No, perhaps not; you tend not to evince signs of logic.

Still think from what the administration and the Democrats who were informed parsing of words this sounds more like a Super-Echelon program. That even gives a bit of justification for them saying the present FISA set-up is not appropriate.

For many years Echelon has tapped all international calls, faxes and some coded transmissions pulling messages with key words or messages by origen or destination.

A Super-Echelon running would do the same with all net communications. Linked that to keeping all past messages to check the records of the senders or recipients picked up and you have a very powerful tool but one where you might not know the names of whose communications you are tracking for over 72 hours.

May not be true but this explains a lot.

That's quite a calculation, you've run, Al. Exactly how many lives did that NSA program save?

Why do I have the idea your answer would look like a new grad's grounds-up budget that's three orders of magnitude higer than total sales...

Does any take seriously deep thinkers like Al who think religious nuts require all of the attention and resources of humanity?

Say there, Al, that NSA program? Did it save more lives than GWB has spent? Today alone?

Democrats (and certain Republicans for whom the Constitution and Bill of Rights are sacred texts) say that Bush's actions are anathema to liberty and democracy.

Dick! Cheney says that this latest round of domestic spying has saved thousands of American lives.

Who is Joe Sixpack gonna believe?

I'm not optimistic. But I am hopeful. I have no other choice.

Yeah but... a quick Google search indicates this is the same Judge that felt that the Guantanamo detainees should be considered prisoners-of-war under Geneva conventions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html)

so I'm not sure his "resignation" will pack too much of a punch, once it's noted that he has on the "wrong" side of the Bush positions on earlier occasions.

Is Al still able to derail threads by repeating page 3 of "GOP Talking Points for Dummies?"

Al: right on! 415,602 American lives have been saved from the blowtorch-weilding Brooklyn Bridge Deconstruction Crew.

Our calculations show that over the course of six weeks of 24-7 torch-cutting of the cables, nearly a half-million commuters cross that bridge. Some of them twice a day for weeks! That's nearly SIXTY lives saved per person!

From CNN today via The Carpetbagger:

"Cheney said such measures were necessary because the United States needed to "aggressively go after terrorists."

...Cheney said the program had "saved thousands of lives."

"It is, I'm convinced, one of the reasons we haven't been attacked in the past four years," Cheney said.

Sock Puppet Al gets his talking points straight from the Master.

Al,

I keep hearing conservatives talk about how there haven't been any attacks since Bush started all this abuse of power, but I don't hear many commenting on the fact that prior to 9/11, Pearl Harbor was the last time a foreign power of any kind had attacked the US. And this is true IN SPITE of the fact that there have been terrorists who hate the US and all it stands for for years now.

No other president had to resort to violating our civil rights, claiming unprecedented power and authority, misleading the Congress and the public about his actions, or lead us into an ill-conceived war under false pretenses. That there have been no further terror attacks in the US since 9/11 isn't that remarkable of an accomplishment. No post WWII President has overseen an attack on the US until Bush came along and failed to stop 9/11 in spite of the warnings he was given.

kriselda,

You're forgetting the '93 WTC bombing. Minor as attacks go, but it still counts.

Some of these people are downright malicious and/or megalomaniacs too, Kevin. Ashcroft being the latter, for example, along with being an idiot.

You're right Phleabo. Thank you for the correction.

Check out TPM for a nice comments about "Our Criminal President"
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/2947/0424

fake tbrosz beat me to it...George has truly saved us from the welding torch wielding suspension cable cutting Islamofascist terrorists. Praise god, the republic is safe and Iraq will be a beacon of FREEDOM for the poor benighted middle-eastern plutocracies with their overabundance of capital just waiting for rdw, Norman, mikek, and others to pluck and cycle into government funding for Tom Brosz to privatize the first manned mission to Mars!!! There - did I cover tonight's talking points? Oops I forgot. The Clenis did his best to subvert this noble effort by forbidding CCTV surveillance of vulnerable targets such as the Brooklyn Bridge which is now witnessing tremendous human distress because of the evil Democratic transit workers' strike which bleeding-heart Kevin, the moron, doesn't have the guts to post about. And Wal-Mart hates Christmas.

LW,

yup. That about covers it. Nice synopsis.

Purely domestic communications -- and this is just what's been admitted to. I'll bet there's plenty of other purely domestic communications we don't know about.

For example, take the Quakers, gays, or vegans that the Pentagon has allegedly spied on. Who's to say their names haven't then been turned over to the NSA?

If Lawrence Tribe can call this shit unconstitutional, and not "just" illegal, so will I.

Sadly, John McCain is right.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

Geez, when will Democrats actually stand up and stand for something?

I blogged on this at Kos; I think I, though no lawyer nor techician myself, have the common sense to have had more than "concerns."

Thanks snick, good-night

From the latest NYT story:

But questions about the legal and operational oversight of the program last year prompted the administration to suspend aspects of it temporarily and put in place tighter restrictions on the procedures used to focus on suspects, said people with knowledge of the program. The judge who oversees the secret court that authorizes intelligence warrants - and which has been largely bypassed by the program - also raised concerns about aspects of the program.

