you mean there ever was hope for them?

What the hell would Bush know about shame?

i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.

the Administration knew about the leak over a year ago but they quietly waited a year to begin an investigation of it? oviously the leakage didn't bother them, it was the publication and embarrassment that triggered the search...

Ah, but is the investigation itself classified, and thus the anonymous leaks about the investigation are themselves illegal? Who would investigate this leak? Sweet irony.

This probe is sure starting late. The Whitehouse knew about the leak a year ago when they urged the NYT to not print the story. If they are so hot to catch the whistleblower, why didn' they start the investigation back then?

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

What would terrorists do, or not do, in the face of the knowledge of these programs that they wouldn't do, or not do, otherwise? Wouldn't they already rightly worry that their conversations might be intercepted, under the perfectly legal allowances of FISA?

I have never seen ANY explanation of the supposed risk here to national security. All I've ever heard are dark hints that the terrorists are somehow being mysteriously helped, with nary a word about how that's supposed to work.

Did anyone else notice this in the WaPo story:

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers provision.

There is, of course, no such "war powers provision".

"In a time a war..."

Anybody know where you go these days to buy war bonds?

There is no hope that American Fascists will ever become enlightened with reason.

Inevitably, the right's talking points will tell us that the administration's critics are hypocrites. We wanted the Justice Department to probe the Plame leak, they'll say, but not the "snoopgate" leak.

Where the hell have you been? The trolls in your own forum were parroting this talking point two weeks ago.

But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

You're only now coming to that realization?

Here's another one. Lame Mainstream Media robots will keep repeating this message over and over, Bush will never be found "wrong" on this in the public eye, and when the leaker is found, he will probably be executed, and if the leaker has any ties to the Democratic party at all, they'll jail Howard Dean.

if the leaker has any ties to the Democratic party at all, they'll jail Howard Dean.

So, maybe some good can come of this after all?

This probe is clearly designed to save the officials who have been or might be indicted in the Plamegate. Say, for example, that Senator X is found to have leaked the NSA information. The President quickly issues a pardon to Senator X. A few days later the officials involved in the Plamegate are pardoned. Now the President can justify the latter pardons with a straight face.

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

I'm sure Cheney will talk about an evil plot to blow up the hoover dam using truckloads of illegal firecrackers purchased from Mexico by Al Qaeda terrorists, that they were close to catching them, but the terrorists, reading about the link on the NYT, stopped communicating via the personals-ads page, and decided to resort to drums, or carrier pidgeon.

What I'd like to see is ANY kind of account of how exposing the mere existence of these programs might actually compromise anything.

While I agree with you, the right used the same argument for not investigating the Plame leak.

The focus needs to remain on the central difference between the two - that true 'whisteblower' leaks revealing an illegal or fraudulant activity within the government should be encouraged, and the other should not.

The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Heh. Doesn't this constitute as a leak about the secret leak probe?

Drip, drip, drip...

Inevitably, the right's talking points will tell us that the administration's critics are hypocrites. We wanted the Justice Department to probe the Plame leak, they'll say, but not the "snoopgate" leak.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.

Well, this will certainly keep the NSA spying story in the news a bit longer. Considering the statements of Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other Republicans on this already, it looks like a separation of powers battle is underway...within the Republican Party. I say great. Nobody trusts a Justice Department investigation. If the JD wants an independent investigator then somebody will believe it. But still, the real question is whether or not the NSA program is legal, and if not, what are the consequences. Daniel Ellsberg looks like he's got a friend somewhere.

I agree, exhaustive hearings on the entire Snoopgate business sound fine to me. Obviously we'll need a full understanding of what the NSA was up to in order to punish those who leaked about it.

It really depends on how the investigation is handled. A serious "plamegate" style investigation by a career professional would be a good thing for the country and very bad for the Bushies. More threats of perjury, more investigations.

A CYA investigation by a political hack would resolve nothing. I wonder if it would make things worse within the REpublican party.

It's hard to be a right-wing supporter. You have to justify the president and his advisors breaking the law, twisting the Consitution, and lying brazenly and repeatedly every step of the way. At the same time, you have to demand investigations of those who don't support Bush, and do so on the flimsiest pretenses possible.

And while all this is going on, you have to convince yourself and those around you that giving up your freedoms makes you free, that creating historic deficits is fiscal conservatism, that doubling the size of government is actually shrinking government, that warrantless searches and arrests without charges on the basis of secret evidence resulting on American citizens being held indefinitely (and possibly tortured) is all, somehow, the truest expression of American ideals.

All this would make sane people's heads explode. So give the wingers credit for doing the mental gymnastics needed to actually force their minds to think that way.

or this country. david ensor just did a report on cnn, intoning with his most serious demeanor of the grave damage the leak did to the nsa. silly me, i consider spying on americans and evisceration of the constitution maybe trumps embarrassing der chimperor.

I see absolutely no need to give idiot republicans even that much of a talking point, Drum.

I say go right ahead and investigate.

Just don't bitch when whatever the JD digs up gets used against them when the hearings/trials for 4th Amendment violations take place.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.

presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?

Please investigate this and then we'll all realize that nothing illegal took place and this is just yet another red herring thrown against the wall in the left's futile attempt to unseat the republicans absence any real coherent plan for the country. As with Gitmo, Rathergate, Plamegate and the National Guard, the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

While I agree with you, the right used the same argument for not investigating the Plame leak.

But there's a big difference here. Bush and others are going around claiming that this leak has, in fact, damaged national security -- a claim vital to their actions here.

Bush needs to make claims like that to justify flouting the FISA law in the first place. It is supposedly the importance of maintaining the very secrecy of the methods that drove him to avoid the FISA approach, and generally to avoid anything approaching public or larger Congressional scrutiny in the first place. Take away the need for utter secrecy, and that whole end run around the law and Congress falls apart.

What I'd like to see is any account of how that secrecy was supposed to work -- what in particular terrorists might do or not do in the face of the revelation of these programs that they wouldn't have done or not done otherwise.

"I'm from the government, preview is your friend"

I'm the formatting police and YOU'RE UNDER ARREST!

Good!

Let's get this into the courts. Revealing illegal activity is a surefire defense in a leak investigation like this.

Are any Justice Department personnel investigating the unauthorized disclosure of illegal actions by the President subject to prosecution as accessories after the fact to the President's illegal actions? Do the Justice Department attorneys have an ethical duty to withdraw from the investigation rather than help cover up illegal activities?

presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?

The two goals are not entirely independent. People with the public trust should be held accountable for their actions; if the leak was a betrayal of the security of the nation the leaker should be held accountable, OTOH, if the leak was the only option the leaker had to avoid cooperating with and advancing a criminal conspiracy against the law and Constitutional order of government of the United States, well, that too should be determined, and the attention should then turn to the genuinely criminal parties.

Are any Justice Department personnel investigating the unauthorized disclosure of illegal actions by the President subject to prosecution as accessories after the fact to the President's illegal actions?

No, provide they investigate the potentially illegal disclosures in good faith, nor should they.

Do the Justice Department attorneys have an ethical duty to withdraw from the investigation rather than help cover up illegal activities?

Investigation is the opposite of cover up. If they recieve orders to cover up illegality, particularly if that illegality would be exculpatory to the target of the leak investigation, then they have ethical obligations not to withdraw from the investigation, but to reveal the effort at cover up.

As with Gitmo, Rathergate, Plamegate and the National Guard, the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

Anyone else notice that this troll omitted the Abramoff sleaziness?

It's not that Bush's political allies can't see the difference (they can and they don't care), it's that they're counting on the fact that the nine-to-five, non-wonkish American voter won't be able to.

i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.

Why would he leave his bubble? He will claim that either the War Powers provisions in the Constitution or the No Child Left Behind Act gives him the authority to remain in the White House until his mission is accomplished.

...the left's futile attempt to unseat the republicans absence any real coherent plan for the country. ...
Posted by: Jay on December 30, 2005 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Jay: If it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker, it's not good policy.

But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

I am in 100% agreement. There is no hope for them.

But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation.Posted by: cmdicely on December 30, 2005 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I want the Justice Department to investigate everybody.

All investigation, all the time.

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems. Of course this is strictly a page from Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America coming off of the heels of Democrat Rostenkowski's House Ways and Means corruption scandal, remember that. I am proud of you guys though, you do learn eventually.

Truth be known, the "No Children Left Behind" program is not aimed at school children but designed more for the Democrats. (ok, I don;t care who you are, that's funny).
Proud to be a troll.

I'm not worried about the investigation. We shouldn't just assume without review that any particular case is a whistleblower case. And this leak was illegal. So the Justice Department should investigate, in order to establish means and motive. If the motive turns out to fall under whistleblower conditions, as we all suspect, the investigation will close short of prosecution.

Simple.

If there were no investigation, there would be another can of worms to worry about, in terms of our dedication to upholding the rule of law.

It's not that Bush's political allies can't see the difference (they can and they don't care), it's that they're counting on the fact that the nine-to-five, non-wonkish American voter won't be able to.

More specifically, I think, they are counting on their own ability to produce a smokescreen dense enough to prevent enough American voters from seeing the difference to make a difference.

The constant effort since this administration took office, on a wide range of issues, is to create the impression that policy issues of all stripes are hypercomplex matters where the most fundamental, basic facts are impossible for the average voter to determine, highly controvertted, and that for that reason voters should just trust the authorities, particularly the President, to make decisions for them.

This echoes what the same politico-religious faction is trying to do with science with intelligent design as a wedge -- using asserted complexity as an excuse to get people to throw up their hands and accept explanations on the basis of authority.

It is all part of a widespread, not so much insitutionally coordinated or conspiratorial as simply ideologically unified, assault on the Enlightment, popular sovereignty, and independent thought.

I love the charges they'll be investigating - unlawful disclosure of classified information. Now that we know the Justice Department really does believe this to be wrong, when will the President fire Karl Rove?

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

So? Those of us who oppose corruption and betrayal, instead of being blindly partisan as you seem to be and to project your opponents as also being, are glad to get rid of corrupt Democrats, where they exist, as well.

Interesting comment above regarding Rathergate: Although Bush has indirectly said he was in the Natioanl Guard the whole time, Rather was discredited by a falsified memo. He was not directly repudiated by the President. In other words, Rather overstepped his bounds by lunging for evidence he thought was correct. It wasn't. nonetheless, the smoke is there, and I assume, somewhere under the smoke, there is a real fire. Kudos to the Republicans for discrediting the messenger without ever, directly, discrediting the information that the messenger was conveying.

Excellent summary of the (obvious) and crucial distinction that separates the two leak cases: one sought to check the abuse of power, while the other enabled it.

Jay sez:"the left just can't get any of their "conspiracy" theories to stick though they will attempt again because they are completely void of any real cogent message.

funny guy.

I'm lovin it baby! The trolls here having to resort to pretending-to-be-moderate or muddying the waters with oblique inanities such as this one.

Simple message: Blowing the whistle on bad guys in the Government is good. Using security clearances to stab your political enemies in the back by naming covert US spies working on loose nukes is baaaad

Cogent message: Bush and the Pubes are verry, verry bad men!. and traitors too.

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

Fine. I want all bribe taking, quid-pro-quo, congressmen and congresswomen to be penalized. Harshly. Government should not be for the highest bidder. Abramoff and his ilk apparently disagree.

"Kudos to the Republicans for discrediting the messenger..."

do you mean as in "Well, congratulations to Dr. Evil for such a clever and diabolical execution of his fiendish plans!!!"

Right?

cm, any politician caught in the Abramoff scandal should go down, that's what I meant by "eventually learning".
Secondly, I like the analogy of the administration making things "hypercomplex" to the average American, and this coming from the side of the aisle that claims Bush is too stupid to be President (but yet smart enough to fool the Democrats; of course that may not take a lot.) Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school. After all, omitting any mention of alternative thought on the origin of life is the beginning of fascism, is it not?

Joey G., "covert US spy"? Right. Considering Woodwards recent statements is appears ol Valerie was quite the publicity whore. BTW, loved the front page pictoral and article in Vanity Fair. Or is Vanity Fair that top secret CIA publication we all don't know about.

elfanko:i sometimes wonder what he's gonna think of himself and his presidency after he leaves his little bubble in 08.
exactly what he thinks of it now. that he does everything for the good and just cause, and everyone who is not with him is against him and just doesn't get it, and is therefore not worth listening to.

jimBOB:I agree, exhaustive hearings on the entire Snoopgate business sound fine to me. Obviously we'll need a full understanding of what the NSA was up to in order to punish those who leaked about it.
perzackly. and as others have noted, if it turns out that this was a whistleblowing leak, then the leaker is off the hook. if not, then the more info the better, re poss Pres abuse of powers AND the leaker should be punished for violating NatSec.

Jay:Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems
so what, any Dems that should get sunk by the Abarmoff scandal, SHOULD be sunk. we'll just elect better dems (by which i mean LESS corruptible, not more sneaky). i'm not willing to throw my Democracy out for the sake of trying to save a few Senators or Congressmen who happen to nominally be of my party. Corruption kills democracy, and should be stopped, period.

In general, I agree that any investigation that uncovers more about the program is a good thing.

What could be chilling, however, is a situation where the guilt/innocence of the leaker is tied directly to whether the NSA activity is proved to be illegal.

I don't know enough about whisteblower laws, but the problem seems similar to the Abu Ghraib soldiers convicted of mistreating prisoner who thought they were obeying legal orders. Seems like a catch-22. How is someone supposed to make that call without a disclosure and ruling of the courts?

Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

The existence, history, and social context of the religious doctrine of intelligent design can already be taught in philosophy in school, just as the same can be taught for any other historical or current philosophy or religious doctrine. No one on the left objects to that. What the left objects to is allowing what is not, in any respect, a scientific concept to interfere with science education.

Why do you ask questions premised on outright lies?

Jay:why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school

ID in philosophy class, sure. ID in biology class, no.

cmdicely:Why do you ask questions premised on outright lies?

what's your definition of "troll"?

Finally, if you are so concerned about the "coordinated assault on independent thought", why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

ID proponents generally do not want their ideas "taught" as philosophy, but as science. Many people who object to ID in the context of a science class do not object to ID or other forms of religion being discussed in some other context, as long as it is not taught as a form of proselytization.

why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school.

sure. Although I think folklore and mythology would be a more appropriate course for that subject. While they are adding it, I'd love for the course to also include other world creation myths--Mayan, Hopi, Japanese, Indonesian, Incan, Russian, Ashanti, Mongolian, Zulu, Persian, Australian Aboriginal, Hindu, Cheyenne, etc. The list goes on and on. And the parallels between those creation myths are surprising and intellectually stimulating.

I'd ensure that my children took that comparitive literature/folklore & mythology elective. Would the propoents of ID do the same? I think not.

What could be chilling, however, is a situation where the guilt/innocence of the leaker is tied directly to whether the NSA activity is proved to be illegal.

While, certainly, you wouldn't want the activity to be proven illegal to the criminal standard for leaking it to be excused, but there needs to be some connection. I think that that there are two different cases at issue where different standards should be applicable -- where the classification serves primarily to protect apparent illegality, and where the apparent illegality is incidentally protected by classification of an operation, etc., which is not generally illegal.

A leak in the latter case should, IMO, being held to a higher standard of proof of the illegality of the subject of the leak and proportionality of the harm than where the former can be established by credible evidence.

Jay, the troll with the sense of humor (I don;t care who you are, he's a stich) asked "why not allow ID to be taught in philosophy at school."

Well, Jay, I don't think anyone is objecting to that. They're objecting to teaching it in SCIENCE class.

Another troll with limited understanding. Now THAT'S funny!!

I thought the appropriate presidential response to a leak was to throw up his hands and say "we'll probably never find out who the leaker is".

Careful Edo, the Abramoff debacle will include many Dems.

And here's a fourth person saying, "So?" Good governance is what most folks here want -- and it used to be something that at least some Republicans delivered. Only an idiot regrets the conviction of scoundrels who happen to belong to one's own party. Which explains a helluva lot about loyalists to the odious DeLay.....

Speaking broadly about whisteblower situations, even people in the private sector are restricted by their employment agreement from disclosing 'confidential' information, which basically covers all activity incidentally.

So, using another example, is a whisteblower of a questionable accounting activity at the mercy of whether or not the court decides the company violated accounting rules?

...or is it based on the intent of the whisteblower, ie to reveal fraud.

No hope?!!!!There never was any hope for them. We've failed to accept the fact that this bunch had, and has, a plan to do exactly what they're doing! To expect them to act and think like we do, is akin to expecting to understand a suicide bomber from an alien religeous background. It isn't possible, so work around it!

Speaking broadly about whisteblower situations, even people in the private sector are restricted by their employment agreement from disclosing 'confidential' information, which basically covers all activity incidentally.

Speaking as someone who's dealt with literally hundreds of confidentiality agreements, they cannot be used to bar one's right to report criminal activity and/or fraud or malfeasance. Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

Speaking as someone who's dealt with literally hundreds of confidentiality agreements, they cannot be used to bar one's right to report criminal activity and/or fraud or malfeasance. Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

How that logic applies when it is the head of the executive branch and his subordinates responsible for the enforcement of the laws in question that would be breaking the law if the act were illegal is hard to see. A blanket privilege to publicly reveal anything the leaker subjectively believes to be illegal is a recipe for disaster; OTOH, no privilege in this regard makes the executive potentially largely unaccountable.

Most such agreements also have a clause providing that the subject of the agreement be allowed to disclose the information when required to do so by law, rule or regulation, etc.

Yes, but the concern is in situations where the legality is ambiguous. If the activity is eventually found to be acceptable, or at least it can't be proven to be illegal, is the whisteblower subject to civil litigation for revealing it?

And, of course, for gov't employees, how does this logic extend to 'classified' activities?

I thought the appropriate presidential response to a leak was to throw up his hands and say "we'll probably never find out who the leaker is".

Yes, but that is only when the president already knows who did the leak, who is dear to him, and needs to stonewall. This time, they've obviously asked around and don't seem to believe that anyone in their circles is responsible for the leak, so now they can publicly demand to know who leaked the information.

If the wiretaps are, against everything we know, legal, than it seems that the motive of the whistleblower and the reasonableness of his belief that the wiretaps were illegal should play into whether he's prosecuted.

...or is it based on the intent of the whisteblower, ie to reveal fraud.

There are a few elements here to be fleshed out.

One, the whisteblower protection should hinge on intent, in the sense that the whistleblower had a "reasonable" belief of illegality, wrongdoing, etc., and this was the motive for the leak. It should not rely on the ultimate determination of whether the leaked activity was illegal, since this will never be clear, and even if you consult with an attorney before blowing the whistle the outcome will be uncertain.

Second, there is the issue of who you blow the whistle to. If you blow the whistle to the press, whether or not the actual law is looking for "reasonable intent", you are likely off the hook because the onus to force a journalist to disclose a source will likely not be taken by a judge doing the "balancing act" between determining the source and protecting press confidentiality.

So, if we can assure the law operates along the first point, then the second point is just gravy, but even if the first point is not de jure operative, the de facto reality of the 2nd point probably gives you a security policy if you leak with good intent, since to date judges are reluctant to call reporters to give up their sources.

If you start blabbing your national security clearance or confidentiality agreement while drinking with randoms at the local bar, even if it's related to exposing wrongdoing, and the law is not clear on your whistleblower protection in this instance, then you will likely be in trouble, since all the guys in the bar you blabbed to can and probably will be hauled before the judge and ordered to testify.

Any potential Shield Law protections should be a natural extension from whatever whisteblower test is established.

I also think there should be some good faith attempt by the whisteblower to go to some other authority, if possible, before approaching the press. And certainly, sharing the information with competitors or bar-mates should not be covered at all.

