I think the difference between this scandal and many others during the Bush admin is that a good number of politicians will care about this particular abuse of power. Why? Because they realize that they themselves could very well, now or in the future, be among the targets of such illegal evesdropping.

When their own self interest is involved, politicians -- like regular people -- sit up and take notice.

Kevin,

I suspect that your blog is being monitored for parties that threaten the interests of the USA.

If I type the word p.e.a.c.e. I am immediately flagged by the 100s of computers mining your blog.

My bank records are scanned.

My phone calls are monitored.

My life is over.

Thanks George.

Tom Nicholson (note I am not afraid to use my real name on this blog because I have nothing to hide!)

Don't despair, Steve. It looks like we're going to find out a lot more from James Risen, whose book "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is coming out in January. The advertising for the book can be seen here:

Simon and Schuster

Can't we use the "it's not about the blow job it's about the lying" offense?

Oops, sorry Kevin.

If dems cannot articulate a principled and clear position on this issue, its their own damn fault. Why blame the press, the Fox News, Dick Cheney and the moon and the stars for what is likely to be one more in a long series of self-inflicted Democratic Party failures?

If a political party's fortune rests on other people playing nice, it is doomed to extinction, and I must say well deservedly so.

Welcome back Kevin. I've missed your posts.

The Newsweek piece shatters the assumption that the White House has been blowjob free for five years.

It reads like it was dictated by Harriet Miers, for God's sake.

Me spy on the Kerry campaign? That's unpossible!

Kevin: it sounds like you are believing the propagandists. Americans are upset about this, and despite the rent-a-crowds and paid pundits, this issue has traction. Especially since it will soon be discovered that this whole thing was probably cover for watching political enemies. Anyone who has the capacity to think does not watch Fox or their cloned MSM mirror sites. This administration does one thing well: lying. Not much of a skill, and really, no one believes much of their spin in the real America anymore.
Cue paid trolls.

Kevin, this issue is NOT a loser for Dems. It's just that Dems know how to MAKE it a loser. It is NOT an issue about security: Repubs have done five years of the most comprehensive spying in human history and have NOTHING to show for it. This is about putting your tax returns on the internet; it's about ripping the roof off your bedroom at five oclock in the morhing. It is about a president who picks and chooses what laws he wants to obey.

Dems eitheer (1) do not really want to win (and who can blame them?) or (2)--perhaps more likely--they secretely hope to benefit from some of the same abuse of power someday.

Just as I come to think that the cowering imbecility and miserable, self-pitying impotence of mainstream Democrats could not possibly decline to a more abject state, along comes another sobbing pundit to show I am wrong:

Kevid Drum:

This whole thing is kind of depressing, isn't it? I don't mean in just the obvious sense, but also in the sense that this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats. Once again the president will be allowed to paint this as an issue of either wholeheartedly supporting the fight against terrorism or else being one of those whiny liberals who's allied with Osama in all but name.

I honestly think that if it was revealed that Bush was killing live babies and eating them in the White House basement, mainstream Democrats like Kevin would moan that the issue is a loser for Democrats, because Bush might be able to paint us as soft on cannibalism, and allied with the forces of anti-American vegetarianism.

Of course he can paint them that way, if we are so shrinking and pusillanimous to let him. But you just got finished showing that the Bush inner circle is virtually all alone on this, and that even the other branches of his own stinking, right-wing government opposed him. But still you manage to find excuses for diffidence and political cowardice!

What does it take to convince you gutless scibblers that Bush's vast political power is largely a figment of your own abused and timorous imaginations, and what meagre reality it has is in large measure a product of the self-loathing and insecurity of mainstream Democrats like yourselves, who have been absent from the field of political battle for several years now.

Buck up and grow a pair!

There was a comment on DKOS with a timeline on Ashcroft's departure that lines up neatly with these series of events surrounding his hospitalization, domestic spying authorization and recusing himself from the Plame investigation, which was followed immediately by the Fitzgerald appointment. Ashcroft has been quoted as saying that he thinks Fitzgerald is the best prosecutor in the whole world (seriously). It almost makes you wonder if they got punked by Ashcroft in the end, who just wouldn't cross some lines they saw fit to not just cross but eliminate.

I reluctantly agree with Kevin that the issue has little traction. Unfortunately, most of the country has become too stupid to care about liberty, justice or the constitution. They just want somebody else to worry about their safety - never mind that he a moron and a criminal.

The issue is not whether the pres. may circumvent fourth amendment protections in an emergency situation.

The issue is whether he may do so in a continuing program for THREE STINKING YEARS without attempting to bring the program under the normal system of checks and balances.

If the dems can't articulate that and/or the people can't understand that, then we don't deserve a democratic form of government. Let little George be the tyrant he's always wanted to be.