The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings.

You have noticed that the FISA judge apparently knew all about the program?

The Brooklyn Bridge terrorist, who seems to amuse the hell out of you, also was acquiring hydraulic tools for derailing trains. The other case mentioned in the first NYT story was the stopping of a terror plot involving fertilizer bombs in Britain. Still giggling? One assumes there are others that are still classified.

We now return you to the usual hysterical rants.

phleabo:

Al, didn't anyone ever teach you that post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logically invalid means of argument? No, perhaps not; you tend not to evince signs of logic.

Certainly there is no positive proof that our home security and intelligence arrangements have been the cause of the lack of terror attacks in the U.S. Still, it seems reasonable that it may have helped.

Yet why do I get the feeling that if there WAS a terror attack, Bush would get 100 percent of the blame here, and the fancy logic would go right out the window?

it seems reasonable that it may have helped.

Obviously since there were no attacks on our soil after 93 during Clinton's watch he had some of the God like powers Dear Leader possesses. And that was with a congress that did everything it could to attack him as opposed to one that bows on one knee to his supremacy.

How many terrorist attacks have there ever been on American soil? How many before 9-11? How many after?

It is not reasonable at all to assume we've prevented any new attacks by the Patriot Act or unlawful surveillance.

The WH is in a serious need of a morning-after pill. The trouble is, their choice FDA failed to approve it! It's the neo-con version of Catch-22!

I wonder sometimes if McClellan is embarassed by the poor quality bullshit he's forced to try and pass off.

No dice on McClellan--he's not smart enough for that.

Al, tbroz--it's not about how many attacks we had. It's how many attacks we prevented. Care to venture a guess on that count? (hint: it's less than the number of presidents we have in office today)

You've all missed the big story here:

FISA Judge Robertson quit is because "the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."

"Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring."

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants - to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

Ahhh, now that's the Bush I know and hold in deep contempt.

The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings.
You have noticed that the FISA judge apparently knew all about the program?

Posted by: tbrosz on December 21, 2005 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

You have noticed that this secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses, was wrong? "Purely domestic communications" happened:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?ex=1292821200&en=4770d0165b0a7dde&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

An independent audit apparently is going to have to happen, performed by people not selected by anybody in the Bush Administration or the Republican Congress.

Tbrosz is once again playing fast and loose with the facts to make spurious claims exonerating Bush - not unlike the question of which country we invaded first during World War II (Tbrosz: it is now two weeks and we still haven't had your accountability moment. When ya' gonna come clean?)

The NYT story does not say anything remotely like "the FISA judge apparently knew all about the program." This is your hopeful spin that FISA judges were informed - and tacitly or otherwise approved.

From the NYT: "The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings."

Lets leave aside who did the audit, whether it was independent, and the extent of its brief. But does the passage to which Tbrosz clings bear AT ALL on the legality of Bush's ordering the NSA to engage in domestic spying?

To paraphrase Tbrosz in previous posts, when all the facts come out about this, he is going to be very surprised!

Oh, and while we're on the subject of this alleged great job that Bush is doing to keep terrorist attacks from happening on American soil, why would Al Qaeda bother to waste their resources when we're still reeling from 9/11/01 and destroying ourselves? They got a whole lotta bang for that low tech hit.

Terrorism is not the end but the means. Murdering us isn't what they're about. They want to bankrupt us, neutralize us and our giant military industrial complex that moves into any country it wants to, meddling in their affairs and taking their resources. Terrorism is just a tactic, the most efficient one for their purposes, to get us to spend our treasury protecting ourselves, go into hock, in a big expensive war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. To make us change how we do everything, which isn't making our intelligence and police agencies any more efficient. First responders like police and fire still can't communicate with each other because the money that we took from taxpayers went instead into Bush's corporate patrons.

No, we're doing a great job of destroying ourselves. Al Qaeda need not bother.

Omigod the terrorists are going to murder us all in our beds! Daddy, please do anything you can to protect us!

Daddy: Anything?

We: Yes, anything!

Daddy: Anything?

We: Yes, anything! Please! Hurry up!

Daddy: Roll over and pull your skirt up.

It isn't clear to me that Osama's gang is a worse threat to us than automobiles (peak oil, global warming) or obesity (diabetes, heart disease) or anything else that actually kills more people routinely.

Happy Solstice, everybody! We're all going to die.

I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

that Osama's gang is a worse threat to us than automobiles (peak oil, global warming) or obesity (diabetes, heart disease) or anything else that actually kills more people routinely.

Posted by: bad Jim on December 21, 2005 at 4:31 AM | PERMALINK

So the logic is to ignore him, until he does?

Why are we focusing so much on the terrorists when we're doing a really good job at destroying ourselves?

we're doing a really good job at destroying ourselves?

Posted by: Mary Sluder on December 21, 2005 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

Because consensual activity is usually tolerated. Masturbation is not a crime but rape is.
And terrorist victims didn't volunteer to die.