How that logic applies when it is the head of the executive branch and his subordinates responsible for the enforcement of the laws in question that would be breaking the law if the act were illegal is hard to see. A blanket privilege to publicly reveal anything the leaker subjectively believes to be illegal is a recipe for disaster; OTOH, no privilege in this regard makes the executive potentially largely unaccountable.

I didn't say it did apply; I was answering the earlier specific statement about private sector employment agreeements.

Christian Charlie's Ghost on December 30, 2005 at 11:57 AM:

Anybody know where you go these days to buy war bonds?

I dunno, but I imagine the Chinese government could help you to find ways to loan money to the US government...

All kidding aside, I see the larger point in asking whether or not the US is participating in a 'Total War' and what are the limits in a 'limited war' to Executive power in order to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' as per the President's Oath of Office.

Does an authorization to use force allow Dubya, with the supposedly implied and broad powers of the Commander in Chief, to admittedly ignore the Fourth Amendment, which he swore to uphold?

Whoever leaked the story of the warrantless wiretapping obviously thought that Dubya had pushed things a bit too far, and blew the whistle. But was Dubya's pushing of the envelope actually illegal? Because of that question, I can see the why the argument is being made that the NSA leak was improper due to the opinion that Dubya was exercising his implied powers as President under the Constitution.

I don't agree with that argument, though...I'm having a hard time reconciling implied authority against the expressly-written intent stated in the Fourth Amendment.

I didn't say it did apply; I was answering the earlier specific statement about private sector employment agreeements.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was trying to move forward from what you said to discuss the issues in applying the logic from that area to the issue which spurred the question and which is the primary subject of the thread.

Whoever leaked the story of the warrantless wiretapping obviously thought that Dubya had pushed things a bit too far, and blew the whistle. But was Dubya's pushing of the envelope actually illegal? Because of that question, I can see the why the argument is being made that the NSA leak was improper due to the opinion that Dubya was exercising his implied powers as President under the Constitution.

There is great question about this legality right now, and many doubts, so I think the leaker is on good territory, especially when factoring in the president's diametrically opposite public statements about how all searches were "warranted".

There is potentially no greater leak, no greater blowing of the whistle, then to call our attention to encroachment upon our constitutional rights. Much more important than the blowing of the schnizzle in the Oval Office.

good debate here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1135893533.shtml

Assuming that the justice department indicts the person who leaked, I doubt that a jury will convict. For the same reason that the Congress will not impeach Bush: it is not perfectly clear what the exact boundary of the law is in this case.

Note to Democrats: you can not capitalize on this issue without acknowledging the substantial interest that the US has in such cases;

Note to Republicans: you can not capitalize on this issue without acknowledging the potential for the unnecessary expansion of executive power.

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was trying to move forward from what you said to discuss the issues in applying the logic from that area to the issue which spurred the question and which is the primary subject of the thread.

Gotcha, my mistake.

Does an authorization to use force allow Dubya, with the supposedly implied and broad powers of the Commander in Chief, to admittedly ignore the Fourth Amendment, which he swore to uphold?

Simple answer? No.

Note to Republicans: if you make a big stink about "unauthorized disclosures of classified information", careful what you wish for, since both Libby and Rove knew her status was classified, whether they want to admit it or not. Why else would Libby be asking to be identified as whatever silly designation he asked Judy Miller to use for him?

Contentious: Good points.

I'd like to see both a judicial investigation of the NSA issue, and a legal investigation of the leakers.

I suspect that once the "former and current intelligence officials" we keep hearing about have actual names attached to them, we'll find out two things:

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals.

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy. The timing alone stinks.

Note to Democrats: welcome an investigation, since there should be one, if at least to determine it was a whistleblowing action. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information, whether to journalists or anyone else, when not meant to expose wrongdoing, is clearly illegal and not to be encouraged. If worried about the trends towards classifying more information, deal with that head on, with emphasis on the freedom of information, but don't excuse illegal acts just because journalists seem to think they've earned the right to gossip about national secrets and report them to the public. I've never understood that notion, except for journalists arguing in their self-interest to be able to sell more product.

Jimm on December 30, 2005 at 3:36 PM:

I think the leaker is on good territory, especially when factoring in the president's diametrically opposite public statements about how all searches were "warranted".

Heh. Here's an interesting section from a 2004 speech by Dubya:

Now, by the way, 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Funny how things change in a year.

Simple answer? No.

Posted by: Stefan

Simple answer is you don't know what you are talking about!

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence. So bush has precedent and the constitution in his favor.

As far as leakers go. They have definately broken the law and should be prosecuted.

You have to love the NYT because they will print anything without any vetting or thought of the implications. It is also interesting that the story came out when the reporters book was due to hit the streets. Not when the Times was made aware of it about a year ago. Kind of tells you the importance and urgency attached to it by the Times. I love it!

Where did Jay go?

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

Most whistleblowers tend to have a parallel personal agenda. Sometimes sour grapes over losing a job, or to keep themselves out of prison, or even a profit motive in situations where the whistleblower is entitled to an award.

But it is irrelevant to the underlying issue, no? And part of the standard GOP playbook to distract by attacking the messenger.

Why does the timing stink, tbrosz?

tbrosz on December 30, 2005 at 4:08 PM:

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals. Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

And your sources of information that validate your two points are...?

tbrosz, I luv ya like my annoying alcoholic uncle, but please get your head outta your ass.

I say, great! Let's have us a big-assed investigation. Of course, it was the Justice Dept. itself which opined that there was no limitation on Presidential power. If someone is ever charged with the leak, a lot more information about the President's abuse of power will come out. Remember, just when you can't imagine the White House doing anything worse, they do. I am certain that there are alot more secrets to uncover and there's nothing like an investigation and a trial to uncover them. Plus, there's the added bonus of keeping this in the news cycle for months or even years. You know the leaker or leakers know a hell of a lot more than what they told the NY Times a year ago.

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence.

Really, name one case in which the courts decided (not issued dicta indicating, but ruled on a question before the Court) that the President had the authority to perform warrantless electronic surveillance without adhering to regulations Congress had issued expressly governing that, and in violation of a Congressional statute purporting to criminalize such behavior.

In particular, note that decisions ruling that, where Congress has not acted to regulate them, while they are perhaps interesting and of some relevance, do not speak directly to the issue at hand.

First, much of these leaks are coming from the same small group of individuals.

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy.

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

I guess I'm in the very small minority that wants the leaks investigated/prosecuted and the President's secret surveillance also investigated/prosecuted. National Security leaks have to be prosecuted, even if the leakers are exonerated by a whistleblower exception. By the same token, a President ordering surveillance on shaky legal precedent also needs to be definitively determined to either be legal or illegal by the courts.

Just as I don't think the right-wing can pre-emptively declare the President has done no wrong, I don't think that the people who believe that the leaking was proper can declare those who did the leaking to be free of blame without an investigation.

Yo Joe,

I guess I'm in the very small minority that wants the leaks investigated/prosecuted and the President's secret surveillance also investigated/prosecuted.

try actually reading the whole thread before you make comments like this. It would appear that most of the people commenting here support investigations into both.

Fat White Grub on December 30, 2005 at 4:23 PM:

Simple answer is you don't know what you are talking about!

If that statement isn't an example of Fat White Projection...

The courts have decided in the administrations favor on two seperate occasions that the president has the authority to perform this type of survielence.

I think that needs a Fat White Citation of those court cases!

So bush has precedent and the constitution in his favor.

Does he now? That's a Fat White Good Question!

As far as leakers go. They have definately broken the law and should be prosecuted.

Does that Fat White Apply to Scooter Libby, as well?

You have to love the NYT because they will print anything without any vetting or thought of the implications.

Yeah, shelving the story for a year just wasn't enough Fat White Time.

It is also interesting that the story came out when the reporters book was due to hit the streets.

It's also Fat White Interesting that the Bush administration asked the NYT to sit on the story in the Fat White First Place.

I love it!

Too bad your Fat White Inflatable Sex Doll will never Fat White Say that back to you...

Well said, Joe Yangtree.

Steve Benen wrote: But if Bush's political allies can't see the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims, there's just no hope for them.

Like Kevin Drum, Steve Benen offers the cute but fatuous conceit that Cheney's and Bush's political allies might care about right and wrong but somehow "can't see the difference". Hopefully, he really does know better, and this is just his idea of rhetorical cleverness.

Cheney's and Bush's political allies don't care about the difference between exposing official wrongdoing and exposing a CIA agent to help cover up bogus pre-war claims.

All th Cheney's and Bush's political allies care about is satiating their own insatiable greed for wealth and power, and therefore about establishing absolute rule by a bought-and-paid for authoritarian executive who will run the country on their behalf so as to increase their wealth and power, with callous disregard for the law, or for the well-being of Americans and of America as a country.

So, from their point of view a leak by one or more courageous whistleblowers about Cheney and Bush, which exposes their wrongdoing and undermines their political power -- and indeed, could lead to their impeachment and prosecution -- must be prosecuted and punished; a leak by Cheney and Bush to punish and intimidate whistleblowers who expose their wrongdoing must be covered up.

Thus, to the dumbass, scripted, programmed, neo-brownshirt Bush bootlicking mental slaves whose comments on these threads robotically regurgitate the propaganda talking points that their corporate masters spoonfeed them, Joseph Wilson is an enemy; Scooter Libby is a hero; Patrick Fitzgerald is an enemy; whatever whistleblower(s) revealed Bush's criminal abuse of power in authorizing the illegal NSA wiretaps is an enemy; and whoever leads the effort to find and punish the whistleblower(s) will be a hero.

grape_crush,

That was Fat White Hysterical. Thank you. While I'm at it, thanks to contentious for the link to the volkh thread.

"Second, that their motivation may be more about raw politics than an abstract concern about rights of privacy."

cmdicely:

So? What bearing does that have on the factual, legal, or moral issues raised by the information itself?

Since a number of people here seem to consider motivation behind leaks much more important than the legal issues, ask them.

Why should those who leaked Plame's name be hung from any higher yardarm than those who have been leaking CIA and NSA operations all over the map, unless you think that motivation trumps the legal issues?

Still waiting for the first indictment on that specific "crime," BTW.

The fact of the matter is that there is a political war going on in both the CIA and the State Department, with a lot of toes being stepped on as their leadership changes and "inside" guys are becoming "outside" guys. Much of what we are seeing now in terms of "leaks" is a result of that warfare. When names are attached to these leaks, we'll know a hell of a lot more about this than we do now.

When names are attached to these leaks, we'll know a hell of a lot more about this than we do now.

Sad to say, I don't think you will ever know more than you do right now.

someone:
"But I do want the Justice Department to do the "snoopgate" investigation."

Edo wrote:
"presumably to investigate whether the administration broke the law, not to uncover the identity of those who leaked the story, no?"

Posted by: Edo on December 30, 2005 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

It's entirely obvious to me that it was the administration who leaked this story. when someone argues against investigating it they can turn it around and say that's why they can't or shouldn't investigate the Plame leak or the NSA spying leak or any leak. It's obviously a Karl-ism tactic.

That it will always come full circle and show the administration to be full of cronies, criminals and crudballs is the funny part.

If I drive a car into a person, motivation matters. If I did it because they leaped out in front of my car in an attempted suicide, I'm guilty of nothing. If I did it because I was changing the radio and not paying attention, I am guilty of manslaughter. If I did it because I just saw my lover kissing someone else and ran one or both of them down, I am guilty of murder. If I did it because I hate my boss, I'm guilty of premeditated murder. If I did it because I was paid to, I'm guilty of the more serious murder for hire. Five different crimes for the same fundamental act.

Why remind everyone of the obvious? Because we are infested with morons like tbrosz who thinks that motivation does not trump legal issues. If you can't tell the difference, you are too stupid to vote.

If I drive a car into a person, motivation matters.

Maybe so, but you still probably have to go to court to show that motivation. With the leaks, we have the situation where there's a guy on the road with tire tracks on him, and nobody willing to say they were driving the car.

In other words, to continue your analogy, the intelligence leakers are currently in the status of hit-and-run.

Tbrosz: The timing alone stinks.

And when exactly did the leak occur tbrosz? Do you know something we don't?

This is from an earlier thread, but it's a dustup of r-ather d-ense w-ingnut and the subject's tangential to this one one, so I'm lettin' it fly.

I also give my opinions of all the NYT columnists who've been Times Select-ed out of the discourse. Enjoy ...

rdw:

> You've trashed the Times amlost

"amlost." I like that. Freudian typo? :)

> as well as I have.

I don't "trash" the NYT. Like most sensible news junkies I have sharp
criticisms of them, but I'm not out to delegitimate them whole cloth
the way you are and the way some of my leftier friends seem to be.

> Pinch is a disaster.

He certainly seems to be. I think his relationship with Judy Miller
was inappropriate (not implying anything sexual) and blinded him to
the contradiction between calling for an investigation of the Plame
affair and not allowing reporters to be be the major witnesses.

To me, that issue is cut and dried. When anonymous sources use
reporters to mislead the public, they don't deserve protection.
Whistleblowers deserve protection. Deep Throat was never
about preserving the perogatives of stenography to power.

I like Kat Kinsman's anonymous source
nickname for Karl Rove: ReachAround :)

> Daddy even had to come back and fire Raines. This
> is far more than a bad year. This has been a rotten
> century and it's not going to be better anytime soon.

Well once again, Wooten, you are indulging in the very sin you love
to bash lefties for -- taking a bad situation and squeezing it for
every last drop of partisan/ideological advantage, and in the process
discrediting your view in the eyes of less ideological observers.

The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper. Howell
Raines may have made an unforgivable mistake with Jayson Blair,
but his tenure also produced the 9/11 coverage, which was a triumph.

> I can't imagine who you deem influencial among their columnists.

Well of course not, Wooten. You're an ideologue. You hang out on
PowerLine and InstaBloviator. It doesn't matter whether or not you
agree with a columnist to call them influential. The point is, prior
to TimesDefect, the entire blogosphere buzzed with those columnists.

> Thomas L. Freidman would qualify as a 1st tier
> columnist but he's hardly influential anymore.

Because of TimesSelect.

> He also is as furious with the Dean/kerry/Murtha wing of your
> party as he is of Bush. Thomas may have influenced Clinton a
> great deal but the last camp david talks were a disaster that
> blew up in both their faces. Tom and Bill got it exactly wrong

You can't blame the guys for trying.

> The only person Thomas had any cred with in this
> administration was Colin Powell and I'd argue Colin
> used he more effectively than Freidman used Powell.

You know, Wooten, one of the most objectionable things about
you to people here is your constant evaluation of everything
in terms of who "used" whom. As if using people somehow wasn't
highly morally objectionable. It makes you come across as a
cold and unsympathetic person. The sort of guy who'd kick a dog.

Neither Powell nor Friedman "used" each other. Powell's Pottery
Barn Rule was probably the key argument that kept lefties aboard
for the occupation no matter how much they opposed the war, and
Friedman was a strong advocate for it. Problem is, that view is
beginning to fray coming into the fourth year of the occupation.

> One other thing about Thomas. He took time off to do a
> series on Globalism and espeically as regards India and
> Asia. He is in fact supportive of the tremendous progress
> GWB has been making in the region and with India specifically.

Friedman also realizes, in a way that you never do,
that globalization is supranational. Oddly enough, the
more globalization encroaches, the less relevant will
be national borders and huge chunks of foreign policy.

> The NYT's wants to make outsourcing a national scandal.

Once again, it's Wooten the Dog-Kicker. Let's say a red-state
guy (and some of those Family Values Republican Congresscritters
have a fierce protectionist streak; witness their resistance
to CAFTA) with a 10th-grade education works in a textile mill
all his life and gets cashiered at 52 with no pension, cuz his
plant moves to fill-in-the-blank. Oh, it's the global economy.

Well, okay. But there's a human story there, Wooten. A tragedy.
It might well break your heart, Wooten, if you had one to break.
And it's the business of the press to tell these human stories.

I'm not a big fan of Friedboy, btw. I think he's glib, annoyingly
rhetorical and very much in love with his own access to power, which
often causes him to completely misread the so-called "Arab street."
He's a "big picture thinker" who squeezes all his data into whatever
paradigm du jour that he's cooked up a would-be buzzword for. He's
incredibly naive about soft power and the inevitability of "progress,"
and stone-clueless about the reasons that free market capitalism is
so destructive to traditional societies. Iraq develops a version
of American Gladiator on TV, and to him that's a wonderful sign.

Because he's so fixated on soft power, he takes his eye off hard
power altogether. This opens him up to charges of grotesque
hypocrisy, of conscience-salving apologism for precisely the sorts
of authoritarianism that he's supposed to boost soft power to oppose.

> Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

No, he's not, Wooten. Give the devil his due; Tom Friedman has
never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs
of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

> When Reagan was President he felt it was important to meet
> with the editorial board and publisher of the Times fairly
> regularly. He wanted to suck-up. He thought they mattered.
> In 1981 he was correct. This ain't 1981. This ain't even 2001
> and in 2001 Bush gave then NOTHING! NADA! Cheney made it a point
> of kicking them off his plane 1st when he went to smaller planes.

Then don't be surprised when Bill Keller ok's running a story over
the fierce private objections of the Bush war cabinet in a hastily
called White House meeting. I wonder if they served them coffee.

> There are no other columnists at the Times with much of a
> National reputation save for David Brooks and he's fairly new.

The UberPutz David Brooks is my least favorite columnist of all time.
Mr. Sociology. He's trying *so hard* to do the Tom Friedman thing
and find some new trend among the upper middle class that he can give
a catchy name and write a book around. It didn't work with BoBo.
Everybody in his exurban target audience thinks that's just who they
invite to their child's sixth birthday party along with the magician.

He's like "Damn! Why couldn't *I* be the guy who named yuppies."

> Dowd and Grubman are embarrasments.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics
than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize. And
he has a critique of free market fundamentalism. Since you're a
free market fundie (who are as loathesome as any other flavor of
fundamentalist), this offends you. But you can't cogently rebut
him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Dowd is a mixed bag; definitely an acquired taste. I find myself
engaged by her wit literary allusions about two thirds of the time
(which is a fairly decent batting average, considering). The rest
she annoys me with her whiny self-absorbtion and refusal to recognize
how very rarefied is her position as femme fatale on Murderer's Row.

> Herbert and Rich went off the deep end a long time ago

What you guys consider "extreme" is pretty laughable. Bob Herbert
is an old-school civil-rightser who has no trouble taking his own
people to task on cultural issues where appropriate. Frank Rich
is an outrage groupie to be sure, but he's also a personal favorite
because he's so good at tying politics together with culture. Since
he's often a mouthpiece for gays (being a longtime NY theater critic
will do that to one), I'm sure this makes you highly uncomfortable.

> and are more valuable to the right because they are so extreme.

"Valuable," of course, the way we find HeadRush, O'Loofah and
InSannity valuable. And since their market penetration is so
much deeper, we're laughing at them along with vast segments of
the entire American public, not just right-wing blogophiles :)

> The NYTs is not done downsizing.

You have some insider information you'd like to share?

> Going to Times select was a business decision made from a
> position of weakness. It will dramatically reduce their exposure.

Sadly, Wooten, I have to agree with this. I think the WSJ got
it right: charge for their news coverage; leave their opinions
in the public domain. This is a war over the country's direction.

> The big problem is they still have serious echo
> chamber issues that come from living in a bubble.

Spoken like an ideological prisoner of the right-wing blogosphere :)

> Pinch poses a unique problem. He is a
> disaster. how do you fire the owner?

Negotiate a prisoner exchange for Rupert Murdoch :)

Bob

Sorry tbosz that wasn't an analogy. It was an example to demonstrate out that the law makes distinctions between crimes based on motive. There is no "hit and run" component here. What we have is an administration that has fairly clearly broken the law and someone who called them on it. This is clearly different from exposing a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Your previous comment wondered why this should be since (as you implied) the underlying act was the same. To any sane person those exposing official corruption are objectively good and those committing official corruption are bad. Your personal views apparently differ.

bob,

why didn't you just go into the archives and continue with the original thread? I've responded there.