Oh please. This whining has got to stop. It's wartime, everything about the program shows that it was in fact designed to catch AQ related intelligence (everything we know so far), and so what is someone at the NSA was listening in when my aunt in Paris called me last week? What is somebody in the govt going to do with the information that I got the socks she sent??? What is the risk here?

Who cares what JA said? He's a lawyer and was probably concerned about legality, not whether this was a good program.

And whether or not it was legal depends on what the Supreme Court says about the balance of powers between the president and congress. With all due respect to Drum, various blowhard senators, and pundits, unless they've got Justice in front of their names, they don't get to decide what's legal or not. Same goes for FISA judges, balance of power issues are not part of their domain.

Unfortunately, most of the country has become too stupid to care about liberty, justice or the constitution.

What an elitist position! Why don't Democrats ever fail to live upto the caricature that Republicans make them out to be?

If the Democratic leaders are always trying to straddle every issue, ever dreadfully afraid of the affect of any clear and crisp position that they might take, there is no sense in calling the people at large stupid for not caring for the resulting mushy message.

And what's with the phony picture at the top of the article? Bush & Cheney were nowhere near each other on 9/11. In fact, didn't Bush run and hide in the midwest (at Cheney's urging), while Dickie went to his proverbial "undisclosed location"? Newsweek knows all this. So what's with the phony picture?

One of the questionable conservabot talking points bandied around, by even Condi et al, and a chief architect is the execrable Yoo, is that the President's Commander in Chief powers let him do about anything he wants. Well, it looks to me that the USC just implies presidential authority over the armed forces and the "militias."

However, one talking point really has legs, and we need to deal with it: intercepting communications going across our borders may have different legal status than just what would be done internally. This point was discussed on Sully's site and gave him pause. It can't just be dismissed, can it? What did FISA say about cross-border intercepts in particular? What do you all think?

...so what is someone at the NSA was listening in when my aunt in Paris called me last week? What is somebody in the govt going to do with the information that I got the socks she sent??? What is the risk here?

The risk is that, as they're listening to your call from your aunt in Paris, and the thousands of innocuous calls like it, they're missing important calls that have actual information.

That's what happened with 9/11. It wasn't that they didn't have the information. It's not that they didn't know what to do, The problem was that they couldn't figure out what was the wheat and what was the chaff. And now they've added even more chaff that they'll have to sift through to find the people who do want to attack us.

That's the risk -- that they'll miss the attackers AGAIN because they're listening to you and your aunt.

Thanks for the ass-farts, lib.

Very mushy, the rule of law...

All the Democrats need to do is to get someone to put forward a bill legalizing these activities (even if such a law would later get struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional) while condemning the Bush administration for not doing so themselves. The Democrat looks like the parent stepping in, a solution is offered, and the Democrats can show that they'd support many of the powers granted by the PATRIOT Act if only there were judicial oversight. Thus, they can be strong on both national security and personal rights, while pinning the Bush administration (and, on its coattails, the Republican party) as abusing its power.

The picture might be real. Cheney spent the day in the WH's bunker while Dubya flew around the country. But IIRC Dubya did get back to DC around 8-9pm so could have been in the same room as Cheney late at night.

"Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" - Patrick Henry. I don't see any room in that statement for allowing the King to read their mail, as long as the King is looking for something else. People died for these freedoms, people, and we're willing to give them up?

What's next? Will the President be allowed to search my house without a warrant? Hey, only the guilty have something to hide - isn't that the mantra?

"This whole thing is kind of depressing, isn't it? I don't mean in just the obvious sense, but also in the sense that this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats.

I've got two words for you: Joe Lieberman. The man always there to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the Dems when the Iraq war or Bush's national security "policies" threaten to become legitimate political issues for the Left.

If the Democratic leaders are always trying to straddle every issue, ever dreadfully afraid of the affect of any clear and crisp position that they might take, there is no sense in calling the people at large stupid for not caring for the resulting mushy message.

Exactly. Republicans have grown skilled in making people afraid of everything from air travel to the US mail; and yet Democrats cannot figure out a way to get people to be scared about fundamental erosions of their liberty and privacy?!

This issue has all kinds of potential for Democrats. It is true that many Americans have been willing to look the other way as the liberties of people besides themselves was restricted. As long as the government has only been trampling on the liberties of a relatively small number of men of Middle Eastern descent, a lot of Americans have remained complacent, and even approved.

But now, every single American who has ever browsed a porn site, or written an email to a secret lover, or joked about smoking pot or doing some other drug over the phone, or confessed some youthful crime to an interlocutor, or talked smack about some relative or friend behind their backs, or admitted to a girlfried that she aborted her husband's baby without his knowledge, or discussed some clandestine homosexual liaison, or said he despises the president, or talked about cheating on his taxes, or made an ill-advised racist crack, or told a confidant about some disease they have that they would prefer not to divulge, is now worried that the government is spying on them, listening to them, taking over their computers with super-spook spyware - and that someone, somewhere now has some dirt on them that could be used against them at some point in the future.