OOh! Clinton appointed judge resigns.

And this is bad news when the Repubs control Senate and the Presidency?.

Lets have more. More lifetime Conservstive appointments is the way to go!

In my life, the threat presented by troglodyte Islamicists is negligible.

Troglodyte bedwetters are another matter, sad to say.

Do whatever you want to make those bad guys go away!

I'm not dead yet. I don't know how I'll die. I'd bet my demise won't have scary religious fanatics leering over it. It will probably be routine, but disgusting to the fastidious.

At this point, you'd have to be a coward to defend the president.

Yet why do I get the feeling that if there WAS a terror attack, Bush would get 100 percent of the blame here

I'm willing to wager a bit of cash that that's exactly what will happen.

I can see it now. Former FEMA Director, Michael Brown was hired (at minimum wage) as the security chief for the Port of Houston and the terrorists (who snuck across the Mexican border at Harriet Myers' post) openly carried the Big Bomb (which they unloaded from an uninspected ship container) past the Dennys where Brownie was waiting in line for a table (occupied by a group of gay vegans under DOD surveillance).

Seriously, el Presidente is not hiring the right people or spending enough money where it will really help.

Cheap WoW Gold　　 wow gold cheap　　 warcraft gold　　　cheap warcraft gold　　
wow cheap gold

　


　　　　cheap world of warcraft gold 　　world of warcraft cheapest gold　　
world of warcraft gold for sale　


　
world of warcraft gold sell　　gold for world of warcraft　　　world of warcraft game gold



Buy World Of Warcraft Gold　　　 World of Warcraft gold for sale　



world of warcraft buy gold　　　wow gold trade　　 　 　　

McAristotle, you fool. He's resigning from the FISA court, not as a circuit court judge! He'll still be around for years to come to hear the unending stream of cases involving Republican members of congress to arise out of Abramoff's and Scanlon's crimes.

Panicky?

Has everyone forgotten the Huston Plan?

There was no panic here, but long and careful planning.

Finally! A position has opened up, suited for Harriet Miers' estimable shills, er, skills.

I understand the judge's decision, but it's a shame that one more good, capable person has been driven screaming from the room by standing too close to bush, to be replaced by someone even more incompetent than bush (amazingly, there seems to be an endless fount of them crawling out of holes these days).

BTW, whatever happened to those Abu Ghraib torture images/videos that a judge demanded be released a month ago? Has he resigned yet?

Have you sworn your Oath of Fealty to the WImperator yet today?

It was the secret spying that has prevented attacks on our soil?

I thought it was our Triple-Lindy flypaper strategery in Iraq that was preventing attacks on our soil. Remember? We fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here?

As Molly Ivins pointed out, grownups don't have to be consumed with hatred for W to think his policies have been disastrous. We don't have to lie awake at night awash with fury at the president to think he's been a total failure.

"cooler heads will eventually conclude that it was unnecessary and maybe even counterproductive:

unbelievable!

it was a totalitarian power grab, pure and simple, but cooler heads will conclude that it was no biggy.

...in a green mountain pasture
with a cool wind lightly blowing,
the sheep calmly bleats as if all the world is well
just as the butcher's swift hard blow separates its head from its being.

"to be replaced by someone even more incompetent than bush (amazingly, there seems to be an endless fount of them crawling out of holes these days)."

the source is called the republican party: one corrupt, incompetent, malicious, ignorant bastard after another.

National security is not Kevin's strength. Here, he has virtually no knowledge of what the NSA program did or accomplished, yet he opines that it was unnecessary and maybe counterproductive. And he cites Arthur Schlesinger as an authority on national security? You got to be kidding.

It is fine to debate whether President Bush went too far, but try to do it with a dose of intelligence and reality, not superficial and uniformed conclusions.

Check out these amazing quotes from George Bush where he tells terrorists about our telephone surveillance programs and other intelligence-gathering methods.

I love how the New York Times is a horrible traitor because they said we are eavesdropping on terrorists conversations, as though terrorists didn't know that already. But Bush - in order to get re-elected, and to get the Patriot Act renewed - has been running around for 2 years yapping (and braggning) in detail about our surveillance methods.

That's OK, though. When will someone see the political games which these pigs play with "national security"?

Look at the last four years. How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero. If we had followed your advice and gone to the courts many Americans might have died in terrorists attacks instead.

Al, Al, you are truly delusional. There wasn't a terrorist attack on American soil between the 1993 bombing of the WTC and 9/11, but all you Fox News people ever talk about is how Clinton failed to recognize the terrorist threat. How do you explain 8 years without a terrorist incident WITHOUT WIRE TAPING? If you can't do better than that post, please don't take up the space.

How about we all chip in and buy Tbrosz a welding torch for christmas?

This program was the result of a panicky decision by a panicky president.

That sums up the entire presidency of George Bush. This is point the Democrats should be pounding home. Bush is not strong. Bush is scared.

It is amazing. The repukelinazis are totally gone over to this fascist approach, with 0 regrets.