Hey,

Speaking of archives, did you accept my $10,000.00 wager, rdw?

obscure,

I didn't see it.

Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about economics than you have a prayer of being able to coherently synopsize.

But you can't cogently rebut him, so you call him names and try to character assassinate.

Paul forget more economics than I ever knew but Paul left the planet some time ago. He is consumed by Bush hatred and as a political pundit is awful. He's frequently selects inacurrate data and goes to bizarre lengths to demonize what is a terrific economy. My own suspicion is that Paul is bitter at having been passed over by Clinton for a top economics post and distraught at seeing the WH in GOP hands. Today he could never pass Senate scrutiny. Any ambitions for a top economics post are history.

When the Times 1st ombudsman, Daniel Okrent 'retired' he blistered Paul for sloppy work and a refusal to acknowledge obvious errors.

I never try to rebut Krugman. But the WSJ does every day. Paul is going to have an especially hard 2006. His paper isn't doing very well but GWBs economy is. Look for even stronger jobadds heading into the election.

Who gets to decide which leaks are good and which leaks are bad.

Seems to me you have to throw them all in jail.

Freidman is on the exact opposite side.

never advocated a Social Darwinist approach to the human costs of globalization. At the end of the day, he's a liberal.

I meant to limit Toms opposition with his newspaper to the need to act in Iraq. Tom is deeply frustration the democrats have no counter-proposal for dealing with terrorism. He agrees with conservatives that this is NOT a police issue.

Tom is unabashedly liberal. I know he's a smart man but about two years ago I saw him do a series of tirades on TV in different interview because GWB after 9/11 didn't raise income taxes and gasoline taxes and start a massive energy independence program. Tom was at one point almost screaming at Tim Russert.

Did Tom really think GWB was going to use 9/11 as an opportunity to implement the liberal agenda? That's just stupid. If GWB believed any of that crap he'd be a Democrat.

I think Joe Yangtree has it almost exactly right. I would add that there are many "chutes" in the criminal justice system where a morally correct, yet criminal, action can properly leave the system. The Pentagon Papers leak is an almost exact analogue; its disposition was inventive.

The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper.

True and admirable but the prize is not what it used to be. Like the Nobel prizes it's pretty much limited to lefties. I wasn't addressing the quality of the writing but the slant of the writing and the amount of infuence.

The MSM is still very influencial. They have the biggest megaphone. But every year they're less influential than the year before.

The drop in influence is more the result of incredible sloppiness. I am still stunned Dan Rather used those obvious frauds. In 1992 and 1996 GWB would never have recovered from the TANG story. By 2000 and especially 2004 The alternative media is much quicker than the MSM and with a much, much larger research team. The Rather blogs had a team of several top of the class document experts on that story with a recommmendaion within 12 hours. The NY Times could never react so quickly.

More recently with NSA story shows how powerful the MSM megaphone is but also how powerful the alternative media is at debugging the MSM. They saved GWBs bacon and he's got a big political advantage right now. Within 12 hours of the story breaking I heard quotes from Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick and Griffin Bell supporting GWB.

The MSM now only has influence to the extent they tell the full story honestly. Dan Rather destroyed TANG with fraud. Kerry lying about Xmas in Cambodia and set up the SBVs. The MSM could not protect him. The days of a monolith are over

Who gets to decide which leaks are good and which leaks are bad.

Seems to me you have to throw them all in jail.

Only if you have the ratiocination power of a gerbil. Here are some questions to ask when trying to decide:

1) Does this leak serve those who control the government? If it does, that's a pretty good sign it isn't a whistleblower.

2) Does this leak compromise national security? If it does, then there is a criminal act - whether or not it is a whistleblower situation. Remember though, the fact that something is merely being classified does not make it national security related.

The Plame case fails both the test for whistleblowing and the test for national security. This other leak most certainly passes the first test and strongly appears to pass the second test. But a full investigation, including into the apparent criminality of the Bush administration, seems warranted.

RDW is still lying about Kerry every time he posts. This is, of course, because he is a congenital liar and has no morals. Then there is his analysis of the election that leaves out the mainstream media's cheerleading for Bush's unprovoked war, it's support for the Swift Boat Liars, and the fact that even with all the support given Bush by the mainstream media a sitting president claiming to be a “war President” was only 50k votes from a loss.

The Pulitzer and Nobel prizes are 'pretty much limited to lefties', right rdw?

Following your line of reasoning, that must mean that 'righties' aren't capable of demonstrating the same excellence of work and positive impact on society that 'lefties' do. Even when competing for awards that 'aren't what they used to be', 'righties' are losers...That is the correct conclusion according to your line of reasoning.

Speaking of archives...

grape_crush on December 28, 2005 at 7:12 PM:

Actually, Wooten, I was gonna respond to you point-by-point, but you ain't worth it, kiddo. The only thing that you have convinced me of is either that you have lied, you are lying, and you will intentionally lie again in the future.

You cite no sources for your bullshit, try to change the topic when you are called on your bullshit, and consistently show that you have no other reason to be here than to satisfy your own juvenile ego. Trying to debate you is like talking to a five-year-old with their fingers in their ears yelling "lalalalala I can't hear you".

Sorry that your Ma and Pa didn't give you the attention you so obviously crave. It's probably because you're a weak, pathetic little person.

If people like you are the future of Republican conservatism, then Republican conservatism will die a quick death due to having no ideas, no honesty, and no sense of positive ethics.

Ya got nothing but hot air, bub.

rdw - I've mentioned this before, albeit while snarking, but - believe it or not - merely repeating something doesn't make it true. Really. It doesn't matter how often, or with how much conviction you do it. Sorry.

Bob and grape_crush,

Fine work demolishing Wootthewitless.

Of course, tomorrow he will be plagerizing once again by retyping Rich Lowry and the NRO spin machine.

The days of a monolith are over

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!

Stop! rdw, that's the wrong movie!!! Please. Just remember, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home."

I want an explanation from the New York Times as to why they sat on this for over a year. I never want to hear that paper dismissed as a *liberal rag* ever again!

And Democrats still wonder why voters think the Dems are soft on national security?!?!?!

Does it ever occur to Steven Benen, or any other elitist Dem, that leaking classified information like this could (1) harm national security, (2) tip off terrorists that they need to change communication methods, and, (3) violate federal law?

If Dems don't get this, they DESERVE to keep losing elections!

Shameless hussy -

I hope I don't embarass you by saying so, but I am overjoyed to see you posting once again. We have all, including the friggin trolls, missed you. God bless, good work, most likely kill you in the morning...

best holiday wishes,

Phil

There is no "hit and run" component here. What we have is an administration that has fairly clearly broken the law and someone who called them on it. This is clearly different from exposing a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Your previous comment wondered why this should be since (as you implied) the underlying act was the same.

As yet, other than what everyone is projecting on them, you have no idea what the motives of the intelligence agency leakers are. Neither do I. An investigation, and revealing their identities, will settle whether or not they're patriots worried about privacy and the Constitution, Democrats pushing an anti-Bush agenda, or just disgruntled former employees lashing out.

If they're so damn sure they're beyond legal reproach, let them crawl out from behind the rocks.

If they're so damn sure they're beyond legal reproach, let them crawl out from behind the rocks.

Sorry Tom, I'm stuck on vacation in a melting ski resort and thus have to respond...isn't this a leetle (sic) vehement considering your previous balanced remarks? Are you betraying partisanship here? Maybe a bit?

Couldn't you at least welcome Shameless hussy back? Please.

rdw:

> why didn't you just go into the archives and continue
> with the original thread? I've responded there.

For the same reason you trash the MSM :)

Because archives have an ever-diminishing readership.

Also, because the subject of this thread is all about the
politics of the NYT leak story, and our debate is about
the influence and alleged political biases of the NYT.

Bob

Tom, I realize you are a bit slow, but try to keep up. Motive does matter in many circumstances, as I've pointed out. However, when talking about who should be prosecuted there are many considerations. This one, for example, doesn't turn on what the motive was. This action exposed, at a minimum, potential wrongdoing by the Executive branch. It also (read this part aloud slowly so you can follow it, sound it out if you need to) did not expose any actual sensitive data. How can I know this? A process called critical thinking.

If the law was already so broad that warrants could be granted retroactively then there is no sensitive information in revealing that the President had decided to do the same thing but not bother with the warrants. In other words, the only difference between what was allowed and what wasn't was that the President chose to do what wasn't. That means that even with the most base motives you can imagine (and that's what we are talking about here, motives you claim to have imagined but haven't even had the honesty to describe any could taint the leak) this still turns out to be a whistle-blower case. Read my rules again and demonstrate why they don't apply before approaching this again.

Oh, and GOPGregory, the Democrats weren't the ones who invaded a nation without first figuring out if they were a threat again. The idiots who send our soldiers to die without being sure there is a good reason are the ones whose National Security credentials are in question. Not those who suggest that the President follow the law.

rdw:

> "Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who knows more about
> economics than you have a prayer of being able to coherently
> synopsize. But you can't cogently rebut him, so you call
> him names and try to character assassinate."

> Paul forget more economics than I ever knew

No, he never "forgot" anything. He just never bought into supply-
side or the various rhetorics of neoclassical economics that try
to pretend that economics isn't at the end of the day about how
society chooses to allocate resources and thus about politics.

> but Paul left the planet some time ago.

Certainly he's not on the spaceship with all your friends that
mistakes the blogosphere for an atmosphere that can support life :)

> He is consumed by Bush hatred

Paul Krugman is an advocate for people who work for a living. Thus,
he's sharply critical of Bush policies which are skewed to people
wbo depend more investment incomes than they do on a paycheck.

It's far more accurate to say that the people with a vested interest
in perpetuating the illusion that Bush's policies favor working people
are consumed with literal as opposed to metaphoric Krugman hatred,
which is why he has an intern scan his mail to delete death threats.

Nice to accuse a guy of Bush hatred who deals with death threats
on a daily basis from people who accuse him of Bush hatred.
Freud identified this. It's called projective identification.

God forbid that these honest people who work hard and play
by the rules -- many of them red staters -- ever wake up
from the propaganda. This thought terrifies the ideological
GOP, so they go the extra mile to try to discredit a guy
with the data to back up his arguments like Krugman.

> and as a political pundit is awful.

I wouldn't say that. Many people are quite thankful to
Krugman's punditry on Bush's Social Security "reform" and credit
him for creating the climate that helped kill the proposal.

> He's frequently selects inacurrate data

Always nice to hear about inaccuracies from a guy who
misspells inaccurate. Did you eat out your English
teacher for a passing grade, too? :) In truth, Krugman
does a fantastic job of debunking cherry-picked stats and
out-of-context analysis put forth by ideological outfits
that pretend to objectivity like Citizens For Tax Justice.

How dare he not take CTJ at face value :)

> and goes to bizarre lengths to demonize what is a terrific economy.

You know, Wooten, I really shouldn't set forth what's going to be
an ad-hominem argument, but I can't help it. Besides, my Dad grew
up and escaped from the same row house West Philly neighborhoods
that you did, (one grade behind the late Cardinal John O'Connor
at West Catholic High), so this is like taking on a homeboy.

After enlisting in the Air Force (staff seargent, signal
intelligence) to avoid ground combat in Korea, my Dad made a
career in medical advertising and was fortunate enough to be at the
agency that landed the Valium account. He never became wealthy-
wealthy, but he made it into the very top tier of the upper-middle-
class, his salary over a million dollars in the last year before
retiring from the ad agency he founded and partnered. The
salary doesn't mean huge amounts when you move around in sections
of Greenwich, CT, one of the wealthiest towns in the nation.

He did this without a college education. And he did this
without becoming a goddamned conservative Republican, either.

In fact, his politics went in the opposite direction. He married
a girl from a Main Line Philly suburb, who until her dying day
was rock-ribbed GOP, much to the chagrin of our family who had
to listen to the political arguments (she died of alcoholism;
her whole life is in fact a sad testimony to the delusions of
her political orientation and the thinly-disguised father-worship
it was underneath). I forget if my Dad voted for Nixon; he may
have voted for Kennedy out of ethnic pride. But he campaigned
for Goldwater; he couldn't stand LBJ. I still remember
the stacks of National Reviews that sat on our bookshelf.

But then a funny thing happened, Wooten. America began to change.
Vietnam unravelled (didn't hurt that it happened on LBJ's watch).
And then -- good grief -- Watergate. My Dad's politics reverted
to the New Deal of his youth, and now he's more left-wing than I
am :) He marched in the pouring rain against the first Gulf war.

And now ... here you sit, Wooten. You've retired from ... what?
Verizon? And you're not wealthy, either, but you probably have a
nice pension or a couple good investment portfolios. Though you're
about 20 years younger, you survey essentially the same social
landscape as my father, with some similar formative experiences.
You both survey the sad, blighted terrain of your old nabe (sadly
much of it now a slum) and gaze at the people less fortunate than
yourselves, yes, some on barstools, the ones who never made it out.

My father feels sympathy for these people. You feel contempt.

And that's the difference between people like Paul Krugman and my
father, and people like you, Wooten. They're capable of empathy.
They're capable of realizing the role of capriciousness in a life's
fortune. My dad wasn't any silver spoon kid; quite to the contrary,
he knew childhood days without meals in Depression Philly. But he
doesn't pretend he pulled himself up by his goddamned bootstraps.
He had help; he found a good mentor in the ad agency he worked in
as a copy boy in highshool, and had the immense good luck of getting
in on the ground floor of an emerging industry that made a fortune.

You look around and see the working class guys in late middle age,
too old to retrain in a new industry, unhireable at their current
wages, healthcare hanging by a thread, wages stagnant while inflation
starts creeping up, one medical catastrophe away from bankruptcy
and losing their houses they've almost finished paying the mortgage
on -- and think well, tough on them. The economy's is going great!

Forgive Paul Krugman and my father for appreciating a
different reality than yours. Forgive them for not
mistaking your reality for, you know, reality itself.

> My own suspicion is that Paul is bitter at having been passed
> over by Clinton for a top economics post and distraught at
> seeing the WH in GOP hands. Today he could never pass Senate
> scrutiny. Any ambitions for a top economics post are history.

And of course, because you can get absolutely no wood
on Krugman substantively, you make up out of whole cloth
some absurd ad-hominem speculation to "explain" him.

When you can't win on the issues, personally attack.

> When the Times 1st ombudsman, Daniel Okrent 'retired' he blistered
> Paul for sloppy work and a refusal to acknowledge obvious errors.

That happened when they introduced TimesSelect, so I missed it.
I don't read the NYT columnists now as a matter of principle.

> I never try to rebut Krugman.

Gee, I wonder why :)

> But the WSJ does every day.

Of course the WSJ rebuts Krugman every day. The WSJ
editorial page is the Bible of free-market fundamentalism.

Every fundamentalist needs a Bible, right? :)

> Paul is going to have an especially hard 2006.

Truth-tellers never have hard years.

> His paper isn't doing very well

No privately-owned newspaper is doing well right now.

> but GWBs economy is.

Only to people who refuse to see beyond their own navels.

> Look for even stronger jobadds heading into the election.

With the help of analysts in the Paul Krugman mold, I'll keep my
eyes peeled for the propaganda posing as objective reporting :)

Bob

WHAT BILGE,

IF A CIA UNDERCOVER AGENT WAS OUTED, FITZGERALD WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BY LAW TO BRING CHARGES AS A SWORN FEDERAL PROSECTOR...HE HAS NOT BROUGHT SUCH A CHARGE.

Is Fitzgerald covering up, NO...the leftist claim that an undercover agent was outed is a COMPLETE LIE, just like they lied about WMD for ten years.

Bushs intelligence program is completely legal and Constitutional, proclaimed so by every President, Congress and Court since FISA was passed during the Carter Regime.

Again, the left push another big lie.

RDW is still lying about Kerry every time he posts.

I said JFK lied about Xmas in Cabodia. His 'searing' moment. His own biographer, Douglas Brinkley, agrees with me and JFKs own website printed a retraction of JFKs version.

and the fact that even with all the support given Bush by the mainstream media a sitting president claiming to be a “war President” was only 50k votes from a loss.

Actually I think it was closer to 60K votes in Ohio but don't lose sight of the fact a couple/few states that went blue were even closer. I point this out to help you see how the GOP does it. Howard Dean tours the country mugging for every camera and screamnig about the injustice of it all sticking his foot down his throat every 2 weeks. You'd never know it but Ken mehlmen is on the road just as much. Except h's not looking for cameras or to get on Meet the Press. He's looking for candidates and voters.

It's quite true Howard is far, far more popular with Tim Russert and every or host of any show in America. Neither Tim nor Howard know what Howard is going to say next. Meanwhile Mehlmen has made over a dozen trips to PA strenously courting the Black and Jewish vote speaking to specific groups touting charter schools, vouchers, faith based charities, etc. Lynn Swann has agreed to run for governor and will give Ed Rendell the toughest fight of his life. Even if he loses Lynn will be the front-runner for the 2010 Governors and Senate races and be the head of the PA GOP for the 2008 elections. Ken also convinced 33-yr old Otto Banks, largest vote getter on the Harrisburg City Council, to switch parties. Here's what Donna Brazile had to say"

Donna Brazile was warning fellow Democrats Mr. Mehlman's campaign to court black voters "should be cause for alarm" in the party. But last week, after hearing of Mr. Mehlman's fund-raiser for Mr. Banks, she said the erosion in the party's black base was worsening. "I thought that by now Ken would run out of gas [with his black outreach efforts], but it's clear to me that he is serious. He is trying to convert elected officials.
"This is another sign that Republicans this time around will not ignore the African-American community," she told me.
When I put in a call last week to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party to get some reaction about all this, a party official asked me, "Why are you spending time on a city councilman's race?"

The answer to the question is this city councilmen is very ambitious and so is Ken Mehlmen. Ken has been to several fund raisers in PA for Otto and others. They need an ATM machine. We need their votes and we agree on vouchers, charters schools, faith nased charities, low taxes, etc.

Did you now PA was decided by less than 140K votes. Did you know if the GOP changes 70K votes they win PA? The GOP obviously does.

There Tbrosz goes again. (Sheez, the guy makes so many boneheaded statements the Tbrosz Watch could turn into lifetime employment!)

Without producing any evidence, Tbrosz advances a hackneyed theory behind the leaks: nothing more than the parry and thrust of bureaucratic warfare within the administration. That's impressive. Hadn't occurred to me.

Note Tbrosz rhetorical technique #3 [for background on #1 and #2 see yesterday's thread about missing high explosives in Iraq]:

when the news is bad for Bush, well, we'll just need to wait until an investigation is complete (led presumably by the indefatigable and honorable Senator Javert, I mean, Roberts).

Tbrosz: "When names are attached to these leaks, we'll know a hell of a lot more about this than we do now."

This from the guy who just yesterday was willing to take Larry DiRita's word for it that 377 tons of missing high explosives was a non-story.

When the news is bad for Bush, any trumped up factoid will do. When the story goes the other way, well, the jury is still out. "Just a theory".

Sounds as if Tbrosz learned his science at the Discovery Institute!

Whereupon we encounter Tbrosz rhetorical technique #4: the implication that once all the facts come out you liberals will be sorry. I seem to recall that was his constant line about Fitzgerald. Oh yes, Tbrosz was right about that: Libby was charged ONLY with perjury and obstruction, not for the SPECIFIC act of leaking Plame's name.