I have to believe that for most Americans, this is an extremely creepy and hair-raising prospect. It is a nightmare straight out of some paranoid thriller, and is fraught with incredible political potential for anyone with the smarts to make use of it.

That's unpossible!

"...it would be a matter of utter unpossibility to stow away in my hold even one fourth part of that same liquor which your Majesty just mentioned. To say nothing of the stuffs placed on board in the forenoon by way of ballast, and not to mention the various ales and liqueurs shipped this evening at various seaports, I have, at present, a full cargo of 'humming stuff' taken in and duly paid for at the sign of the 'Jolly Tar.' You will, therefore, please your majesty, be so good as to take the will for the deed--for by no manner of means either can I or will I swallow another drop--least of all a drop of that villainous bilge-water that answers to the name of 'Black Strap.'"

The good news:

The war on terrorism is progressing just fine.

The bad news:

Republicans control the definition of the word "terrorism."

Interpreting the good and bad news:

I agree with the defeatism of Kevin's post.
Only I go further-- I've written this country off to the republicans.
They can have it.
And die for it.
Pay taxes for it...
And all that other happy patriotic shit.

Me?

I'm just visiting and collecting a paycheck...

But now, every single American who has ever browsed a porn site, or written an email to a secret lover, or joked about smoking pot or doing some other drug over the phone, or confessed some youthful crime to an interlocutor, or talked smack about some relative or friend behind their backs, or admitted to a girlfried that she aborted her husband's baby without his knowledge, or discussed some clandestine homosexual liaison, or said he despises the president, or talked about cheating on his taxes, or made an ill-advised racist crack, or told a confidant about some disease they have that they would prefer not to divulge, is now worried that the government is spying on them, listening to them, taking over their computers with super-spook spyware - and that someone, somewhere now has some dirt on them that could be used against them at some point in the future.

No. They aren't. As usual, you people are talking to yourselves. Nobody out in the real world is hysterical about this, despite the media's best efforts to coat it in a thick layer of innuendo and anonymous sources.

Back when the Plame thing was taking off, I said that the key would eventually be Miller. The key to this one is who these leakers are, and when those names come out, wait and see what happens.

This whole thing is kind of depressing, isn't it? I don't mean in just the obvious sense, but also in the sense that this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats.

If you think it is depressing, why are you being part of the problem? The only way this is a "clear loser" is if pundits -- especially those on the left -- jump into partisan political analysis rather than dealing with the substantive issues. That's what frames the controversy, which is fairly obviously not a particularly partisan political issue, but one of adherence to the law where there is plenty of evidence that the concerns cross party lines, as yet another simple Republicans v. Democrats issue and gets the public to tune out the details and judge it superficially.

Once again the president will be allowed to paint this as an issue of either wholeheartedly supporting the fight against terrorism or else being one of those whiny liberals who's allied with Osama in all but name.

And, once again, Kevin Drum will complain about the lack of attention to substance, while at the same time being an accomplice in the trivialization of the policy dispute by highlighting, instead of the substance, concerns about how it turns out in terms of partisan advantage, making him one of the bevy of nominally "liberal" pundits that serves principally to reinforce the belief that the defenders of executive tyranny are trying to sell to avoid public outcry -- that is, the belief that critics are principally concerned not with civil liberties or the rule of law or national security, or some combination of those, but partisan advantage.

If you want to make it harder for abusers of the public trust to sell the side you are on as being motivated by partisan advantage to the point of compromising commitments to substantive concerns of government, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to resort to complaining about the bad partisan political results you assume will result from a controversy instead of pressing on the substantive issues that tell why the average American should be concerned about the controversy.

Democrats would be a lot more successful if virtually every Democratic-leaning pundit from the blogosphere to the mainstream media didn't have an idiotic tendency to prematurely start bemoaning the impending political loss coming from every issue rather than keeping up with focus on the substantive issue.

Seriously, why do so many people feel the need to start placing blame for a loss that hasn't happened yet as soon as controversy starts rather than actually fighting to win on the merits?

Nobody out in the real world is hysterical about this

Gee Tom, I agree in one respect, I've never considered Willam Safire a bonafide member of the "real world", despite his occasional burst of lyrical brilliance.

Happy New Year, by the way.

ALERT: It looks like we're going to find out a lot more from James Risen, whose book "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is coming out in JANUARY.

I can't wait!!! This is January!!!!

"Once again the president will be allowed to paint this as an issue of either wholeheartedly supporting the fight against terrorism or else being one of those whiny liberals who's allied with Osama in all but name."