Why is Al such a fascist? Why do repukelinazis have such contempt and disdain for the law?

Kevin writes: This [NSA intercept] program was the result of a panicky decision by a panicky president.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron, Kevin?

GWB has been accused of many things, but a limp-wristed sob-sister like his predecessor is not one of them. What you idiots don't get is that our President is a true leader in wartime; he is what our country both wants and needs -- and all your caterwauling is sending his polling numbers skyrocketing. Keep up the good work, Kevin!

OBTW, since the reasoning for GWB's executive decision to authorize warantless intercepts seems to have passed over your head, let me explain the technology and it's implications -- and why our President made this common sense decision:

The NSA now has the capability to sample tens of thousands of electronic communications in real-time, with real-time decoding and voice recognition. Thus, very few experts can surveil a great many potential threats.

It takes about two man-days worth of senior people time to prepare and process and get approval for a FISA warrant. So our very smart (and non-panicky) folks in our intelligence services husband these resources by screening the NSA intercepts to weed out what looks to be non-threatening. They only go to the FISA courts for permission to do longer term monitoring of the threats they've identified by and from their surveys.

This is simple, common sense -- something for which you lefties lack a gene.

FISA never contemplated the situtation we have today, where we could and should monitor all communications between regions that sponsor our enemies and persons residing within our borders. The President briefed and discussed this program (and possible legislation updating FISA to meet these threats) with Congress over a dozen times in the last three years. And just as with the current fiasco with re-authorizing the Patriot Act, Congress fell down on the job.

So the President did what we hired him to do -- he ACTED! And he acted within his Constitutional authority (See Article 2, Section 2). And we are grateful to him and soooooo glad we didn't hire that bumbling idiot, JFK lite!

So thank you very much, Kevin. You're helping to educate the American people as to how much we truly need GWB and how appreciative we all should be that you and your kind have once again exposed your inanity for us to see.

A lot of hay is being made in the conservosphere over similar executive orders signed by Carter, Clinton, Reagan, etc. They also apparently tried to authorize the Atty General to conduct warrantless searches.

Can anyone determine whether they also actually tried to dodge the FISA courts?

Norman's new parodist writes:

GWB has been accused of many things, but a limp-wristed sob-sister like his predecessor is not one of them.

Yeah, having a former male cheerleader from Andover is such an improvement over a sob sister. Do we now have a titty baby for Commander in Chief or a namby pamby diaper eater?

McCain: In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

McCain is a lying ass.

He has criticized Democrats numerous times for calling attention to questionably legal administration tactics, including torture, for the alleged damage that those disclosures would cause to our national security.

McCain was against standing up for the law in all situations before he was for it.

Typical McCain bloviating.

The administration and congressional Republicans, including McCain, would have excoriated Rockefeller had he pushed on this issue, even to the extent of revealing the program themselves if they thought that by doing so they could label the Democrats as interferring with necessary anti-terrorism tactics, just as Bush did when he confirmed, against all national security principles, the existence of these secret orders and wiretapping program.

Those who are criticizing the Dems for only going public now are lying hypocrites.

Not that we expect anything different from our conservative lemmings.

A Pale Rider public service announcement...

From ThinkProgress.org, in response to the idea that Clinton and Carter did what GWB boasts of having done:

Think Progress does a quick and painless job of eviscerating the myth. Let's take a closer look and put this lie to rest. Yes, both Clinton and Carter issued executive orders pertaining to foreign intelligence surveillance. But neither of these even remotely authorized warrantless searches of American citizens, as Bush's order does.

CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

but drudge report said they did... if we can't trust a hastily-posted, poorly researched piece from matt drudge, the last bastion of journalistic ethics and integrity, what CAN we trust?

It is becoming more and more apparent that the NSA program is a technology change that precludes getting a search warrant.

Secondly, it is also apparent that the left, as illustrated here, does not take seriously the war. If you don't think we are at war, then the attitude that any dilution of privacy rights is illegal, is reasonable.

It is not yet clear how the public will come down on this. If they agree with Bush, the Democratic Party and its left wing are getting far out on a limb.

If they agree with you and dismantle the program, you'd better hope you're right about the war. If Bush is prevented from continuing this program, which seems to be an extension of Echelon, and New York City get blown up, Democrats may be in even bigger trouble.

I think the public will get it. We'll know with the 2006 election. You guys have a great record of being right on these questions: zero.

Kevin you're wrong. Many never wake up. Michelle Malkin and her ilk defend every single one of those decisions.

You're right Mike! By only subverting democracy and the rule of law can we save the US from a band of less than 1000 rogue operators!

"As Arthur Schlesinger says, whenever we do things like this, we always regret it in the morning."

Who is this "we" that he speeks of.

This is a nice sentiment, but nobody pays for any of this. Historians tut-tut, and say how bad it is in their books and classes, but NO ONE EVER PAYS.

THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES for any of the examples he noted to ANY ONE who did those things. NO ONE is impeached, NO ONE is prosecuted and NO ONE is fired. In fact look for more Medal of Freedoms to be handed out and applauded.