Once we clear away Tbrosz' rhetorical brush, where are we? Sorry, Heavy, I'm going to have to disagree with you, though you've done an honorable job of criticizing T-Twit. When it comes to figuring out leaks, motivation is unimportant. Was Deep Throat honorable, or was he pissed off because Nixon passed him over for Hoover's position? Doesn't matter. The key point is Deep Throat leaked evidence about crimes. Not just crime, but high crimes and misdemeanors. The recent effort by Buchanan, Liddy, Colson, et al. to attack his character were so many smokescreens to distract from the main issue: their boss and most of them (with the exception of Buchanan) committed crimes, and these crimes included perjury and obstruction of justice to make a full investigation of their crimes impossible. (Recall Fitzgerald's story of throwing sand in the umpire's eyes - seems like a time-tested Republican play).

By contrast, Libby and probably Rove, and possibly others leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent. The leak didn't REVEAL criminal behavior - it WAS the criminal behavior: a crass, Rovian attempt to discredit a critic of administration policy. If Wilson was so wrong the Bushies scarcely needed to skulk around behind the scenes with journalists to "knock down the story." They could have come out of the shadows and destroyed his argument on the merits in the light of day.

Arising from his skulking, Libby has been charged with crimes - called perjury and obstruction of justice - for the leak. I recall back in the day these were substantial enough crimes to impeach a President. And there is at least a possibily - unless Tbrosz knows the mind of the prosecutor and Grand Jury - that more individuals and further crimes will be charged. (Remember the Republican talking point - now rendered inoperative - that Rove had dodged a bullet, that the Grand Jury was going away, etc., etc.?)

In this instance, we will well and truly see what's what when the investigation is complete. I for one, rest more comfortably knowing it is being conducted by Pat Fitzgerald and not by Pat Roberts.

As for the leakers of recent NSA and CIA misdeeds, whatever the leakers' motivations may have been, the leaks have uncovered what appear to be substantial violations of US law and international treaties. Have the CIA and NSA leakers violated the law? Quite possibly, and if they are discovered they will have to face the music. Being grown up boys and girls, I'm sure they knew this before they leaked.

Is there a different moral standard attached to these actions? Of course. And the motivation of the leaker has nothing to do with it. Leaking information to reveal possible governmental criminal behavior is honorable. Leaking information of no other value than to discredit a political opponent (while simultaneously outing an intelligence operative and her networks involved in the WMD fight) is dishonorable.

The latter leaker deserves to be hung from the higest yardarm; the former will take his or her legal licks, but deserves praise for revealing criminal behavior.

bob,

Nice story about your Dad. My family went to either West Catholic Girls or St Thomas More. St Tommies was the smallest high school in the city created only to relieve the over-crowding at West Catholic. Tell you father West Catholic is doing extremely well despite the fact the area is no longer catholic. This is largely because of a very active alumni association which had provided significant funds for one of the best computer labs in the city as well as upgraded facilities. He probably will not be happy to know the Boys school was merged into the girls school using the girls school as the main 'campus'. The alumni is building an endowment to help sustain enrollment and has been fairly successful in growing it every year.
If Catholic education is to be sustained in the city they will need this support.

If your father is interested they hold reunions every year and get very large crowds.

rdw:

> I meant to limit Toms opposition with his newspaper to the
> need to act in Iraq. Tom is deeply frustration the democrats
> have no counter-proposal for dealing with terrorism. He
> agrees with conservatives that this is NOT a police issue.

Well Tom Friedman is wrong and George Bush is wrong and a lot of
the CW on this is wrong. This is a tough pill for many to swallow,
because it implies that bringing democracy to a region is not going
to ameliorate the problems that we're bringing democracy to a region
to fix. Face value, it looks like retreat-and-defeat, reflexive
Bush-hatred, a lack of faith in Americanism and even a nasty racist
underlying conviction that little brown Arabs can't become civilized.

Oh how you love the politics of this, Wooten. You're convinced
that this is a GOP winning issue in the short term, and this is
the level you'd like to keep the analysis on. It's going to be
very frustrating debating this with you, because you're going to
continue to try to change the subject when I think we should be
talking about the long term and some of the cultural processes
going on. Mature democracies are stable and peaceful. Emerging
democracies are unstable and violent until they become mature.

There is a tremendous irony to which hawks, neolib or neocon,
are stone blind. Let's say that GWB succeeds beyond his wildest
dreams and fosters a stabilizing, federated Iraq that enshrines
pluralism and democratic tolerance -- all driven, of course,
by a free-market economy that promises to make many Iraqis rich
like Americans and gives rise to a thriving consumer culture.

Terrific, right? Who could oppose these goals if they're an
expression of Iraqi self-determination? They spell an end to
enslavement. They foster human rights and cultural development.
On one level, I wish very much indeed Iraq could turn out this way.

But If the goal of the GWOT is to suppress Islamic radicalism,
this is absolutely the worst outcome anyone could wish for. If
Iraq truly does take meaningful steps in this direction, then
we had better damn well follow the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission and beef the hell out of our border and port security.

During Gulf War I, I was working at a bookstore and I bought every
volume I could get my hands on that pertained to the Mideast. Then
during the buildup to the current war, I read my eyeballs bloodshot
with every primary-source textfile on Islamism that was linked. I'm
no schooled expert, but it's safe to say that I know one helluva lot
more about the region than either you or George Bush. Tom Friedman
isn't ignorant about the region by a long shot, but he's Jewish and
pro-Israel, and this produces a cognitive dissonance that, filtered
through his liberal universalism, leads to intellectual dishonesty.

Friedman can't come right out and say that the Israeli culture
established by highly educated Western European Jews is objectively
superior to the Arab culture that had existed for over a millienium
in Palestine. So he creates a universalist argument that says
that all cultures essentially follow the same line of development,
and ergo, if Palestinians were blessed with the same material
and educational advantages as Israelis, they'd live the same way,
support democracy and consumerism, and everybody would live in peace.
Suicide bombers are the result of a culture of hopelessness that can
be fixed with hope spread through material and political progress.

Obviously Arabs aren't an "inferior race" (far from it!) and they
do as well on every level as any Western transplants. Palestinians
in their dispora, "the Jews of the Arab world," are expecially
well-educated, democratic and economically successful, and they
may well hold the key eventually to a successful Palestinian state.

But culture -- especially religious culture -- is a very powerful
thing that often trumps both politics and economics. The problem
with the hawks neolib and neocon, is they keep coming back to the
touchstone of the West's triumph over Communism. All we need to
do is show the people what a bankrupt ideology radical Islamism is,
and they'll reject it the way they ultimately rejected Communism.

Radical Islamism only looks like an alternative social system. At
root, it isn't; it's a religious ideology. And like all religious
ideologies (including our own flavor of Christian fundamentalism)
it is a critique of godlessness. Making societies more wealthy,
democratic and culturally tolerant doesn't quell this critique; it
intensifies it. The decadent consumerist lifestyles of the Saudi
princes is precisely what spurs al Qaeda to attack Saudi Arabia --
which otherwise practices an austere, doctrinally pure flavor of
Islam. The biggest threat we face from radical Islamism doesn't
come at the moment from the Mideast -- it comes from the separatist
Muslim communities in Western Europe. And while Bush talks a good
game about bringing democracy to the Mideast, he practices the coldest
Realpolitik in Uzbekistan -- one of the most egregious human rights
violators extant -- because of its ability to crack Islamist heads.

So go ahead and transform Iraq into a democracy -- if it can be done
in less than a generation, which is highly doubtful. But go ahead
and try anyway. Human rights are important. Just don't expect it
to do anything but make the GWOT that much harder to prosecute where
it really counts to prevent attacks -- with sound law enforcement.
All a prospering, democratizing consumerist Iraq will do to the
Islamists is make them hate it for falling away from true Islam -- and
us all the more for foisting our culture into the heart of their land.
And since democracy and human rights prevents us from cracking heads
the way Saddam did -- expect Islamist warfare launched against us.

> Tom is unabashedly liberal. I know he's a smart man but about
> two years ago I saw him do a series of tirades on TV in different
> interview because GWB after 9/11 didn't raise income taxes and
> gasoline taxes and start a massive energy independence program.
> Tom was at one point almost screaming at Tim Russert.

Good for Tom. This is one set of points with which I agree with him
strongly. If we're going to have a war, we need to make sacrifices.
Forget your supply-side dogma for a moment; consider the psychological
effect of shared sacrifice. It means the whole country would have a
stake in the outcome. And as far as energy independence goes -- hey,
we landed a man on the moon in 10 years. Why the hell not inspire,
goad, encourage, tax-incentivize, our energy industries to get on the
stick about that, eh? What, you think America isn't *capable* of it?

> Did Tom really think GWB was going to use 9/11 as an
> opportunity to implement the liberal agenda? That's just
> stupid. If GWB believed any of that crap he'd be a Democrat.

As opposed to a "compassionate conservative." :)

Bob

They're literally now trying to make it a crime to criticize the President.

And as that post points out, there is a law which PROHIBITS exactly what Bush did here -- classifying information to conceal government law-breaking:

Section 1.8 of the still binding 1995 Executive Order governing the classification process specifically prohibits classifying information in order to conceal governmental wrongdoing:

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

Trying to criminalize criticism of Bush is the most dangerous abuse yet!!

My father feels sympathy for these people. You feel contempt.

I don't feel contempt. I'm still in contact with many of my bar stool friends and most of them are doing fine. A surprising number ended up at the Post Office and all of them found work. It's not hard the figure out. The guys who spent 6 nights a week at the bar have been generally much less successful than the guys spending 1 night a week. They know it.

I feel contempt for the guys who spend 6 nights a week at the bar and are less successful who then blame everyone else because they are less successful. They are less successful financially because they deserve to be less successful. They earned their status.

I do feel sorry of the middle aged and older guys who see their jobs disappear and are unprepared. It's a daunting task to retrain. I feel especially bad for those in small towns where the opportunities are more limited. However we do have a responsibility to keep our eyes and options open. We are at full employment and the economy since the 1981 tax cuts has been amazing. It's hard to retrain but it can be done. There are plenty of good jobs out there.

Tracy,

Obviously GWB is raising the stakes. The GOP wants this to go to the courts. They are doing everything short of begging. The NYTs cannot claim any whistle-blowing activity here unless there was actual law-breaking being uncovered. There is no one the Bush Administration would prefer to meet in court against than the NYTs.

GWB gets to affirm Presidential powers, a historic acheivement and reversal of the Clinton legacy.

GWB gets to throw a couple/few NYTs reporters in jail, possibly for an extensive period of time.

GWB gets to spent a great deal of the NYTs money.

GWB gets to remind voters he's dedicated to stopping the terrorists from harming Americans and remind those same voters Liberals are dedicating to expanding and protecting terrorist rights.

This is history unraveling in front of us. The Bush administration wants this fight. The NYTs can't possibly back down now. Their reporters are clearly under investigation and thanks to the recent Supreme Court loses the NYTs has suffered these reporters are either going to name their sources OR they are going to jail. There is no 3rd option.

Given GWBs record in choosing legal representation and his Supreme Court results versus the record of the NYTs in the same regard I'm going to place my bets on George. There's probably even money on the likelihood Pinch will need to engineer another downsizing just to pay lawyers.

BTW: A few hundred liberals running around with their hair on fire screaming 'impeachment' is not proof of lawbreaking. I undertand that in your opinion, and Kevins, and Stevens and everyone on this post GWB absolutely broke the law but unfortunately that won't do either. Not even a stern editorial from the paper of record will suffice. We're going to need a conviction affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Best of luck.

If we're going to have a war, we need to make sacrifices.

So who is stopping you from making sacrifices?

Are you suggesting 'forced' shared sacrifices? If it's forced is it really a true sacrifice? NO!!! It's a policy decision and a stupid one. Thomas L. can remain pissed GWB and the GOP don't read his nonsense. Allow me pass on a secret. GWB is a CONSERVATIVE. He didn't run for President to implement the liberal agenda. Here's another factoid: If you are for it we are against it.

If you are incapable of making a sacrifice without the government forcing you to do so your are truly a pitiful individual.

Forget your supply-side dogma for a moment; consider the psychological effect of shared sacrifice. It means the whole country would have a stake in the outcome.

Fortunately conservatives are in charge and they're not so shallow. How can anyone be aware of the fatalities and hardships in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere possibly think all of America doesn't have a stake in the outcome?

Also, the psychological effect of stupid shared sacrific is we'll all feel stupid. And with the economic damage of tax cuts we'll get to feel stupid and poorer at the same time.

The Pulitzer and Nobel prizes are 'pretty much limited to lefties', right rdw?

Following your line of reasoning, that must mean that 'righties' aren't capable of demonstrating the same excellence of work and positive impact on society that 'lefties' do. Even when competing for awards that 'aren't what they used to be', 'righties' are losers...That is the correct conclusion according to your line of reasoning.

That's not my line of reasoning at all. Allow me to demonstrate influence:

1992 Senate Dems 57 House Dems 265
2005 Senate Dems 44 House Dems 202

You will recall the DNC leaderships recent lament they needed a liberal talk radio network and liberal think tanks and help in getting the nessage out because people just aren't realizing the obvious truth of the moral and intellectual sueriority of liberals.

It used to be a George Will or Charles Krautenhammer had a decent reading/listening audience but it was pretty much and just them representing the conservative view. today there are 3 full time conservative talk radio networks all dominating Air America as well as vastly increased circulation numbers for a much larger number of conservative writers thanks to more conservative papers such as the Washington times and others via sindication, FoxNews, radio nd book sales.

I would never have heard of Krautenhammer, Fred Barnes or Bill Sammons and others without Foxnews. These guys do radio interviews and book sales and can match Thomas L. Freidman easily in terms of influence. If you look at the bestseller lists the last ten years conservatives outnumber liberals.

The end result of this is the Pulitzer, like the Nobel Prize, has lost some of it's luster. The awards to plagerizers hasn't helped either. It hasn't become the Nobel Peace Prize which is now a joke but it's not what it used to be either.

Paul is going to have an especially hard 2006.

Truth-tellers never have hard years.

Paul has vry hard years. We just saw a series of polls showing the relative pessimism of liberals versus conservatives. Paul is in agony every day. He can't believe GWB is in power. Everytime the liberal base gets it's hair on fire over a NSA type story he thinks, "We got the bastard now!"

A few days later it's the depths of depression again. My guess is when he saw the Rasmussen poll he wept.

Smarter people than me have made this analogy but it's spot on with Paul. Paul is Charlie Brown. Karl Rove is Lucy. The NSA story is the football.

Paul is a strange bird. His task is to keep on 'proving' this economy sucks. We'll have averaged just under 200K monthly job adds in 2005 and will head into November averaging near 225K for 2006. He's got a real challenge.

BTW: saw a terrific poll on MSNBC regarding congressional corruption. This is where the DNC s/b focused. 7% think the Dems are to blame. 12% think the GOP is to blame. 79% thinks blame s/b shared equally. This is a bigger disaster than the Rasmussen poll. Despite the constant news on Tom Delay and this clown from CA guilty of corruption the DNC has nothing to show for all of the bad news and Delay will win easily in court.

rdw, if you had even the slightest bit of honor you would stop sliming Kerry. There's nothing you've said about him that is even vaguely true. As to your electoral analysis, once more you ignore the fundamentals. Bush got the number of votes he did because the media gave him a pass on his war of aggression (among other things – including the fact that no one can verify that he deserved his honorable discharge). The combined results of the “War President” effect, the incumbent effect, and the repetition of smears like yours against the major candidate who clearly served our national honorably were dispositive. That's the reality.

While it takes a while, there is some evidence that America is waking up to the fact that George W. Bush's administration has a terrible record on national security. After all, the largest terrorist attack on our soil happened on his watch. The failure to capture the perpetrator of that attack happened on his first administration. The invasion of a nation that was objectively not a threat happened on his watch. Frankly, that you still support Bush and the Republicans demonstrates that you are unserious about national security too and your support for putting the payment for this diversion of resources from national security on the national credit card demonstrates that you are also fiscally irresponsible.

Looking at your output I realize you are both drunk and stupid and continuing a watch on you would be pointless. Everyone else here can see both of those things and no one is fooled. You might consider thinking, it will change your life.

rdw:

> "Forget your supply-side dogma for a moment; consider the
> psychological effect of shared sacrifice. It means the
> whole country would have a stake in the outcome.

> Fortunately conservatives are in charge

Well, since you said "tax cuts" below when in context you
meant tax increases, I'll just assume this is another brainfart
and you meant to say unfortunately. And I agree with you :)

> and they're not so shallow.

*snicker* ... *guffaw* ... *chortle* ... *giggle* ... Oh yeah, rdw.
Right-wing punditry is celebrated universally for its ... *snicker*
... depth of analysis. Especially the sober commentary on Fox News.

Why, the irony of the right-wing's overt reputation for belligerent
anti-intellectualism is veritably ... postmodern in its subtlety :)

> How can anyone be aware of the fatalities and hardships
> in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere possibly think all
> of America doesn't have a stake in the outcome?

Uh, ask the American public. Over half of them think the war's a
mistake. The commentariat and politicians who supporrt the war have
virtually no skin in the game (no draft, no kids of their own on the
front lines). And the corporations who keep getting tax cuts don't
give a shit one way or another, providing they're all making profits.

Except of course, defense contractors and Halliburton. They care
*very deeply* about the war effort. Such shining patriotism ...

> Also, the psychological effect of stupid
> shared sacrific is we'll all feel stupid.

Right, like during WW2. How stupid we all felt then when the evil
FDR ran the economy like a veritable Leninist (Keynesian, same diff),
with rationing, wage and price controls, planning for heavy industry
and substantial tax increases. It's a wonder we ever won the war.

> And with the economic damage of tax cuts we'll
> get to feel stupid and poorer at the same time.

Hey, don't blame me -- I voted for Gore and Kerry :)

Bob

Hey, don't blame me -- I voted for Gore and Kerry :)

I promise, I won't blame you. You are the definition of inconsequential. Liberals are having zero impact.

I can't refute all of that old liberal nonsense. Even if I had a thousand hours to waste I'd not waste it on that. The ladies in your family can keep their stockings. This isn't 1945. It's not WWII, Vietnam or Watergate. It's 2005 and we just had our fastest 4 year increase in productivity in decades and saw tax revenues surge over 15% thanks to amazing economic growth.

Please, Please, Please campaign on tax increases. I beg of you. Rationing would be even better. We now have 44% of families making over $75k and another 35% expecting there get there. I am sure they're rather give their hard earned dollars so you can give them to the UN or some other group to piss away.

I just can't say please enough. I am not sure which story I like better, Walter Mondale or Bill Clinton. Slick Willie promised middle class tax cuts and then raised them. He didn't pay but your party sure did.

if you had even the slightest bit of honor you would stop sliming Kerry.

I have only discussd Xmas in Cambodia and I am absolutely correct. He's the one who made his Vietnam experience a campaign issue and he's the one who said the memory of Cambodia that Xmas Eve was seared in him.

He may or may not have ever been in Cambidia and he deserves credit for his service. But that story, as he told it, was a frabication.

rdw:

> "The NYT has won more Pulitzers than any other newspaper."

> True and admirable but the prize is not what it used to be.

Don't tell me about the Pu; I'm a literature guy. To this day
my favorite novel, Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow," was
nominated unanimously in 1975 for a Pulitzer by the judges;
the steering committee vetoed it for being "turgid ...
overwritten ... unreadable ... obscene." My kinda book :)

The Pu has always sucked as a literary prize. The
National Book Award, the Howells Medal, the Nobel all
have higher stature among folks who care about literature.

For journalism, though, the Pu is held in much higher esteem.

> Like the Nobel prizes it's pretty much limited to lefties.

Which is just another way of saying that righties are anti-
intellectual morons who can't win cred from the intelligensia.

Why are you even *pretending* that this matters to you? You fucking
hate intellectuals. You despise the life of the mind. You not
only think the unexamined life is worth living -- you live it daily.

I mean, when you make your living pissing on eggheads -- what do you
expect? That sociologists are going to kiss you on public streets? :)

> I wasn't addressing the quality of the writing but
> the slant of the writing and the amount of infuence.

Quality of writing is irrelevant in journalism, where the writing
is raked over by editors to conform to standards and the goal is
workmanlike prose. They don't give Pu's for reporting because the
writing's good. They give them because of the importance of the
story, the quality of the research, the depth of the quotes, etc.

Maureen Dowd won her Pu because of her prose style. That's
different. Opinion journalism is an entirely different ballgame.

> The MSM is still very influencial. They have the biggest megaphone.
> But every year they're less influential than the year before.

But there's a law of diminishing returns here. There's an
iron limit to how much time people can spend on computers
blogging and an iron limit on how many people will turn
to blogging to get their news. We're not there yet, but
expect the rate of annual hit increases to start declining.
Same thing that happened to the PC market in the late 90s.

There's also an iron limit to how to the dispensibility of the
MSM because the most important thing that the MSM does -- reporting
-- can't be duplicated by bloggers. The influence of the MSM
commentariat is on the wane and doubtless won't recover; that's
only because *everybody's* a commentator now (even yours truly)
and it's certainly a wash whether right or left wing blogging's
ascendent. One thing fortunately can't happen in this new medium;
you can't have a biased cretin like Murdoch sticking his greasy
thumb on the scales the way he can with TV and print journalism.

> The drop in influence is more the result of incredible
> sloppiness. I am still stunned Dan Rather used those
> obvious frauds. In 1992 and 1996 GWB would never have
> recovered from the TANG story. By 2000 and especially
> 2004 The alternative media is much quicker than the
> MSM and with a much, much larger research team.

Oh please, believe what you want to believe. As far as
I'm concerned the jury's still out on that story. Whether
or not somebody re-typed the memo on a word processor
doesn't address whether the content was accurate.

And I am *terribly* uninterested in rehashing it, thanks.

> The Rather blogs had a team of several top of the class
> document experts on that story with a recommmendaion
> within 12 hours. The NY Times could never react so quickly.

Talk about self-aggrandizing claptrap. "Top of the class
document experts" -- certified by whom? At least the MSM
has to submit to the discipline of the marketplace at the end
of the day. You guys can just blow your own horns from now
until doomsday and nobody's out there to hold you accountable.

Sure you can be quicker -- there are no fact-checkers in the
blogosphere. You're not held accountable for spewing BS.

> More recently with NSA story shows how powerful the MSM
> megaphone is but also how powerful the alternative media
> is at debugging the MSM. They saved GWBs bacon and he's
> got a big political advantage right now. Within 12 hours
> of the story breaking I heard quotes from Jimmy Carter,
> Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick and Griffin Bell supporting GWB.

That wasn't the NYT's fault; that's because the secondary reporting
by the electronic media -- same thing happened with Murtha's press
conference -- vastly oversimplified the story and let implications
hang in the air that disturbed the public, who needed to be assured.

But it's *not* about whether the president has the right to keep
people safe from attacks. It's *not* about whether or not it's
appropriate to eavesdrop on *terrorist suspects* without a warrant.

It's about whether or not a TIA-style data mining operation that no
doubt scans my three-times-a-week international phone calls might
become much bigger and more entrenched than we think it is at the
moment. Already the NSA admitted that some of those calls were
entirely domestic. And they admitted data mining -- which sort of
renders the question of warrants moot. This is a slippery slope,
Wooten. Maybe not impeachable -- yet -- but this is not over.

Bob

Bob,

We all have a stake in success in Iraq. It does not matter if we agree with the policy, or nor, or wear a uniform, or not.

SYNTAX ERROR:

"There's also an iron limit to the dispensibility of the MSM," it should have read.

Bob

The Rather blogs had a team of several top of the class document experts on that story with a recommmendaion within 12 hours. The NY Times could never react so quickly.

Talk about self-aggrandizing claptrap. "Top of the class document experts" -- certified by whom? At least the MSM has to submit to the discipline of the marketplace at the end
of the day. You guys can just blow your own horns from now until doomsday and nobody's out there to hold you accountable.

Sure you can be quicker -- there are no fact-checkers in the blogosphere. You're not held accountable for spewing BS.

Do you ever have this backwards! if you are really interested abot who broke Rathers back do a search in the Powerline archives. I have no idea. The one gent was the guy who wrote the font software for wordperfect in the 70's. He knew immediately it almost certainly was produced by a word procesor and I think he knew in 3 minutes. What he did not know was if IBM by that time had the font used for the document available and that was only one of 7 or 8 reasons he was certain it was a fraud. If I remember correctly this gent knew the guys from IBM who designed the IBM selectric's in the 70's. It's not that large a world and these people know each other.

Powerline is run by 3 lawyers. Obviously they know of documentation experts. It was nothing for one of them to shoot an email to a contact and ask for a quick opinion.

It's really a fascinating story I'd recommend for everyone interested in understanding the power of the internet.

As it turns out we now know the 3 experts hired by CBS never authenticated the documents anyway by the fact is they were 2nd rate compared to those who 1st pronounced the frauds as frauds.

One of the other cool aspects of the blogs is the strong accountability. If powerline puts any garbage out it's discovered almost immediately. To their credit they correct, apologize and lay the entire story out immediately and do it at the top of the page. The same holds true for all of the good blogs, right or left.

Newspapers all but refuse to print corrections and when they do it's buried on page A23. That in itself is a fraud.

There are exceptions and allow me to give the Philly daily news credit. I wish I could remember the exact story but one of their columnists printed a story on Bush using info from the NYT's that proves to be false. He was a page 5 guy (John Baer I thnik). The Daily News forced him to write an entirely new column in the same space devoted to a correction. Not a footnote at the bottom of the page, a full column on the same page as the original article.

Now that's well done. John boy is a lot more careful using the NYT's!

Oh please, believe what you want to believe. As far as I'm concerned the jury's still out on that story. Whether or not somebody re-typed the memo on a word processor doesn't address whether the content was accurate.

The jury is not out. Dan Rather is toast. His name is synomous with fraud and stupidity. That thing was less than 1/2 step above a crayon copy.

The problem with running that story is it's pure gossip. CBS had no business promoting gossip. If one is going to slime someone there has to be a high burden of proof and especially a sitting President and especially any candidate in an election.

As far as I am concerned Rather would have been sleezy even if the story was about you or me. A reporter at any level has to have the common decency to reports facts as facts and not gossip as facts.

The story died because there's not a single fact to suport it.

Which is just another way of saying that righties are anti-intellectual morons who can't win cred from the intelligensia.

Why are you even *pretending* that this matters to you? You fucking hate intellectuals. You despise the life of the mind. You not only think the unexamined life is worth living -- you live it daily.

Charles Krautenhammer, George Will, Michael Medved, Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen are just 5 intellectuals I'll match against any of the left anytime.

Don't confuse anti-academic with anti-intellectual. Those who live purely academic expereincs in this age are doomed to the myopia that has to result from the intellectual inbreeding we have on campuses. There's a total lack of intellectual diversity on our campuses and the iron grip of pollitical correctness and this has been true for decades. The real talent migrates to the think tanks. There's no thinking on campus. they're already told what to think and in many cases what they can say.

The easiest group for the right to poke fun at today are academics. They may have a high IQ but otherwise appear stupid. That story last week about those quacks falling for the "little Red book Scam" shold be fired. It's hard to believe anyone could be that stupid. Yet this stuff happens all the time. Some bloggers have even stopped printing 'stupid academics' stories because it's so pointless anymore.

Within 12 hours of the story breaking I heard quotes from Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick and Griffin Bell supporting GWB.

That wasn't the NYT's fault; that's because the secondary reporting by the electronic media -

The NYT's can't use search engines? They can't remember back to Bill Clinton? They don't have any reporters who ever covered wiretaps? FISA? Are you forgetting they sat on this story for OVER a year?

It was typically one-sided reporting by the paper of record which is why they've become the paper of correction's.

Fine by me. We have Rasmutten poll. It ain't close to working.

But it's *not* about whether the president has the right to keep people safe from attacks. It's *not* about whether or not it's appropriate to eavesdrop on *terrorist suspects* without a warrant.

It is now!!!!

Oh yes, that rising star Otto Banks - elected to the City Council of Harrisburg as a Demo - switches to the Repugs, has Ken visit the gay bars of Harrisburg and raise money for him, then runs fifth and OUT in the election. Interestingly, the Victory Fund from gays contributed to the winners.

Victor Davis Hanson is a buffoon. At least write about events thousands of years ago. When he tries to write anything modern, he is clueless. The same when Will switches from baseball. And the Dr (Psych) does not have "en" in the spelling. Medved of Mercer Island? An intellectual? What more or less could one expect from a FAUX Kool-Aid drinker.

Why don't you get your own blog Witless, then you can type to yourself.

And now off to a more productive day than reading anymore of your swill.

Is rdw the dumbest person on the face of the planet? His obsession with what might have been a trivial mistake by Kerry in the face of Bush's mistakes about whether Iraq was a threat to our nation certainly make it seem so. Particularly funny is this bit:

If one is going to slime someone there has to be a high burden of proof and especially a sitting President and especially any candidate in an election.

Advice: Stop drinking so early in the morning. It makes you look particularly foolish.

3rd Paul,

I missed that election. I'm looking at a picture of Otto V. Banks sitting with the current city coucil.

He was the 2nd Democrat to switch parties in PA.

Victor is considered one of the top 5 conservative Pundits by many bloggers. Next to Mark Steyn he also manages the best putdowns in the business. Checkout this gem from Steyn over the Arnold-Tookie-Euro outrage:

Schwarzenegger is no conservative, and has been a disappointing governor. But his letter is magnificent, and the pleasure it affords was only heightened by the hilarious Guardian headline to its report on the "controversy": "Schwarzenegger Faces 'Tookie' Backlash In Austria."

No, he doesn't. With one typewritten sheet, he's ended the whole damn backlash, and usefully offered a good basic template for US-EU relations that recognizes the basic differences between the two: Americans have responsibilities, Europeans have attitudes. Indeed, the EU has attitudes in inverse proportion to its ability to act on them. It's able to strut and preen on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects it to do anything about anything. If entire nations want to embrace self-congratulatory, holier-than-thou gesture politics as a way of life, why not give them a hand? The politicians of Graz want Tookie to be a domestic political issue? Now he is, if only for the tourist industry.

One of the interesting things about US - Old Euro relations is that liberals seem to think this breach is only a temportary thing caused by GWB. Once we get a Democrat in as President they'll be buds again. I don't see it that way. Mark Steyn prints all over the world 2x's a week. As you can see his contempt for all things European is of the 'in your face' variety. My guess is it's not accepted well over there. They see this as America speaking and we're ALL ignorant bastards to them.

Mark is not much of an Ambassador.

His obsession with what might have been a trivial mistake by Kerry

At least you'll go that far. I'm not sure I agree it was trivial. 1st off the memory was seared, seared in him. 2nd, xmas Eves are usually memorable. I'd think sitting in Cambodia on a super duper secret mission would be even more memorable. 3rd, after it became totally clear to EVERYONE he had some of the basic facts wrong the simple bastard refused to correct the story. 4th, the ceded the honesty race to the SBVs. It was easily demonstrable he was lying about Xmas in Cambodia and they had it correct. 5th he trusted the MSM to keep on covering for him. Those days are long gone.

I think this cost John the election just as it did Gore. We just didn't want another Slick Willie. We can do better.

Your seem unable to understand the difference between the trivial potential mistake (there is less evidence that Kerry was wrong than there is that Bush was AWOL) you are harping on and the benefits the media provided by hyping the Swift Boat Liars for Bush and supporting his unprovoked aggression in Iraq. There's your margin of victory.

(there is less evidence that Kerry was wrong than there is that Bush was AWOL)

There is no question Kerry was not in Cambodia on Xmas Eve despite the memory being seared in him. We are just as certain Dick Nixon was not President on Xmas Eve in 1968. There is no possible chance the story Kerry told, the story that was seared, seared in him, was accurate.

You don't have a single shred of proof GWB was not where he was supposed to be for the TANG.

I love this story. But even for me, hearing the story of Dan Rather cutting his own balls off gets a bit much.

There is not a shred of proof.

rdw:

> Nice story about your Dad.

Thanks. That was gracious of you.

> My family went to either West Catholic Girls or St Thomas More.
> St Tommies was the smallest high school in the city created only
> to relieve the over-crowding at West Catholic. Tell you father
> West Catholic is doing extremely well despite the fact the area
> is no longer catholic. This is largely because of a very active
> alumni association which had provided significant funds for one of
> the best computer labs in the city as well as upgraded facilities.

Catholic schools usually offer a good education. Even though I'm
the last thing from religious, If I had kids, I'd seriously consider
sending them to a Catholic school. The religion and the consequences
of enduring discipline at the hands of perpetually frustrated nuns
I could compensate for with a thorough de-programming at home :)

> He probably will not be happy to know the Boys school was merged
> into the girls school using the girls school as the main 'campus'.

No, I don't think he'd be displeased at all; my Dad's the last thing
from a sexist (or, at this point, for that matter a Catholic). His
stories from his West Catholic days have the ring of existential
absurdity you'd find in his favorite novel, Catch-22. Half-sadistic
Catholic Brothers who'd beat your skull in as soon as look at you
and *really* backward nuns who threw holy water at the black kids.

West Catholic gave my dad a great secondary education -- but he
has no nostalgia for those days, believe me. Isn't segregation of
the sexes something we're trying to move away from in Iraq, btw?

> The alumni is building an endowment to help sustain
> enrollment and has been fairly successful in growing
> it every year. If Catholic education is to be
> sustained in the city they will need this support.

What is this, a fundraising letter? :)

> If your father is interested they hold
> reunions every year and get very large crowds.

I don't actually know if my Dad's been to West Catholic
reunions; I don't think so. I know he attends his Air
Force reunions regularly (he had a fantastic time in
postwar Germany listening for code over the Berlin Wall).

I will pass your post along to him, though. I'm
certain he'll appreciate the post to which that
was a response :) My dad doesn't blog, but he
does email and loves a good political debate.

Bob

rdw, you keep focusing on this bit of trivia and ignoring the elephant in the room. There is no evidence that Bush was doing his duty in TANG (which is itself evidence that he was not given his connections), there is a huge amount of evidence in the form of 2000+ dead on September 11, 2001 that he was derelict as President, and 2000+ dead soldiers that demonstrate he is incompetent at national security.

rdw:

> We all have a stake in success in Iraq. It does not matter if
> we agree with the policy, or nor, or wear a uniform, or not.

Excuse me? We most certainly do not, rdw. This is *George Bush's*
war. It was based on -- using the most charitable interpretation --
badly interpreted intelligence. And making Iraq into a successful
free-market laboratory in the plexus of the Mideast is going to
increase global terrorism in the long run, not decrease it. Just
what we all need -- Israel II. Sorry, rdw. This ain't WW2. If
we need to do some serious nation-building, with some serious
follow-through, Bush is not the man to do it. Your vision extends
no further than the '06 elections. Well, I'm not buyin' it so it
can help reinforce the GOP calculus that Bush is a wartime leader.

You know, you didn't offer Word One to my argument that both
Friedman and Bush are wrong about Iraq, yet you responded to my
other points. You know why? Because I think you *agree* with
me, rdw. I think you realize that you're not much of a Mideast
expert, but all the same, you have a gut intuition that what we're
doing in Iraq even if successful is going to so piss off Islamists
the world over that regardless of the morality of overthrowing
Saddam, it with turn into a net negative for US national security.

You wanna know *why* I think you agree with me? Because this
kind of hard-eyed, unsentimental foreign policy analysis -- based
on how people actually behave rather than betting on people behaving
the way we'd like them to behave -- is called realism, Wooten.

And it used to be a bedrock mainstay of the GOP.

Bob

Bob,

The separation of the sexes has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with education. There are a great many educators who feel students do better in single sex schools.

I expected your Dad might be disappointed only because the boys school was much nicer from the outside and, for being in the middle of the city, fairly wooded. They also had a football field with track at the facility. It was a nice school The girls school didn't have a tree in sight and of course when it was built (1920ish) they did not need a football, or soccer, field.

The arch-diocese kept the boys school for administrative and community services. They run a kitchen, health and dental clinics as well as drug counseling and the boys still use all of the gym facilities. West Catholic still has very good athletic programs. This year two of their basletball seniors will get division one scholarships.

I wasn't trolling for Money. West Catholic was in fact our arch-rival. The fund raisers they have are generally things like the reunions, golf tournaments, etc. They have a weekend at the shore every year. They also sell school hats, sweaters, etc. This is a catholic institution everything is a fund raiser. If you Dad has any fondness for HS at all, and I can't imagine he doesn't buy him a West Catholic hat and surprise him. I'd bet he'd be shocked.

As far as the prists and nuns you have to know they rarely teach in elementary schools or even high school. There's just not enough. My daughters went to catholic school and in 1984 they had a nun as principal and 1st grade teacher. By the time she was in 3rd grade the 1st grade teacher was gone and by 6th the principal was gone. Kids don't see nuns often.

Also note: They're not crazy anymoe. IN your dad's day it was a different era. All the schools were rough. I;m 52 and it started dying down with me. I was smacked around a bit and I survived fine.

Witless,

You are looking at an old picture - after the first of the year Banks and two other members will be leaving the City Council because they were voted out of office.

Banks, with Kenny's fabulous help, ran fifth in the eletion. So much for being the top vote receiver in the previous election when he ran as a Democrat.

Please try to stay current in your state - Too much Rolling Rock too early?

3rd Paul,

Nice try my friend but no cigar. The only elections in Harrisburg in 2005 were for judges. Plus if they did have an election and he came in 5th he'd still be a councilman. They have 7.

I buy rolling rock only when I know my father-in-law is coming over. I'm a yengling guy when I'm not drinking Sam Adams or Germa imports and I also have a taste for Reds.

rdw:

> The separation of the sexes has nothing to do
> with sexism and everything to do with education.

Well, except at the end of the day it always does, rdw. Look
what you said immediately below about the differences in physical
plant between the boys' and girls' schools. You think giving
the boys' school better facilites was some kind of *accident*?

> There are a great many educators who
> feel students do better in single sex schools.

Sure, but they're social conservatives who are operating in
"shoulds" instead of "ares." It's ironic, but conservatives
are supposed to have the more jaundiced and realistic view
of human nature. Instead, they wind up making arguments
from idealism and denying that the world exists as it does.

60 years ago this might have been a salient argument. But
education doesn't exist in a vaccuum; as soon as those doors
swing wide at 3 o'clock, the boys 'n' girls go pouring out into a
world where TV, movies, books, magazines (not to mention families
and neighborhoods) all have the sexes mixing just as pretty as you
please. It's why co-education won this argument two generations ago.

Plus, there's a flipside to your argument even assuming a
reasonable degree of gender isolation outside of school. Take
girls and boys away from chances to interact and socialize,
and you create the "forbidden fruit" syndrome and *increase*
the obsessions and preoccupations with the opposite gender
that are a normal part of adolescence. It's like trying
to pretend that the conscious denial of sexual urges will
curb masturbation. In most teens, it does the opposite.

Plus, my Dad, who went to highschool in the immediate postwar
period, in retrospect didn't appreciate knowing *absolutely
nothing* about girls by the time he reached early adulthood.

There's a great cartoon that sums this up by my favorite 70s
cartoonist, B. Kliban. It's a street corner with two pimply
adolescent males talking under their breaths, obviously about
sex. Across the street, a girl walks away from them with a
snooty, disgusted expression, like she could tell what they were
talking about even if she didn't overhear -- and she's dressed
like s Catholic schoolgirl -- hairband, plaid skirt, kneesocks.

Under her sweater, you can tell that she's also wearing one
of those ridiculous late 50s / early 60s brassieres that make
her breasts taper triangularly like cones -- I think Madonna
tried to revive that Uber-retro look a couple tours ago.