AMERICA IS OVER ( "we" just haven't admitted it yet)

Good analysis over at the Daou Report (you have to watch a commercial):

3. The Bush crew floats a number of pushback strategies, settling on one that becomes the mantra of virtually every Republican surrogate. These Republicans face down poorly prepped Dem surrogates and shred them on cable news shows.

8. Reporters and media outlets obfuscate and equivocate, pretending to ask tough questions but essentially pushing the same narratives they've developed and perfected over the past five years, namely, some variation of "Bush firm, Dems soft." A range of Bush-protecting tactics are put into play, one being to ask ridiculously misleading questions such as "Should Bush have the right to protect Americans or should he cave in to Democratic political pressure?" All the while, the right assaults the "liberal" media for daring to tell anything resembling the truth.

Mike K insists on being wrong:

If they agree with you and dismantle the program, you'd better hope you're right about the war. If Bush is prevented from continuing this program, which seems to be an extension of Echelon, and New York City get blown up, Democrats may be in even bigger trouble.

Oh, so we'll all have the blood of innocents on our hands?

The blood of innocents is on your hands. It was this administration that ignored terrorism and has yet to catch Osama Bin Laden and the maniac responsible for the Anthrax attacks. It was this administration that started an unnecessary war that has killed 2,100 Americans. If a terrorist attack hits America, it might have something to do with the fact that this administration has gotten D's and F's on its preparedness from the 9/11 Commission, not because we stopped listening to a handful of phone conversations that we weren't supposed to be listening to without a FISA warrant.

You know nothing of the technology involved--hiding behind it and claiming that it has outpaced the need to get a court order is ridiculous. Echelon is a broad search method and has nothing to do with the current program, which targeted US persons without a search warrant for specific wiretaps. This was a clear and unmistakeable violation of the law.

Hey--why'd the judge quit the FISA court today? Out of blind love of the President or a realization that he didn't want to be a part of the sham anymore? Too bad the late William Rhenquist isn't around to see what the very judge that he appointed to FISA had to say about it.

> Secondly, it is also apparent that the left, as
> illustrated here, does not take seriously the war.

With whom, exactly, are we are war? What is the status of this war? What are the prospects? What is the timeline and where are we on that timeline today? Is "victory" expected in 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 1000 years?

If "victory is more than, say, 3 years off, might it be a good idea to have a national debate concerning the cost/benefit of giving up, e.g. civil liberties to improve "warfighting" efficiency? Might the Citizenry prefer to bear larger costs (which might include incidents up to 9/11 size) in order to avoid subverting the Constitution? Shouldn't this be discussed openly - say in a Presidential debate - rather than imposed unilaterially? No need to mention the specific technology; just a discussion of principles.

Think Mr. Cheney would agree to that?

Cranky

This program was the result of a panicky decision by a panicky president.

As was torture: the weak lash out in fear. It also attracts the support of the weak, as we see on this site daily, who think Daddy will keep them safe (when in reality daddy left them to die). Sissified little dittoheads who need other people to do the hard work of satisfying their sadism, as a temporary balm for their paranoia.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
-Benjamin Franklin

They aren't Americans. They aren't up to the challenge of being Americans.

They just live here.
.

> Secondly, it is also apparent that the left, as
> illustrated here, does not take seriously the war.

With whom, exactly, are we are war? What is the status of this war?

It doesn't matter, Cranky. The WoT provides the permanent state of emergency that empowers the feral. They don't need to know anything, there is no right or wrong. They are empowered to be powerless and give up everything to anyone who'll play to their paranoia and jack off their superstitions.

That's all that's left of the right.
.

Mike K: It is becoming more and more apparent that the NSA program is a technology change that precludes getting a search warrant.

It is only clear to mindless lemmings who are cowards willing to give up their constitutional rights without a fight in the dim hope that they will be protected from some vague threat exaggerated by the king of exaggerated threats, Bush.

Secondly, it is also apparent that the left, as illustrated here, does not take seriously the war.

The ones not taking the war seriously are the ones diverting American military resources to a place where the 9/11 terrorists were not located and which was not a significant source of international terrorism, ignoring the real terrorists and letting them escape.

For a dope like you, Mike K, that is the Bush administration.

You guys have a great record of being right on these questions: zero.

That's the Bush score.

Terrorists: nearly 2000 on 9/11, Bush 0.

If Bush is prevented from continuing this program, which seems to be an extension of Echelon, and New York City get blown up, Democrats may be in even bigger trouble.

There is no evidence that this program has prevented any attack, except the unsubstantiated claims of proven liars in the Bush administration.

This program was the result of a panicky decision by a panicky president.

No, it was the arrogant decision of an arrogant president.

"You know nothing of the technology involved--hiding behind it and claiming that it has outpaced the need to get a court order is ridiculous. Echelon is a broad search method and has nothing to do with the current program, which targeted US persons without a search warrant for specific wiretaps. This was a clear and unmistakeable violation of the law."

And your law degree is from where ?

Did you read the link ?