One of the guys has a word bubble above his head, which shows what
he's describing to his buddy: Two naked, perfectly conical breasts.

The caption is: "Learning Filth on the Streets."

:)

Bob

You don't have a single shred of proof GWB was not where he was supposed to be for the TANG.

That's rich, rdw. Before I asked you to put your money where your mouth is, the words you were using were "shred of evidence."

Now it is "shed of proof."

Nice phrase. Don't think I've ever seen it before.

You know nothing about the TANG issue because you haven't studied it. Or you wouldn't make such witless comments.

That's "shred of proof."

Obscure,

whatever, if you have the proof GWB did not meet his requirements where is it? Danny boy could have used it. He'd still be a CBS.

One of the best purchases the Texas Air National Guard ever made was their shredder.

Well, except at the end of the day it always does, rdw. Look what you said immediately below about the differences in physical plant between the boys' and girls' schools. You think giving
the boys' school better facilites was some kind of *accident*?

This argument is so old. The girls actually had better school facilities. The boys had better athletic facilities. That's why the merged school uses the old girls school.

As far as your Pop knowing absolutely nothing about girls reconcile with your other comment:

as soon as those doors swing wide at 3 o'clock, the boys 'n' girls go pouring out into a
world where TV, movies, books, magazines (not to mention families and neighborhoods) all have the sexes mixing just as pretty as you please. It's why co-education won this argument two generations ago.

The agrument is far from over except in public schools where political correctness reigns. The top catholic prep schools in the Philly area are still segragated by sex and will remain so. They are doing a boffo business and all now have rather large endowments. West Catholic was a school for the poor and middle class. St Joe's Prep attracted the academically talented in a very, very competitive environment. They have a large alumni of very successful people who trace their success back to their high school education and contribute accordingly. I know the family who paid for the Gym.

Just to keep your PC outrage in check there are just as many prep schools that are exclusively female.

You can debate the merits of single sex schools all you want but there is a huge market for single sex schools in my area. I can't afford the $15K plus per year but apparently many people can because they average 3x's as many applicants as they can accept.

BTW: You simply can't compare the 40's with the 70's let alone 2006. It's absurd. That PaPa may have been sexually repressed in 1945 can't be too much of a shock and does he really blame it on schools? Where were his parents? What exactly did he do after 3:00PM. Head back to the monastary? Pop sounds like the quintessential liberal. He has victimhood down solid. He didn't know how to relate to females at age 18 but it's everyone else's fault.

I suspect Pop would be extremely uncomfortable at these reunions. These people go to laugh and tell funny stories and share the good times. Although maybe your pop isn't a miserable as you make it sound. The vast majority of successful people never wallow in self-pity. Most are able to look back and see what is was that made them into successful people.

That's a large part of the reason Catholic schools in the region are able to remain open and so successful. The Catholics have been astute in setting up endowments, trusts, scholarship programs, etc. to provide a surprising number of partial and full scholarships to deserving students with limited finanical reach. It's also true that unlike the 40's Catholics are far more successful in business and they're not having 8 kids either.

From what I've read Catholic HS's are about a decade behind Colleges in terms of attracting alumni contributions but then they don't need near as much. The Kelly family named the Gym for their father and established 2 full scholarship in perpepatuity. To do so at Villanova Univ would have been 10x's as much. Obviously these gifts are tied to the school and can't be used for anything else. These alumni aim to keep Catholic education around forever.

The beauty of this process is with the various tax laws for charitable givng and trusting combined with the amazing wealth creation since Reagans tax cuts is that over the next decade or two Catholic high schools should have guarranteed funding and then some.

One of the interesting developments of the last decade has been the rise of Catholic school sports. At one point public school basketball dominated in the city and it's no longer even close. There are two reasons. Over a decade ago Catholic Schools dropped geographic restrictions. They can complete for students all over and this makes them better. With the growth of scholarship funds they can also provide free tuition to the top athletes. Thus St Joes Prep, Malvern, LaSalle, etc, always competitive in sports have become powerhouses. St. Joes has probably been in the top 10 in Pennnsylvania football 9 of the last 10 years and is often in the top 10 in Basketball where Roman Catholic and West Catholic do better. Many of the top Division 1 recruits for college basketball from the region are from Catholic schools.

Obviously this is being matched on the academic side with West Catholics famous computer lab. This is now a lower middle class non-catholic neighborhood but they have 750 students with 90% going on to college. West Philly Public has a graduation rate of less than 35%. The WC 2004 graduating class earned more than $5M in scholarship aid. This school is the educational jewel of West Philadelphia. People like you should be hoping the alumni continue to be so generous because the $4,500 is out of the reach of most of it's students. It's no coincidence that West Philly has been attractive for charter schools. The public schools are a disgrace.

It's comical to me how little so many liberals know of catholic education. Molly Irvings wrote a column a couple years ago warning Catholics to forget about their vaunted 'schools' because they wouldn't have non-paid nuns forever. Molly is a dumb a post. Way ahead of you princess. Many also seem to think the teachers carry cattle prods so use when a poor student committs the slightest infraction. They're even dumber than Molly.

There's no question it's a major finanical challenge to keep these schools open but a true liberal would pray for their success. I see West Catholic operaitng in West Philly. I don't see anyone else.

rdw:

Okay, this thread is getting a bit old, but just a few quick words in defense of my Dad. You obviously missed the sense of my first post about him; in 1948, my dad *wasn't* a liberal, he was a Republican. Secondly, he hardly related that story in the angst of victimhood. He was reminiscing; his highschool days produce bellylaugh-inducing stories, but often it's the kind of laughter borne of absurdity.

Highschool held many absurd situations for him. Like the time he missed the garbage bin with his ice cream wrapper at a lunch table. As he bent to pick it up, he got an uppercut from a Catholic Brother so severe it sent him off the riser and knocked him out cold. He came to in the principal's office, to be suspended from school. And when he got home his *father* beat the shit out of him.

I mean ... you *have* to laugh at this stuff. Maybe things tapered off by the time you went through highschool, but my Dad's 24 years older than you. The Catholic Brothers were mean-ass motherfuckers who never hesitated to hit first -- with knuckles -- and ask questions later.

Does my dad really *blame* West Catholic for enforcing this kind of hardass discipline? Not really. West Philly was a pretty damn rough neighborhood, with fights nearly every weekend, mostly between the Irish and the Italians, at least when both weren't ganging up on the blacks. There were nearly race riots during WW2, when the manpower shortage had black guys who couldn't get drafted because of military segregation running the streetcars. FDR had to order a platoon of Marines fresh from LeJeune and en route to Normandy to ride the cars for two weeks, weapons in tow, to keep order.

Were these memories all about violence? Well, most of them, truthfully. But some were just hysterical. Like two weeks before graduation when, during one particularly monotonous chemistry class, with a bald-headed Brother who droned on and on and loved to pontificate, and my Dad hooked up the Bunsen burner to the water tap. "Mr. McKeown, the gas, please." Pliff went the match out of the Brother's fingers as water shot straight up in a fountain and landed on his head. My Dad was suspended, but he couldn't care less at that point :) Or Alfred Easley, a black kid who was probably bordeline retarded, who had stayed back so many times he was shaving in my Dad's sophomore class. Tall and loping but docile, his mere presence terrified the nuns so much they used to throw holy water at him. Nobody knows what they expected to accomplish by this.

And as for my Dad and girls -- once again, we're all drinking at a family gathering and my Dad's reminiscing. He didn't tell this story to cast *blame* on anybody; nor was this exclusively the fault of an all-boys highschool. Judging by the pictures he has from his Air Force tour of Germany, it *did* take a Fraulein (or two or three) to fill the void in family life education left by both his schooling and his upbringing. He was quite fine after that, *believe* me.

As for Catholic education generally -- I'm not knocking it. Often it's the best education you can get in blighted areas. I'm as I say not religious, and I'm quite secular in my social values, but I have much more respect for Catholic institutions than I do for many Protestant ones. The Catholics -- for all their "gospel of the body" insanity -- have never given up on the idea of community responsiblity. I'll take Works over Grace any day. And they oppose the death penalty. They aren't afraid to come out swinging in defense of workers over corporate profits, either.

Co-education, however, is the way to go.

Bob

bob,

Pops story sounds like an urban legend to me.

Parents are quite capable of making the decision of what's best for their child. There are upsides and downsides to each program but my money is on single sex programs. In any event a number of catholic single sex high schools have merged due to declining enrollment but none of the prep schools or academies have gone co-ed.

The Phila school district posts enrollment data on it's website and it is extremely sobering. It's a national disgrace we do not have huge voucher programs and more charter schools. For both West Philly and Overbrook HS more than 55% of it's freshman class drops out before senoir year. I could not find graduation data but my guess is less than 1/3 actually graduate and I'd bet less than 10% can get into a private college and I'd bet a large percentage of those who do need to take remedial classes.

As far as I am concernd these kids and their parents are getting raped yet few have any clue as to how far behind they are.

rdw:

> Pops story sounds like an urban legend to me.

Are you calling my father a *liar*, Wooten? Because if you
are, it's a damn good thing you're a St. Tommies kid, because
otherwise, maybe I'd have to get my Dad to attend a West
Catholic reunion just to kick your doubting Republican ass :)

Truthfully, my Dad tries to avoid discussing politics in
celebratory social settings. He has enough peace to keep with
his Republican (and fiercely Catholic) mother-in-law (my stepmom's
mom). My Dad was an account executive, which meant he was a
professional raconteur and entertainer of clients. He's really
an extremely charming guy, beloved in his industry by everyone.

Of course, nowadays he utterly despises the pharmaceutical industry
and feels very uncomfortable about the marketing practices that
made him and his industry so much money. He takes cold consolation
in the fact that it's only gotten worse since he retired with (among
other things) the deregulation of prescription drug advertisements.

Nothing like Republican ideology to
encourage ethical business practices.

Those stories are all true, Wooten, part of the family legacy.
Maybe there's some exaggeration around the edges, or maybe the've
become a little distorted in the retelling, but their gists are
true. My Dad got knocked over a lunchroom riser with a punch
and suspended for missing the garbage with his ice-cream wrapper.
I'm truly surprised you hadn't heard about FDR sending in the
Marines in WW2 to ride the Philly trolleys to prevent a race riot.

And they're also corroborated by my Dad's friends from
the old nabe, one of whom is a cherished longtime family
friend. It's something else to listen to them tell these
stories. They get the whole family howling in laughter ...

Of course, if you're in the mood to hear about urban
legends, I could toss back the blog puffery about
Dan Rather and the SBVs that you like to shill :)

> Parents are quite capable of making the decision of what's
> best for their child. There are upsides and downsides
> to each program but my money is on single sex programs.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Obviously it's a choice, and if both parents and former students
are okay with it, I'm certainly not advocating that single-sex
Catholic schools change if they don't feel it's necessary.

I don't think it promotes healthy attitudes. But then again,
I'd like to see the kind of family life education that would
never be taught in a Catholic school, so I'm not one to judge.

Bob

rdw:

> One of the other cool aspects of the blogs is the strong
> accountability. If powerline puts any garbage out it's discovered
> almost immediately. To their credit they correct, apologize and
> lay the entire story out immediately and do it at the top of the
> page. The same holds true for all of the good blogs, right or left.

Well, but that's not the essence of how blogs work, though. Many
people -- maybe most, I haven't heard views on this -- who read
blogs don't do it for the posts alone, they do it to participate
in the comments section. And what's true of blogs right and left
is that the comments section tends to produce an orthodoxy of
opinion and hold certain lines of speculation above others, usually
for ideological reasons. It would be interesting to check out
a blog with a diversity of ideology (like, e.g., Obsidian Wings)
to see how the orthodoxy develops. Probably it's dependent on the
numerical balance between left and right posters at any given time.

You *have* to be honest with yourself, and with us, Wooten, and
admit this. Blogs are a lot of fun to post on to hone one's
arguments, and often there are some amazing links provided with
primary-source information, but they are the quintessence of echo
chamber. Blogs act like ideological enforcers; anybody who disagrees
with the current line is attacked in a way that's usually not
considered dignified for others who hold that line. You really do
have to have either an incredibly thick skin or else be a genuine
troll to post regularly on a blog with an ideology opposite yours.

And this self-selects the sorts with heterodox views. They don't
tend to be people with potentially changeable mind, or people
terribly sensitive to the views of others; those sorts are more
likely to become offended at being flamed. They wind up being
people like you, Wooten -- sensitive as a Port Authority toilet seat
and completely rigid-minded :) Who else would put up with being
called a Nazi? :) So genuine debate is more exception than rule.

I'm growing to like you, though, cuz you're my Dad's homeboy.

So no matter how quickly blogs post retractions (I've seen
Kevin do this and to me, he's the soul of reasonableness), if you
participate in comments, you're subjected to a kind of groupthink
which is easy to mock if you're an outsider. But if you think we're
all consumed with "Bush-hatred," I'm sure PowerLine is consumed by
"liberal-hatred" and would appear just as knee-jerk to one of us.

The problem with this for either side is that it tends over time
to grind down the subtly expressed and caveated opinions of blog
posts into short statements of boilerplate orthodoxy that can be
used as clubs against the other side. Virtually all the views
you've gotten from PowerLine you express in completely unsubtle
catch-phrases, all the reasoning stripped away. And granted, we
do the same thing. Just don't try to pretend that our burning hair
smells any different than yours. Burning hair is burning hair.

Bob

rdw:

> The jury is not out.

It absolutely is out, Wooten -- it's just not out on PowerLine :)
There are serious questions about Bush's TANG service. I haven't
followed it closely, because I don't let issues like this make or
break my support of a candidate. Obviously Bush's family background
and all the well-documented help he received in his businesses
make something like this, were it true, hardly surprising. The
guy admitted to an alcohol problem around that time in his life.

I mean -- can you rule it *out*, Wooten? Of course you can't.

And without any doubt he joined TANG to avoid Vietnam. Which is
fine -- my Dad joined the Air Force to avoid the Army in Korea.
He just didn't run for president and then start an iffy war.

All the crap you guys gave Al Gore for getting strings pulled
which kept him off the front lines as an Army journalist ...

At least Gore was *in* Vietnam, sheesh.

> Dan Rather is toast.

Dan Rather *retired*. Something like this -- even in your
wildest bloviated right-wing fantasies -- doesn't make or
break the reputation of a lifetime career in journalism.

> His name is synomous with fraud and stupidity.

It is like hell. You just keep repeating it over and
over and over again because you're trying to create a meme.
Mary Mapes was fired -- perhaps justifiably. But notice
she's just come out with a book defending that story and
standing by its source. The review I read was mixed, but
it's left enough doubt in my mind to keep this case open.
The one part of the book the review did *not* criticize
was its take on the absurd overzealousness of the bloggers.

> That thing was less than 1/2 step above a crayon copy.

But here's what I've never seen you acknowledge. Whether or not
the documents were forged doesn't comment on the accuracy of the
information. The secretary who typed up the originals remembers
the content and confirms it. And whether or not the original source
was a boob for going to the Kerry campaign with it -- exposing him
as a raw partisan -- according to Mapes, this is par for the course
with sources for stories like this. More often than not, they're
flakes, or at least high-maintenence. Ask cops about informers.

> The problem with running that story is it's pure gossip. CBS had
> no business promoting gossip. If one is going to slime someone
> there has to be a high burden of proof and especially a sitting
> President and especially any candidate in an election.

Oh. PUH-LEEZ. Wooten. Who. Killed. Vincent. Foster. Who. Put.
A. Bullet. In. Ron. Brown's. Head. Before. His. Plane. Crashed.

> As far as I am concerned Rather would have been sleezy even if the
> story was about you or me. A reporter at any level has to have the
> common decency to reports facts as facts and not gossip as facts.

Nice to hear a Karl Rove fan chine in about character assassination.
Is that the same Karl Rove who authorized a commercial which morphed
the head of Vietnam vet and amputee Max Clelland into Osama bin
Laden because Clelland voted against the Homeland Security Act
to protect government workers? The Karl Rove who mailed out
photos of John McCain's adopted Vietnamese child to claim this
proved that his wife had an "illegitimate black baby" -- and
then *push polled* on it in the South Carolina primaray?

*That* Karl Rove?

CBS News made a mistake based on a judgement call.
Karl Rove made a career out of *intentionally*
sliming the reputations of his opponents.

Get back to me about press ethics, Wooten, when somebody
teaches you the difference between right and wrong.

> The story died because there's not a single fact to suport it.

The possibility that Bush skipped out on his TANG
committments hasn't been solidly refuted, either.

Stories like these don't die. As long as there are people
like you who believe what you do about Dan Rather, there will
be people like us who believe what we do about George Bush.

I know you hate that, but that's the way rumors work.

Bob

I don't post on conservative blogs because there's no point. I like to learn and understand the other point of view.

I am absolutely unaffected at being called a troll or a moron and enjoy a good debate, including an insult well delivered. It's a challenge to present agruments clearly and concisely and there are times when good counters are made and I have to think or at least do some research.

I thoroughly enjoy discussing politics but don't take myself too seriously. Thus I never get mad.
I aim to have fun with it.

Powerline is terrific. They are 3 outstanding lawyers and writers. No comments section but I would not post there anyway. They have done extensive posting on the legality of GWBs actions and while not without reservations which relate primarily to the lack of specifics as to what is being investigated, expect him to win politically and legally. They don't doubt GWBs intentions but Govt competence.

I absolutely believe bloggers have changed the world. GWB would not be President without them and they're forcing changes at all of the papers as well as the networks. Plus there are so many terrific writers I'd never have access to otherwise such as Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen. There is a much greater breadth to Conservative thinking and it's so much more accesible than before. Liberalism, the post-68 version, is in deep trouble. I don't see a true liberal getting elected in my lifetime. Kerry tried to deceive us into thinking he wasn't but he'd never have been able to lead as a liberal if elected. Clinton learned that in 1994.

What I'm finding is that 67% of those who post here are insanely angry and thus a gift for the GOP. In my view anger = ineffectiveness. This is what made Howard Dean, one of the most inept politicians I've ever seen. His primary performances were pitiful and he's worse at the RNC. The other 33% are a mixed bag of well intended libs mostly ill served from living in an echo chamber but open to debate.

That thing was less than 1/2 step above a crayon copy.

But here's what I've never seen you acknowledge. Whether or not the documents were forged doesn't comment on the accuracy of the
information. The secretary who typed up the originals remembers the content and confirms it. And whether or not the original source
was a boob for going to the Kerry campaign with it -- exposing him as a raw partisan -- according to Mapes, this is par for the course
with sources for stories like this. More often than not, they're flakes, or at least high-maintenence. Ask cops about informers

Here's where you are incredibly poorly served in the echo chamber. Those frauds were a disgrace at very level. The source was a total quack with real sanity issues. The technical quality were not even one step above crayon. They were pitiful and NONE of the experts they hired authenticated the papers. As far as the typist 1st off she was a boob and 2nd Majors don't discussed officer performance with typists.

I have never seen a more pitiful performance in my life. This is a joke among bloggers. And Dan Rather is toast.

The reason princes had to make this crap up is because she had no evidence. She had been chasing the story for 5 years and got desperate because the elections where her last shot. She had NOTHING.

This is a beautiful story for conservatives on so many levels I can't explain it fully. Dan got canned and CBS has totally cleaned house. Because it's Dan it's testimony to the coverage and bias of the networks not just in 2004 but his entire career. As such it continues to bag victims who try to defend Dan. By this I mean people in journalism. One cannot defend Dan AND be considered serious. These people end up in seminars all the time which discuss media ethics and bias and this episode is simply indefensible. They hate discussing it because there's nothing they can say and can't even pretend to take it seriously.

That's why to be honest I view your question as unserious. You have Zero, NADA, NOTHING on which to base your assertions aside from Bush hatred.

The oddest part for me is how could people who voted for Clinton, an admitted draft dodger, now say GWB is not acceptible because he may have missed a few meetings. That's not rational.

Another weird aspect is that you are saying that GWB has no right or no business sending men into battle because he did not go into battle. that's not even a semi-serious argument. In fact I find it intellectually insulting it's so pitiful. Every President has the responsibility to send men into battle if that's called for as he see's it. It's fair to disagree with the decision but not question his right and responsibility to do so. It's also fair to point out GWB served longer than Lincoln, Wilson and FDR combined.

BTW: Clinton had major problems with the military and was rolled frequently. David Haversham wrote a book on it that was far from complimentary. It was much more than a lack of experiece but a contempt he sensed they had for him because he scammed himself out of service.

This story is the worst thing that's happened to the MSM in the last decade and will remain a permanent stain. It also elevated the bloggers and changed the balance. If all I read was the MSM I'd think we're in Watergate II. Instead we have Kevin crying in his cereal.

The possibility that Bush skipped out on his TANG committments hasn't been solidly refuted, either.

Yes it has. He was honourablye discharged and elected President 2x's.

Stories like these don't die. As long as there are people like you who believe what you do about Dan Rather, there will be people like us who believe what we do about George Bush.

I know you hate that, but that's the way rumors work.

I don't hate this even a little bit. I hope this story is alive in 2025. It's a great story for conservartives.

What does it say about you that the best 'dirt' you have on Bush is he might have missed a few weekend meetings in the Tang. Are you thinking that's big? If that's the best you can do you are going to have it hard.

BTW: how much fun is it forthe guy from powerline or other blog to go to these media seminars and hear a MSM guru talk about a lack of accuracy or editing or fact checking on the blogs? At that point it's shooting ducks in a barrel.

Nice to hear a Karl Rove fan chine in about character assassination. Is that the same Karl Rove who authorized a commercial which morphed
the head of Vietnam vet and amputee Max Clelland into Osama bin Laden because Clelland voted against the Homeland Security Act to protect government workers? The Karl Rove who mailed out
photos of John McCain's adopted Vietnamese child to claim this proved that his wife had an "illegitimate black baby" -- and
then *push polled* on it in the South Carolina primaray?

*That* Karl Rove?

Yes,

The Max Cleland stuff was terrific and perfectly fair game. The other stuff is nonsense. You are the classic Northeast lib assuming everyone from the south is cracker.

Max was an idiot for voting against the act and the message was very well received with quick passage after the election. That's one of the reasons the Rasmussen poll is so powerful. There are 100 Senators who understand the importance of National Security. They will be more cooperative

Charles Krautenhammer, George Will, Michael Medved, Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen are just 5 intellectuals I'll match against any of the left anytime.

Hilarious.

rdw:

> "Which is just another way of saying that righties are anti-
> intellectual morons who can't win cred from the intelligensia."

> "Why are you even *pretending* that this matters to you? You fucking
> hate intellectuals. You despise the life of the mind. You not only
> think the unexamined life is worth living -- you live it daily."

> Charles Krautenhammer,

"Krautenhammer," that's precious. It makes him sound even
more like a comic-book Nazi than his surname (Krauthammer) does
already -- not to mention his apologetics for torture. That the
guy's a former psychiatrist is truly scary. Lobotomies were past
his day, but I'll bet he was big a fan of electroshock therapy.

And just look at him. Couldn't you see the guy
in Colonel Klink's uniform on Hogan's Heroes? :)

> George Will, Michael Medved,

Michael *Medved*? The dude's a social conservative movie
critic. And boy does he ever come across like a closet case :)

> Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen are just 5
> intellectuals I'll match against any of the left anytime.

Dude, don't even try. You are so painfully middlebrow you
wouldn't know an intellectual if one snuck up behind you
and bit you on the ass. MSM pundits aren't necessarily
intellectuals. Had you mentioned, I dunno -- Allan Bloom,
Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Bennett, Robert Kagan -- you might
have demonstrated the remote possiblity you had a clue.

And Bill Bennett's even pushing it, but at least
the ol' Dancin' Bear has a degree in philosophy.

> Don't confuse anti-academic with anti-intellectual. Those who live
> purely academic expereincs in this age are doomed to the myopia that
> has to result from the intellectual inbreeding we have on campuses.

Anti-academic is de-facto anti-intellectual. The academy
is one of the only places you can go to make a career of
the life of the mind without an agenda hanging around your
neck. It's, in fact, impossible to be pro-intellectual and
anti-academy. Where do you think intellectuals are trained?
By reading right-wing blogs while nodding and drooling?

Wooten, you already shat yourself on that issue by gloating
about how you "pulled one over" on your sociology professor.
You are stained permanently with those remarks. You demonstrated
a thorough contempt for the entire discipline of sociology. Now
-- even if that contempt had any objective validity -- you can't
simultaneously hold it and claim you're doing anything other than
pushing an anti-intellectual line. If you were honest, you'd
just call yourself a proud anti-intellectual and be done with it.

> There's a total lack of intellectual diversity
> on our campuses and the iron grip of pollitical
> correctness and this has been true for decades.

Dude, you don't know what "political correctness" *is*. You
probably think deconstructionism is still au courant in English
departments when it hasn't been for a decade. And you completely
gloss over the University of Chicago (which produced so many schools
of right-wing thought it's hard to keep track of them, but we'll
start by saying that it was the alma mater of Leo Strauss, Milton
Friedman and William Kristol), Dartmouth, Duke, and many of the
Southern universities that have been resistant to the stereotypical
cultural PC overreactions that beset the Ivies for a brief period.

To say that there's "a total lack of intellectual diversity on
our campuses" is to display a total ignorance of the academy.
Tell it to Alan Sokol. Tell it to most hard science departments,
regardless of what their colleagues in the humanities are up to.

> The real talent migrates to the think tanks.
> There's no thinking on campus. they're already told
> what to think and in many cases what they can say.

Right, like at Cato Institute, where they can be paid two grand
a pop to shill for Indian tribes :) Dude, please keep coming here.
You are a regular laff riot :) Think tanks are where would-be
academics go when they can't get tenure track and cut it in the
academy. And as soon as they set foot in the door they *stop*
thinking, because the purpose of a think tank isn't to think
anymore, it's to push an agenda. How long do you think a research
fellow at Cato would last if s/he started questioning free-market
orthodoxy? Not three seconds. Speaking of, you know, "a total
lack of intellectual diversity." But that's *okay*. That's the
purpose of think tanks. Left-wing think tanks are the same way.

Just don't pretend you're going to get anything but the orthodoxy
out of them that they were set up and funded to provide. To confuse
this with academic freedom is to simply demonstrate stone ignorance.

> The easiest group for the right to poke fun at today are academics.

That's because right-wingers are so fucking stupid as a genus
that they're never in danger of actually examining the subject.

> They may have a high IQ but otherwise appear stupid.

But not *nearly* as stupid as you, Wooten. Watch:

> That story last week about those quacks falling
> for the "little Red book Scam" shold be fired.

"The story ... should be fired." If only blog
posters were credentialed. Maybe they could disallow
those who can't demonstrate a baseline proficiency
at getting their subjects and verbs to agree :)

> It's hard to believe anyone could be that stupid. Yet this stuff
> happens all the time. Some bloggers have even stopped printing
> 'stupid academics' stories because it's so pointless anymore.

The greatest "stupid academics" story of the past 20 years was Alan
Sokol's brilliant deconstructionist hoax he published in Social Text,
which was allegedly a postmodernist take on particle physics, but in
reality just pure blabbering made-up jargon which passed peer review
because nobody could understand WTF he was talking about and didn't
want to admit this to their colleagues -- about par for the course
for much deconstructionist writing. It had a devastating impact on
humanities departments across the country and spelled the beginning
of the end for postmodernist orthodoxy -- and not a moment too soon.

But these great moments of academic hubris exposed that can be
appreciated by lovers of the truth on either side of the political
spectrum are truthfully few and far between. For every Lionel
Jeffries and Ward Churchill, there are thousands of professors who
labor away honestly. If the right wants to make a career out of
bashing the academy, fine. Lords know we can all use more straw men.

Just don't pretend to call yourselves intellectuals while doing it.

Bob

rdw:

> "That wasn't the NYT's fault; that's because the
> secondary reporting by the electronic media -"

> The NYT's can't use search engines? They can't remember back to Bill
> Clinton? They don't have any reporters who ever covered wiretaps?
> FISA? Are you forgetting they sat on this story for OVER a year?

The NYT story is entirely bulletproof. When the story was reported
by the electronic media, the point was framed in a simplistic
way -- because the electronic media is all about sound bites.

Clinton, Carter, Goerlick, et al. were reacting to the way that
CNN, MSNBC, et al. had framed it. And the NYT itself bought into
that frame after 9/11, which is why they never ran the story then.

Now, however, the context has changed. The program is much
larger than it was originally and it's turning out that both
a FISA judge and an assistant AG objected to it. Is this an
unconstitutional abrogation worthy of impeachment? Well, that's
the sexy question that hangs in the air which the electronic media
jumped on and caused a panic which establishment figures quickly
tried to assuage. But John Dean seems to think so, and he knows
something about the possibility of impeachment. Still, it wasn't
a point raised at all in the NYT story, which was entirely factual.

> It was typically one-sided reporting by the paper of record
> which is why they've become the paper of correction's.

There's absolutely nothing to correct in the story.

> Fine by me. We have Rasmutten poll. It ain't close to working.

The Rasmussen poll asked the question which addressed
the way the electronic media reported the story.

> "But it's *not* about whether the president has the right to keep
> people safe from attacks. It's *not* about whether or not it's
> appropriate to eavesdrop on *terrorist suspects* without a warrant."

> It is now!!!!

No, it's not, Wooten. Believe it or not, there are other things
that matter here beyond the immediate political appearances.

It'd be nice if you spent one second of your time here worrying
more about our country than you do about partisan advantage.

Bob

rdw:

> What I'm finding is that 67% of those who post
> here are insanely angry and thus a gift for
> the GOP. In my view anger = ineffectiveness.

Well, in my view you're wrong. There are few groups in America who
are angrier and more resentful than the hard GOP base. Whether it's
welfare mothers, immigrants, the "liberal elite," unions, bureaucrats,
academics, you're *all about* resentment, Wooten. Anger is effective.

What you're attempting to do (because you've been programmed into
shilling for a meta-strategy which you may not even understand but
which I do) is to neutralize the power of anger and resentment for
Democrats by incessantly trying to accuse us of being "unreasonable."

As if, you know, anybody could trust *you* to have *our*
best interests at heart. Gee, thanks for the strategy tips.

Have you ever noticed how the GOP rarely runs from its frothers?
You overplayed that hand in '92 when you gave Pat Buchanan a
primetime slot at the RNC and he freaked out the whole country
with his "cultural war" speech. One of the reasons Clinton won.

But that was an exception. The GOP doesn't go out of its way to
distance itself from your bombtossing back bench demagogues who'd
never have a prayer in a national election. And yet you expect this
of Democrats -- and many centrist Dems have bought into this because,
sadly enough, of the legacy of Clintonism. It's a legacy that's
nearly destroyed the party, and I believe it's about run its course.

The days of Democratic self-hatred and second-guessing are *over*,
Wooten. If you can be unapologetically demagogic, so can we :)

> This is what made Howard Dean, one of the most
> inept politicians I've ever seen. His primary
> performances were pitiful and he's worse at the RNC.

Howard Dean is the future of the Democratic Party. His primary
performance was extraordinary considering how little a shot he
was expected at having when he entered the race. Did anybody
think the governor of Vermont would raise that kind of money?

What he's doing behind the scenes has been nothing less than historic.
Instead of taking the McAuliffe approach and massaging the corporate
donors, he's been quietly building the party at the grassroots. The
DNC is in better organizational shape now than it's been since '94.

We'll know the results of this, of course, in November. A party chair
rises or falls on elections. What I know for certain is that this is
precisely the right way to go, tactically, strategically and morally.

> The other 33% are a mixed bag of well intended libs mostly
> ill served from living in an echo chamber but open to debate.

There are few posters I've ever seen who are more thoroughgoing
products of an echo chamber than you. The rest of us who are
open to debate are also attempting to keep their eye on the bigger
picture -- and all of these debates ultimately transcend partisan
politics. Partisan politics are, after all, only the means
to an ends, which is our respective visions of a good society.

This is not a football game, Wooten. At the end of the day, I'm more
a patriot than I am a Democrat. I'm not willing to do "anything it
takes" to win an election if that means selling my party's principles
down the river. I'm understanding how conservatives felt in the
60s after the Johnson landslide -- a tremendously salient learning
experience for your party. I'm even okay with the "choke on it"
philosophy -- letting you guys keep your majorities in '06 and
even winning the executive in '08 and maybe even appointing a few
more SCOTUS seats. But there are GOP intellectuals who fear this
as the Very Worst Thing. Only a thinly disguised authoritarian,
if not an outright fascist, yearns for one-party government.

Nothing would destroy the GOP more thorougly than that. You'd be
dead out of ideas, corrupt as sin and the public would hate you.

You had better pray we capture at least one house, Wooten.

Bob

rdw:

> "But here's what I've never seen you acknowledge. Whether or not
> the documents were forged doesn't comment on the accuracy of the
> information. The secretary who typed up the originals remembers
> the content and confirms it. And whether or not the original source
> was a boob for going to the Kerry campaign with it -- exposing him
> as a raw partisan -- according to Mapes, this is par for the course
> with sources for stories like this. More often than not, they're
> flakes, or at least high-maintenence. Ask cops about informers."

> Here's where you are incredibly poorly served in the echo chamber.
> Those frauds were a disgrace at very level.

So ... you're explaining how I'm "poorly served" in the
"echo chamber" by ... feeding me the buzzwords of invective?

> The source was a total quack with real sanity issues.

As many sources for these sorts of stories tend to be. Whether
or not the guy has issues doesn't necessarily render the story
pure BS. I'm not saying it is or isn't BS, only casting doubt
on your "reasoning process," which apparently has more to do with
repeating the trumphalism you read on PowerLine than it does with
presenting me a cogent argument. I remain unconvinced, Wooten.

> The technical quality were not even one step
> above crayon. They were pitiful and NONE of the
> experts they hired authenticated the papers.

Again, I'm not even commenting on this aspect.

> As far as the typist 1st off she was a boob and

Ahh ... she's a "boob." Another airtight argument.

> 2nd Majors don't discussed officer performance with typists.

That's a generalization which may or may not be true in this case,
but my point wasn't what the major discussed with her, only that she
remembers the content in the letter that she typed. Surely you're
not going to contend that typists don't read what they type :)

> This is a joke among bloggers. And Dan Rather is toast.

echo chamber echo chamber JOKE AMONG BLOGGERS echo chamber echo
chamber DAN RATHER IS TOAST echo chamber echo chamber JOKE AMONG
BLOGGERS echo chamber echo chamber DAN RATHER IS TOAST echo chamber
echo chamber JOKE AMONG BLOGGERS echo chamber echo chamber DAN RATHER
IS TOAST echo chamber echo chamber JOKE AMONG BLOGGERS echo chamber

> The reason princes had to make this crap up is
> because she had no evidence. She had been chasing
> the story for 5 years and got desperate because
> the elections where her last shot. She had NOTHING.

Any *more* namecalling and ad-hominem motive
speculation you'd care to offer in lieu of pesky facts?

> That's why to be honest I view your question as
> unserious. You have Zero, NADA, NOTHING on which
> to base your assertions aside from Bush hatred.

I'm not making any assertions. I'm simply saying that, in light
of Bush's well-documanted personal history, I wouldn't be surprised.

Obviously, CBS fired Mapes. But Mapes has a book out defending her
story. I don't know the truth here and am content to remain agnostic.

If you'd like to convince me otherwise you'd have to do something
that might somehow remotely resemble constructing an argument :)

> The oddest part for me is how could people who voted for Clinton,
> an admitted draft dodger, now say GWB is not acceptible because
> he may have missed a few meetings. That's not rational.

Okay, well now we're in an entirely different realm. This is
completely rational because the two aren't comparable. News flash:
many people don't consider it immoral in the least that Bill Clinton
tried to finagle his draft status; parents were encouraging their
sons to move to Canada at the time. What bugged us about it was
that Clinton tried to have it both ways to "maintain his viability
in the system." That's annoying because it's disingenuous, but
it's not a mortal sin that precludes him from being president.

Bush, OTOH, signed a contract. For you to even admit that he "missed
a few meetings" kind of rends absurd (and understandable) the shrill,
hyperbolic self-righteousnees with which you attempt to destroy the
Mapes story. Either Bush served with honor like his discharge says,
or "he missed a few meetings" and didn't fulfill his committment.
Which is it, Wooten? You can't have it both ways here. If he
"missed a few meetings" and was honorably discharged, somebody lied.

> Another weird aspect is that you are saying that GWB has no right or
> no business sending men into battle because he did not go into battle.

No, that's not what we're saying at all. Bush's service in TANG per
se has no bearing on his fitness for CiC. Bush didn't run in 2000
as a warhawk; 9/11 turned him into one (if he had, you could make the
case for chickenhawk hypocrisy just like you could for any would-be
warrior who has never served in combat; but that case is, in itself,
not necessarily fatal). Since he didn't, that point's not relevant.

What we're saying is something different. If Bush got out of
TANG to go work in a Congressional campaign and somebody in
the military COC fudged his paperwork, then he violated a sworn
oath to the military, and so did the person who did the fudging.

Much more serious and character-revealing issues than whether
or not somebody chose to serve in the military to begin with.

Bob

rdw:

> "The possibility that Bush skipped out on his TANG
> committments hasn't been solidly refuted, either."

> Yes it has. He was honourablye
> discharged and elected President 2x's.

Neither of those things, of course, stand as a solid
refutation. Being elected's irrelevant and his honorable
discharge may have been granted under false pretenses.

> "Stories like these don't die. As long as there are people like
> you who believe what you do about Dan Rather, there will be
> people like us who believe what we do about George Bush."

> "I know you hate that, but that's the way rumors work."

> "I don't hate this even a little bit. I hope this story
> is alive in 2025. It's a great story for conservartives."

It's great mythology. But what it will say about conservatives
in 2025 won't be a lesson you'll enjoy hearing. It'll speak of
a moment in time when a thing called "the blogosphere" began to
mistake itself for all of American life, creating a self-justifying
pseudo-reality through the selective interpretation of events.

I was a Howard Dean supporter. I've already learned this
lesson. You haven't yet. You're still in the fog of
delusion. Your fall, when it comes, will be that much harder.

> What does it say about you that the best 'dirt' you have
> on Bush is he might have missed a few weekend meetings
> in the Tang. Are you thinking that's big? If that's
> the best you can do you are going to have it hard.

Look, you don't blow off the military; that's called going AWOL. And
you certainly don't blow off the military and have the record of that
expunged so you can get an honorable discharge. Wbat you're talking
so cavalierly about is corrupt and stains the records of every single
soldier who showed up to his post despite how much he hated the idea.

Whether or not this happened (and I certainly believe it did) is only
a small part of the puzzle that is George Bush's Lost Years. It's
totally of a piece with the rest of his conduct during that period.

Or would you prefer to discuss his stewardship of Harken Energy?

> BTW: how much fun is it forthe guy from powerline or other
> blog to go to these media seminars and hear a MSM guru talk
> about a lack of accuracy or editing or fact checking on
> the blogs? At that point it's shooting ducks in a barrel.

Exercises in obstinate denial are often experienced
psychologically as "fun;" that's part of the denial process.

If you stand as a product of the blogs, you can be sure that
fair and balanced reporting is nowhere near on their agendas.