You're right about my knowledge of the technology. I'd don't need to know more than the bare outline. Thanks to the NY Times the enemy knows more than I did a week ago. I don't think that's good.

"Hey--why'd the judge quit the FISA court today? Out of blind love of the President or a realization that he didn't want to be a part of the sham anymore?"

Actually, he seems to have been a Bush opponent all along. He's the same one who declared the Guantanamo detainees Geneva Convention POWs. I'm glad he's gone.

" Too bad the late William Rhenquist isn't around to see what the very judge that he appointed to FISA had to say about it."

I guess we'll just have to rely on you to defend us.

The other comments confirm my impression of unseriousness on your side. This will grow into a major debate on the war, not Iraq but with the Islamic jihadists.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out. I think the Bush haters will lose but we may not know until a year from now. I don't think Democrats can further their marginalization on national security but maybe they can convince the public.

If they do, they should hope the jihadists leave them alone. Do you think they will ? Or do you think this is all a Bush plot to be a dictator?

Interesting times.

There is no evidence that this program has prevented any attack, except the unsubstantiated claims of proven liars in the Bush administration.

So far, the preznit's targets have been Quakers, environmentalists, gay veterans, etc.

If NYC does go boom, the real question will be why did Bush divert so many resources away from Homeland Security?

Not that the right will have the guts to ask it, but we'll all know so it makes no difference.
.

"Still, it seems reasonable that it may have helped."

Yup - and I wore my lucky shirt yesterday, and we weren't attacked. It seems just about as reasonable to think that may have helped, too. Look out, because I need to put in the the wash today.

Kevin, I take issue with your contention that the president panicked. This wasn't panic at all -- it was "the rules don't apply to me now." In fact, that has been the contention of Yoo and Gonzales, pretty much repeated in the President's press conference, that because we're "at war," he can do ANYTHING he wants, under the guise of his "Commander in Chief" role.

Their shifting rationale now is that 'getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."' WaPo Story

In other words, "even though the law let us eavesdrop first and file for the warrant afterward, we couldn't be bothered." After all, their convenience (laziness?) is MUCH more important than the Fourth Amendment. And those pesky laws ... who needs 'em when we can cry "war!" and do anything we want.

For all of their bluster and chest-thumping, the apologists for this are cowards, so fearful of the nebulous bogeyman that they are happy to serve up the very foundations of American freedom to be "protected." I'll tell you who panicked -- Al, and Norman, and tbroz, and all of these other chickenhawks who are so fearful of the bogeyman that they're willing to give up what America has stood for its entire existence. The Bush Administration has not only used that panic to grab absolute, unchecked power, but cries "terra terra 9-11" at every opportunity to make sure they keep shaking.

19 people killed about 3,000 Americans on 9-11. 3,000 -- in a nation of 300 million. And that was all it took to begin the dismantling of the US Constitution and the American Republic. Who knew that the American people were such fucking chickens?

Well, I guess Osama bin Laden and GWBush did. They certainly have enabled each others' dreams.

Quoth the Mike K: Did you read the link ? You're right about my knowledge of the technology.

Seeing as how your link doesn't work, I'm inclined to agree.
.

'getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments"'

Which, since the administration is infested with ignorant fucking creationists, is next to impossible for them.

Yeah, I knew that.
.

The other comments confirm my impression of unseriousness on your side. This will grow into a major debate on the war, not Iraq but with the Islamic jihadists.

How's that whole war with the Islamic Jihadists going, by the way? Still doing your part?

Dear Dodger, the Clinton years were without big terrorist attacks on our soil because Clinton did have major wire-tapping going on--the Echelon program. That's how we explain that, thank you.

Did I forget to say without warrants!

How's that whole war with the Islamic Jihadists going, by the way? Still doing your part? Posted by: Pale Rider

Apparently. He's still supporting the best friend international terror ever had.

We used to have only one Afghanistan. Now we have two. How much would you pay? Don't answer, 'cause you also get one of them ... IN THE PERSIAN GULF!

Yep. Propping up George W. "bin Laden's Bitch" Bush is Mike K's contribution to the war on people he vaguely remembers reading something about on LGF.

Now that's sacrifice!
.

An hysterical decision by an hysterical president.

Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 21, 2005 at 10:57 //Posted by: Michael L. Cook on December 21, 2005 at 10:58 AM

So now Echalon flagging is the same thing as FISA non-compliant wire-tapping programs and spying on the agents of foreign powers is the same thing as spying on Americans?

Uh, no.
.

Mike K: You're right about my knowledge of the technology. I'd don't need to know more than the bare outline. Thanks to the NY Times the enemy knows more than I did a week ago. I don't think that's good.

It's pretty bad when conservatives start calling American citizens "the enemy."

I think I recall hearing these same excuses used to justify the excesses of the Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein regimes.

I guess Condi learned a lot about the KGB during her studies and now wants to apply those lessons to the American people.

He's the same one who declared the Guantanamo detainees Geneva Convention POWs. I'm glad he's gone.

You are stupid beyond belief.

He's not gone from anything other than the FISA court, which had nothing to do with the Guantanamo ruling, idiot.

He's still a federal judge and good thing.

We should be exporting democracy and civil rights, not totalitarianism and torture.

Wow, another talking point bites the dust.

Spew faster, wingnuts. The pooper-scooper is catching up!
.

Al says:
Look at the last four years. How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero.

As with so many folks who use this type argument, Al commits a logical fallacy. Actually, depending how one interprets Al's premise several fallacies might apply, but this is probably most apt:

Fallacy of Coincidental Correlation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc)
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.

Specifically, that the absence of a terror attack is the result of Bush's wiretap machinations. Or of Bush's policies, or of the war in Iraq. Or whatever. Sloppy thinking.

More info on logical fallacies here.

Doc MikeyK,

Hate to take time from your work comp denials; might not meet your quota, but check my response to you on the Potemkin thread. Our meddling in the Lebanese Civil War led to disaster - Our meddling in the middle east is leading to more disasters. Killing innocents abroad doe not win the hearts and minds of their loved ones.

Still no word from the Radicals BTW on who exactly we are "at war" with and how long the "war" is expected to last. Much less what the victory conditions might be.

Cranky

Still no word from the Radicals BTW on who exactly we are "at war" with and how long the "war" is expected to last. Much less what the victory conditions might be.

The enemy must be nebulous, the state of war permanent, victory only a dream. Only then can they short-circuit the Republic.

Seems about a third are dumb enough to fall for it. A sliver of the population is postitioned well enough to profit from it. After that, they have to count on intimidating Americans into just giving in to the take-over.

Since their failure to protect America on 9/11, their biggest successes have been with those who are sufficiently chicken-shit about Bush allowing another 9/11 that they're willing to give up anything. Essentially, they've allowed themselves to be taken hostage by a president who's using the terrorists for muscle.
.

"He's the same one who declared the Guantanamo detainees Geneva Convention POWs. I'm glad he's gone.

You are stupid beyond belief.

He's not gone from anything other than the FISA court, which had nothing to do with the Guantanamo ruling, idiot.

He's still a federal judge and good thing."

What part of resigning don't you understand ? He can spend the next 10 years on Intelligent Design cases and that would be a big help to all of us.

"We should be exporting democracy and civil rights, not totalitarianism and torture.

Posted by: Advocate for God"

So the Iraq election was totalitarianism ?

third Paul

I agree that Reagan made serious mistakes in Lebanon.

Have you noticed what's going on there since we invaded Iraq ?

Of course not.

Here's the link that didn't work:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html

I do have trouble with technology. Getting the cap off my viagra bottle is tough. Of course, I have to do it three or four times a day so I get tired.

Mike K: What part of resigning don't you understand?

He didn't resign his federal judgeship, moron.

He resigned his FISA court appointment.

The FISA court didn't make the ruling on Guantanamo.

What don't you understand about that?

Then again, maybe you are a fake "Mike K".

It's so hard to tell the difference.

al: "How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero. If we had followed your advice and gone to the courts many Americans might have died in terrorists attacks instead."

Here's a nice example of irrational thinking: Whatever Bush has done is justified because it must, by definition, prevent terrorist attacks on America because GWB claims that it does.

But let's just push that envelope: How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started [insert illegal action here]? Answer: zero.

[stealing elections]
[murdering Democratic Senators]
[accepting bribes from oil companies]
[torturing Iraqis]
[outing CIA agents]
[using propaganda]
[kidnapping people secretly and locking them away in unknown secret prisons]
[pilfering the national treasury]
[executing illegal immigrants]
[an anthrax plague]
[practicing voodoo with live human sacrifices]
[dropping a bomb on France]
[raping Iraqi children]
etc.

Just think of all the Americans who could have died in a terrorist attack if GWB had not done this brave, heroic, and entirely justifiable thing!

Mike K: is it possible to take both the "war" and civil rights seriously simultaneously?

> Since their failure to protect America on 9/11,
> their biggest successes have been with those who
> are sufficiently chicken-shit about Bush allowing
> another 9/11 that they're willing to give up
> anything. Essentially, they've allowed themselves
> to be taken hostage by a president who's using the
> terrorists for muscle.

You know, we hear about Gettysburg and the 20th Maine all the time, but the last few times I have watched that movie and visited Little Round Top I have found myself thinking more about General Hood's men and what they must have felt when they were ordered (probably more like asked, given how the Confederate Army was organized) to go up that hill for the 3rd time. They did it, to me it is inexpressibly sad that such brave men, so little different from those they were fighting, died so brutally. Yet they did have the courage to go up.

Would I have done that? I don't know. Would Dick Cheney? Most of the Radicals that troll the liberal blogs? George W. Bush? I think I DO know the answer to that question. I am no fan of the thought of my own death, but what are those guys so AFRAID of that they would destroy this entire nation to ensure they are never put in a dangerous position?