Bob

> "Nice to hear a Karl Rove fan chime in about character
> assassination. Is that the same Karl Rove who authorized
> a commercial which morphed the head of Vietnam vet and
> amputee Max Clelland into Osama bin Laden because Clelland
> voted against the Homeland Security Act to protect government
> workers? The Karl Rove who mailed out photos of John McCain's
> adopted Vietnamese child to claim this proved that his wife
> had an "illegitimate black baby" -- and then *push polled*
> on it in the South Carolina primaray?

> "*That* Karl Rove?"

> Yes,

> The Max Cleland stuff was terrific and perfectly fair game.

Anyone who would morph the head of a wounded Vietnam vet
into Osama bin Laden over a political difference, no matter
how pronounced or legitimate as a matter of policy, is a
morally corrupt nihilist who really *does* need to be
met in a parking lot by five guys with a baseball bat.

Nothing excuses that, Wooten. Only a guy who cared more about
winning that what winning is supposed to mean would even begin
to attempt to justify it. When you go that far off the deep end
to win -- when you'll say or do literally anything, no matter how
craven and valueless -- then you deserve only a violent death.

> The other stuff is nonsense. You are the classic Northeast
> lib assuming everyone from the south is cracker.

Umm ... excuse me, sir. I seen to recall the 2000 Republican
presidential primary pretty well, especially considering that
there was no Democratic primary to speak of that year. But more
important than my memory is Senator McCain's memory. If you've
somehow blanked out the despicable shit the man endured at the
hands of Rove, well ... I don't exactly know what to say as I've
already stretched the limits of inappropriate hyperbole in my
above two paragraphs. Illegitimate black children was only for
starters. Don't forget the ugly rumors about McCain's sanity.

Republicans to this day are surprised that McCain's gotten over
it and can speak to Bush civilly. Then again, the man forgave
the Vietnamese for torturing him, so I guess he has the character.

> Max was an idiot for voting against the act and the message
> was very well received with quick passage after the election.

It's not remotely about the politics. It's about the ugliness.

> That's one of the reasons the Rasmussen poll is so powerful.

You find distortions of the debate more compelling than the
debate itself. I find this a black mark on your character.

> There are 100 Senators who understand the importance
> of National Security. They will be more cooperative.

If only we were talking about genuine national security ...

Speaking of which -- still no response to my
detailed remarks about Iraq and the GWOT, I see ...

Heh. National Security's ass.

Bob

Anti-academic is de-facto anti-intellectual.

Absolutelt not!

The academy is one of the only places you can go to make a career of the life of the mind without an agenda hanging around your neck.

Are you ever naive. Academia is about 97% liberal. It's an echo chamber and not an especially high quality echo chamber. While faculties have never been more liberal the student bodies have never been more conservative.

There are many, many other options than academia today.

It's, in fact, impossible to be pro-intellectual and anti-academy. Where do you think intellectuals are trained? By reading right-wing blogs while nodding and drooling?

I think they're trained by being challenged and tested. That does not happen in the liberal bubble.

Wooten, you already shat yourself on that issue by gloating about how you "pulled one over" on your sociology professor. You are stained permanently with those remarks. You demonstrated a thorough contempt for the entire discipline of sociology. Now -- even if that contempt had any objective validity -- you can't simultaneously hold it and claim you're doing anything other than pushing an anti-intellectual line. If you were honest, you'd just call yourself a proud anti-intellectual and be done with it.

My contempt was for the academic. I personally have little interest in sociology but it's probably worthy of the small slice of academic attention it gets.

Anyone who would morph the head of a wounded Vietnam vet into Osama bin Laden over a political difference, no matter how pronounced or legitimate as a matter of policy, is a
morally corrupt nihilist who really *does* need to be met in a parking lot by five guys with a baseball bat.

Well this is a switch. Obviously I am a bigger fan of free speech than you. I am against the flag burning amentment. You must be for it. This commercial was a perfectly legitimate commercial and apparently effective. I don't even think it was distasteful.

Republicans to this day are surprised that McCain's gotten over it and can speak to Bush civilly. Then again, the man forgave the Vietnamese for torturing him, so I guess he has the character.

Mccain is an egomanic twit. He got his ass kicked and needed an excuse. I am amazed at how many liberals think John McCain lost to Bush because he lost one primary. John lost because Conservatives hate him.

Bush, OTOH, signed a contract. For you to even admit that he "missed a few meetings" kind of rends absurd (and understandable) the shrill,
hyperbolic self-righteousnees with which you attempt to destroy the Mapes story. Either Bush served with honor like his discharge says,
or "he missed a few meetings" and didn't fulfill his committment. Which is it, Wooten? You can't have it both ways here. If he "missed a few meetings" and was honorably discharged, somebody lied.

I did not admit any such thing. I am pointing out the claim of missing a few weeks is silly. I think GWB was there. He got an honourable discharge. That's more than 95% if his critics managed.

It would help if you had a shred of evidence. You just can't make up stuff like Dan did. There has to be some substance to the charges. It's just like the rumors of coke addiction. You can want to believe. That's your business. But it's gossip. No reputable news organization can run with it.

BTW: The blogs are here to stay. They're critical.

Howard Dean is the future of the Democratic Party. His primary performance was extraordinary considering how little a shot he was expected at having when he entered the race. Did anybody
think the governor of Vermont would raise that kind of money?

You are delusional. He did a great job raising the money but an absolutely pitiful job spending it. He ran out of money after two primaries and for all of what he spent he got 3rd place. That's miserable. The worst part is he had no idea of how chaotic his finances were.

What he's doing behind the scenes has been nothing less than historic. Instead of taking the McAuliffe approach and massaging the corporate donors, he's been quietly building the party at the grassroots. The DNC is in better organizational shape now than it's been since '94.

If he's doing anything it'll be historic. I'm not sure 1994 is the benchmark you want to use. Are you hoping you'll loss less than 55 house seats. Howard has totally alienated your southern cousins as well as religious types. May he be there forever.

i can't find your comments on Iraq and the GWOT you want me to respond to.

I am interested in your thoughts on Kyoto and what I consider a brilliant political end run by Bush in setting up the Asian Pacific partnership.

Bill Clinton called GWB an extraordinary politician and that was before this. I really think most libs and most members of the MSM are missing the dramatic shift away from Old Europe and toward Asia.

The A-P Partnership is India, China, Japan, USA, Korea and Australia. They are going to rewrite global energy and environment policy. It's being taken away from the UN and Kyoto crowd. With this small group they have 40% of the worlds population and 50% of it's GDP. They get to set the policy framework and then set up working groups by inviting new members.

Tony Blair has already set the table for withdrawal from Kyoto. He sees the future. This is where the power will be.

That's why I was shocked when Clinton went to the last Kyoto meetings in Canada and made a strong plea to advance Kyoto. Bill tends to do whatever the crowd wants but even this was extreme for him. I'm rather shocked he can't see the disaster it's become.

If you don't know it the Canadians and several other nations are going to miss their targets and get socked with a huge bill. In Canada the overage promises to be quite large. They never expected the growth they've had and the amount of investment in the Tar Sands. The supreme irony is they'll be fools to pay the likes of place like Russia where they pollute a lot more and make no pretense of conservation.

This is but one example of how shrewd Bush has been. This is as good an example of tactical and strategic politics as you'll find. Few liberals are aware Canada has this pending political disaster. Few liberals realize GWB has already designed the replacement for Kyoto. Few liberals are aware of Blairs walk backward from Kyoto.

If you think the liberals in Canada and Europe hate us now wait until they find this out. They already think American liberals are weak and feckless. It's going to get worse.

The amazing thing to me is it's all already baked in the cars. There is nothing Canada can do to come close to meeting it's goals. Kyoto is absolutely dead.

rdw:

> "Anti-academic is de-facto anti-intellectual."

> Absolutelt not!

Dude, you don't know what an intellectual is. It was
obvious from your list of middlebrow commentators. You are
a charter member of what HL Mencken called the boobeoisie.

> "The academy is one of the only places you can go to make a career
> of the life of the mind without an agenda hanging around your neck."

> Are you ever naive. Academia is about 97% liberal.

When I made my rebuttal of this point, I named three well-known
institutions that have a reputation for producing conservatives
and conservative thought, and a whole region of the country that
was for the most part immune from PC overreaction and hate speech
codes that were such a big part of the culture wars a decade and a
half ago. I also cited hard science departments, which make up half
the mission of higher education, and are immune from all that fuss.

*Your* response was to pull a number *out of your ass*.

No wonder you hate the academy, Wooten. Gods forbid
anyone grades you on the nonsense you let loose.

> It's an echo chamber and not an especially high quality
> echo chamber. While faculties have never been more liberal
> the student bodies have never been more conservative.

You've heard of received wisdom? The above is received
idiocy. Echo chamber? Dude, you have exactly zero business
commenting. You've read that little verity about a million
times on blogs. The more you read it the truer it gets for
you. So you just present it as if it were some kind of
stand-alone "fact," without any evidence or argument.

Dude, your mind has completely rotted out. You have zero
critical thinking skills. What makes something "true" for you is
how many times you're read it in the conservative echo chamber.

No facts, no argument, no anecdotes, nothing to demonstrate support.

And you present it to *other people* as if *our* minds are just as
rotted out as yours. Well *you* believe it, so it must be *true*.

Do you have any idea how offensive this is? How it stands
as an object lesson in contempt for critical thought?

> There are many, many other options than academia today.

There are always options to earn a living using one's brain.
Hell, a good auto mechanic or bench technician can do that. But
that's not an intellectual. I'd be wasting my time I'm sure if I
asked you if you had ever read Plato and were familiar with the
life of Socrates, and just what it was about him that gave him
the credibility and independence to challenge Athenian society.

Pearls before swine. I won't bother.

> "It's, in fact, impossible to be pro-intellectual and
> anti-academy. Where do you think intellectuals are trained?
> By reading right-wing blogs while nodding and drooling?"

> I think they're trained by being challenged and
> tested. That does not happen in the liberal bubble.

Dude, do you even know *how* to construct an
argument? All you seem to do is make assertions.

> Wooten, you already shat yourself on that issue by gloating
> about how you "pulled one over" on your sociology professor.
> You are stained permanently with those remarks. You demonstrated
> a thorough contempt for the entire discipline of sociology. Now
> -- even if that contempt had any objective validity -- you can't
> simultaneously hold it and claim you're doing anything other than
> pushing an anti-intellectual line. If you were honest, you'd just
> call yourself a proud anti-intellectual and be done with it.

> My contempt was for the academic. I personally have
> little interest in sociology but it's probably worthy
> of the small slice of academic attention it gets.

My how generous of you.

David Brooks, your favorite NYT columnist, is a
trained sociologist. And while I think he's a putz's
putz, you can't call the guy an anti-intellectual.

Bob

rdw:

> "Anyone who would morph the head of a wounded Vietnam vet
> into Osama bin Laden over a political difference, no matter
> how pronounced or legitimate as a matter of policy, is a
> morally corrupt nihilist who really *does* need to be
> met in a parking lot by five guys with a baseball bat."

> Well this is a switch. Obviously I am a bigger fan of free speech
> than you. I am against the flag burning amentment. You must be
> for it. This commercial was a perfectly legitimate commercial
> and apparently effective. I don't even think it was distasteful.

Well, first of all, I hope my rhetorical expression of outrage
wasn't too over-the-top for you. I'll be honest with you Wooten.
I've never actually seen the ad myself, though I've heard it
described many times. And of course I've seen ads like it -- the
infamous Willie Horton ad is no doubt its spiritual progenitor.

I'm sorry, Wooten; this is dirty pool. Clelland voted against the
HSA as a proceedural matter to protect workers, not because this
meant he somehow opposed homeland security, or would have voted
against the bill without that provision. What you're doing is
bottomlessly dishonest; it isn't about homeland security for you,
either. It's about using homeland security as a club to union-bust.

Osama's face just has no business being in this picture.
Using it is the very definition of inflammatory, of demagoguing
on an issue that should be as bipartisan as it gets. You used
it to leverage a mere partisan issue: busting federal unions.

You're always so full of high dudgeon when the Democrats
criticize the Iraq war. Oh, we're demogoguing with fear
and uncertainty on what should be a bipartisan issue.

GMAFB.

Bob

rdw:

> Republicans to this day are surprised that McCain's
> gotten over it and can speak to Bush civilly.
> Then again, the man forgave the Vietnamese for
> torturing him, so I guess he has the character.

> Mccain is an egomanic twit.

*rolling eyes* You really are something else, Wooten. It's all just
a football game for you, a matter of power politics. That's fine;
I hope you represent the future of the GOP. Because if you truly
are representative, it's only a matter of time before the American
people wise up and figure out how thoroughly they're being used.

When they do, Wooten, the Republicans won't hold national power
for another 30 years. Your time is coming and it is precisely
these Machiavellian power-is-everything attitudes that hasten it.

Power-is-everything attitudes indicate to the average Joe and Jane
that the politicians who hold them hold Joe and Jane in contempt.

John McCain is not only a deeply honorable man -- he's
also one of Bush's most important allies right now, not
just on the Iraq war but also on taxes. You come back
with stupid cartoon labels from the primaries because
you want to change the subject from campaign ethics.

If you can trash McCain hard enough, you don't have to defend
sliming him. And this is what you'll do to a key party member.

> He got his ass kicked and needed an excuse.

Let me ask you something, Wooten: If during a football game,
the defensive line rushed the offense and beats them bloody with
crowbars, do you think they should be ejected from the game?

Or is all fair in football and politics?

Push polling on illegitimate black babies.

You should be *ashamed* of yourself.

> I am amazed at how many liberals think John
> McCain lost to Bush because he lost one primary.

I am not amazed, however, that you don't seem to think at all.

People of all ideological stripes were simply shocked at the
conduct of the South Carolina primary. Whether or not that was
the defining event (and of course it wasn't; McCain has a Dean
thing with shooting from the hip) isn't remotely the point.

> John lost because Conservatives hate him.

Big money hates him for McCain/Feingold. The party leadership is
deeply chagrined at him because he goes off the reservation. Prot
fundies distrust him because they distrust anyone who isn't a bible-
thumper -- despite his recent rhetoric on Intelligent Design.

Nice company you're keeping, there, Wooten.

Bob

rdw:

> "Bush, OTOH, signed a contract. For you to even admit that he
> "missed a few meetings" kind of rends absurd (and understandable)
> the shrill, hyperbolic self-righteousnees with which you attempt
> to destroy the Mapes story. Either Bush served with honor like
> his discharge says, or "he missed a few meetings" and didn't
> fulfill his committment. Which is it, Wooten? You can't
> have it both ways here. If he "missed a few meetings"
> and was honorably discharged, somebody lied."

> I did not admit any such thing. I am pointing
> out the claim of missing a few weeks is silly.

Ahhh ... I see. It's called CYA. Covering both bases. You're saying
that he didn't do it -- but even if he did do it, it doesn't matter.

That's real, uhh, consistent of ya, there, Wooten. Shows how much
great faith you have that Bush didn't scam out of his committment.

But I have news for ya, matey. Maybe a guy who has cruised
around the Med in the military equivalent of a floating 7-11
doesn't think that it matters very much if you blow off your guard
duty. But there are literally hundreds of thousands of deeply
hung over young men who drag their sorry, dehydrated asses out to
muster at 08:00 on a Saturday who kind of, umm, think differently.

And you are shitting down the throats of *every one of them*
by dismissing the charge, if it were true, as merely "silly."

> I think GWB was there.

You "think" GWB was there. Oh that is *rich*. :)

> He got an honourable discharge.

And I "think" he got one under false pretenses.

> That's more than 95% if his critics managed.

He-he, look at the cartoon rhetoric. Implying that 95% of his
critics served in the military and got *dishonorable* discharges :)

> It would help if you had a shred of evidence.

Hey, did you have a shred of evidence that Hillary made gazillions
on Whitewater? No, of course not. Did you believe the worst? Of
course you did. This is a case I have to weigh on inference and
make a judgment call. And my call is that there's something deeply
suspicious about GWB's TANG service and his honorable discharge.

> You just can't make up stuff like Dan did.

Hehe, more cartoon rhetoric. Dan "made up" nothing. It was
Mapes' story and he and CBS stood behind it based on a judgment
call. Bad call? Seems to be in retrospect. But once again --
even if you demolish the provenance of the documents, you have to
wonder about other aspects, and your only recourse is to personally
attack every single person who was involved in the story. Which, of
course, might cast some doubt but which definitively *proves* nothing.

If Bush's personal life at that time was otherwise
beyond reproach I'd be much more inclined to be
sympathetic to your case. It however is not.

> There has to be some substance to the charges.

There may well be. We don't know for certain. And if doubt
remains, I'll believe what my gut tells me to believe -- just
as you believed what you did about Bill Clinton and his wife.

> It's just like the rumors of coke addiction. You
> can want to believe. That's your business. But it's
> gossip. No reputable news organization can run with it.

Well maybe that's true of some people, but for me, I never felt there
was enough evidence to believe W was a coke addict. Did he *party*
with coke in my opinion? Oh, absolutely; so did Clinton. Did he
smoke pot as well during these wing-dings? You know it. He may
have even popped a Valium or two or three to come down. That was
the thing to do in their generation. But cocaine is not like most
other drugs; it produces an extreme psychological dependence but
it's not properly-speaking physically addictive; there's no detox
from coke the way there is from alcohol, opiates and pills. You
have to do quite a lot of it in one sitting to work yourself into a
psychotic state where you'll go beat up your grandmother to get more.

If Bush was out there in John Belushi-land,
I think we would have heard about it somehow.

> BTW: The blogs are here to stay. They're critical.

The blogs are here to stay, indeed. They could,
however, use an independent ombudsman regime of some
sort. Self-policing isn't going to work in the long run.

Bob

rdw:

> "Howard Dean is the future of the Democratic Party. His primary
> performance was extraordinary considering how little a shot he
> was expected at having when he entered the race. Did anybody
> think the governor of Vermont would raise that kind of money?"

> You are delusional.

No, I'm actually the last thing from it. You seem to forget
that I was on the ground during the primaries, in touch with
Burlington the whole time. I have an exceedingly hard-eyed analysis
of what went wrong which I shared with the campaign and on his blog.

> He did a great job raising the money but an absolutely pitiful
> job spending it. He ran out of money after two primaries and
> for all of what he spent he got 3rd place. That's miserable. The
> worst part is he had no idea of how chaotic his finances were.

What I said wasn't meant as some kind of post-mortem of the campaign
itself. I was taking, rather, a big-picture look at the Dean
phenomenon. Nobody, least of all Howard Dean himself, expected him
to be anything but another protest candidate when he entered the race.

> "What he's doing behind the scenes has been nothing less
> than historic. Instead of taking the McAuliffe approach
> and massaging the corporate donors, he's been quietly
> building the party at the grassroots. The DNC is in better
> organizational shape now than it's been since '94."

> If he's doing anything it'll be historic. I'm not
> sure 1994 is the benchmark you want to use. Are
> you hoping you'll loss less than 55 house seats.

That was a brainfart. I meant prior to '94, obviously.

> Howard has totally alienated your southern cousins
> as well as religious types. May he be there forever.

This is the last thing from true, but you wouldn't know about it
because what's happening is so under-the-radar. It's not so much
what Dean is doing with the DNC, which is in good shape primarily
due to McAuliffe's big-money fundraising efforts which got the
party out of debat and also the staff's work on the Demzilla list.

What Dean's been doing is building up the state parties in an
unpreceedented way, based on a 50-state strategy that cedes nothing
to the Republicans. The Southern state parties under McAuliffe the
Yuppie used to be totally demoralized; Zell Miller rants about this.
Under Dean, they're excited and energized. Dean's assimilated the
lessons of George Lakoff and knows how to address the issues of
values voters and people of faith with a Democratic message.

As I say, this is under the radar. '06 will be the test ...

Bob

debat = debt

Bob