Cranky

shorter Mike K: Bring it on! (the police state that is)

The judge who resigned was James Robertson, a committed Clintonista. He had no trouble dismissing multiple cases brought against Clinton associates. He dismissed two charges against Web Hubbell when he was a federal judge; both dismissals were reversed on appeal and Hubbell later pled guilty to both. The details are here.

So now he's resigned from the FISC.

Good. Buh-bye.

As to the charge of 'panicky' raised by Kevin, that's good for a laugh. GWB is probably the last person in Washington to panic (okay, maybe second to Condi). The most likely? Hard to decide, but Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold come to mind.

"a third are dumb enough to fall for it. A sliver of the population is postitioned well enough to profit from it. After that, they have to count on intimidating Americans into just giving in to the take-over."

Exactly right. And a large percentage of that one-third troll on the WM blog. I don't believe for a minute that any of the trolls on this site are smart enough to profit from it. The only thing they are doing is making sure that they are don't get shot when the tanks roll into the streets after Bush cancels the '08 election due to "National Security" concerns.

GWB is probably the last person in Washington to panic.

Right. Before Bush panicked and stared into space for 8 minutes on 9/11, lots of other people in DC had already panicked.

Of course, lots of those were already dead, but that's academic.

I wouldn't put money on George Bush in a cage match with Alton Brown. The president is a pussy.
.

Have you noticed what's going on there since we invaded Iraq ?

Another post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. People in Lebanon know better. Conservatives in America, however, continue to hide in their little spider holes.

Oh well.
.

Cranky,

Have often wondered similar thoughts about the Virginians crossing the Wheat Field.

Off thread, but I wonder how Jonathan Alter is standing up to O'Reilly today? He is supposed to be on O'Arrogantone's radio show. Billy said that he was going to attack him on several points including calling Bush a dictator.
Billy boy was irate about 1) Vincente Fox's attack of the immigration bill, 2) Alter and 3), the decision regarding the Dover School Board. He was bemoaning that we have lost our "moral compass". He and that imbecile of a former New Jersey Judge, who is FAUX's legal expert, were practically in tears over the fact that Judge Jones was a Republican appointed by Twigless.
Probably still upset about the cancellation of the nativity in DC because they could only find two wise men, Murtha and Feingold.

"Have you noticed what's going on there since we invaded Iraq ?

Another post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. People in Lebanon know better."

Yes, they do. Have you read any interviews ?

" Conservatives in America, however, continue to hide in their little spider holes."

What in the world does that mean ? You mean like trying to get an act renewed that all the Democrats voted for before they voted against it ?

I think this will play out over months. The attempt by Reid and Pelosi to block renewal of legislation they originally proposed makes them look foolish even to people who only pay attention for 5 minutes.

We will see the result. There is already speculation that 06 will be a replay of 02 when Democrats like Cleland thought they could hold up national security to boost public employee union membership. They lost. Now they think the public will buy the "civil rights" ploy.

Maybe they're right but I don't see it.

Anyone see this article by John Schmidt? I think he's off his rocker, but he's saying the courts have already ruled that warrantless searches are a constitutionally protected power of the POTUS--and he worked for Clinton.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Steve White deliberately leaves out the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist elevated Judge Robertson to the FISA court.

Dedicated Clintonista? Promoted by Rehnquist?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Keep spinning, dizzy trolletariat. Keep spinning.

Yes, they do. Have you read any interviews ?

Yes, which is why I recognize your "argument" as a fallacy. Not like I'm surprised or anything.

The "spider hole" is where people like you hide from a real world you can't handle. Unfortunately, the joke isn't as funny when you have to explain it.
.

Sooo, if this wiretappping program is something Clinton did.

And if this wiretapping program is preventing the next 9/11.

This proves one of two possibilities:

Either Bush halted this program -> Which led to 9/11, which means 9/11 was a direct result of Bush incompetence.

Or

Bush kept this program going -> and it failed to prevent 9/11, which means it's not an effective prophylactic against terrorism.

(Frankly, if I ever had the honor of being president, I would have taken my job seriously, and read the August 6 PDB, and prevented the attack by ramping airline security - instead of going on vacation).

So, which possibility is it, wingnuts? Is Bush incompetent? Or is Bush incompetent?

This program was the result of a panicky decision by a panicky president.

I am interested in seeing the evidence on which you base the conclusion that this was done in panic rather than malicious, or at least calmly considered, disregard for the law.

So Judge Robertson is just a Clinton appointed liberal judge. Just like the right assured us General Shinsheki was a Clinton appointed liberal general. We now know who had the last laugh on that one.

How many terrorists attacks have occurred on American soil since George Bush started issuing executive orders to allow wiretappings without warrants? Answer: zero.

The wiretapping began days after 9/11. The anthrax attacks of 2001 and the LAX attack of 2002 both occurred after the wiretapping began. That's more than zero terrorist attacks, on American soil. Not only is would the argument be an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy if the premise of no terrorist attacks were true, it is also based on a false premise.

Still no word from the Radicals BTW on who exactly we are "at war" with and how long the "war" is expected to last. Much less what the victory conditions might be.

Cranky