Fuck no...if concerned Americans ceaslessly rail against the criminals and destructors of the US currently occupying the White House, giving them no quarter until the accomplice republican Congress has no choice but to start what should have been undertaken 3 years ago: impeachment.proceedings

*** impeachment, conviction, the Hague, and prison for the bushcriminal in '06 ****

Dan,

I'm not afraid of anything. The GOP isn't using fear. They're going with common sense. 9/11 means we are at war. This isn't a police action. We don't need to ask the French or Germans to help us. There's little they can add. We need to find these people and kill them. We need to find the people who are helping them and kill them as well. If NSA data mining helps us do that we need to do it.

It's the liberals who are constantly on the side of protecting the terrorists and making it harder for the military and intelligence agencies to do their job. You've got 10 different fools out there yelling impeachment without ever considering if this is a valuable tool for stopping terrorists. This was always about partisan politics and never about anything else. And both Kevin and Steve were leading the charge.

Kevin s/b feeling sick. He's starting to realize just how clueless he's been.

Here's the story of James Risen's book (out in January! on the NSA story!) from NPR. So did Risen's book force the Times to publish?

He also said there was a second, hidden reason for the timing of the story.

"The author of this article had turned in a book three months ago," Cornyn said, "and the New York Times failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book's release and sale."

Times reporter James Risen's book State of War on intelligence matters is due out next month from Simon & Schuster.

However, several Times journalists told NPR that Cornyn has it backwards. They said the Times published the article reluctantly, and not to promote Risen's book. They would not be identified because the Times won't let editors or reporters comment on the NSA article.

Much of the research for the story had been completed before the November 2004 elections. These journalists told NPR that Risen and his colleague Eric Lichtblau lobbied for the article to be published far earlier than it was.

But the Times held back after government officials said the article would compromise their ability to track terrorists. In a statement, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said government officials convinced the newspaper that the president had the legal authority to order the wiretaps. Keller said subsequent reporting showed there were deep divisions within the administration about the extent of Bush's authority.

Times journalists told NPR the approaching release of Risen's book forced senior editors to focus grudgingly on the NSA story. They otherwise would have been scooped in a book by one of their own correspondents. (Risen had been on book leave for the first five months of 2005, according to the Times.)

Risen's book has been pushed up a couple of weeks, coming out on Tuesday, now. Wonder if it will sell as well as the barrage of anti-Bush books that came out before the last election.

I also notice that Newsweek seems a lot more certain about Ashcroft's attitude than the New York Times was. Guess their anonymous sources are better than the Times' ones are.

I am as much cynicalas any one else about the Dems' ability to restrain from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, but hey Kevin, cheer up, it's only January 1.

What's next? Will the President be allowed to search my house without a warrant? Hey, only the guilty have something to hide - isn't that the mantra?

That certainly has been the mantra lately in discussions of government spying. And I laugh everytime I read it, since I assume that at least 95 out of every hundred people do indeed have something to hide, in the sense that there is something that they would strongly prefer certain other people not learn. I suspect there are two main interpretations that explain the use of the "nothing to hide" mantra.

First there are those who do want to complain a bit about government spying. But they think: "If I complain, people will think I have something to hide. And I do have something to hide - just like everyone does. But I don't want people to think I have something to hide. Because who knows, someone might get curious and look into it, and find out what it is. Maybe even some government spook who is monitoring this site will get curious. So I'd better issue a little preemptive 'I have nothing to hide statement' disclaimer to throw off the scent!"

Of course, nobody believes you when you say this. So why even bother.

The other thought behind the mantra is this: "Of course I have something to hide. But I'm a good, loyal Bushbot, and our guys are in charge. So they will never go after me, or use the dirt to intimidate me. They will only go after all those disloyal pinko liberals! Yet I can't give my pinko liberal interlocutors the satisfaction of admitting that we almost all have something to hide. So I'm going to posture as a pure-as-snow Clean Jean, who never does or says anything that fears exposure."

Well, here's a little reminder for you wingnuts: You're not going to be in charge forever. Someday my liberal, pinko, traitor friends and I are going to take over. And if this little spying program you have started is entrenched by then, we're the ones who are going to have access to the dirt. And we've got a few Karl Roves of our own who won't hesitate to use it.

So when President Obama is in charge, I don't want to see any criticism on those cranky right-wing websites, got it? No subversive right-wing email; no off-color cracks; no critical letters to the editor. Understand? I don't think Mrs. Wingnut would like to get an anonymous letter about the time you screwed her sister. And I don't think your gay boss would like to hear about the time you called him a "brainless cocksucking douchebag", or about all those AA meetings you go to. And I don't think your black co-worker would be very pleased to learn about the time you called him a name that decency forbids me to use; and I can think of several things that I don't think the little Wingnut sprouts would like to learn about dad. Oh, and remember the time you got mad and made that vaguely threatening remark about President Obama? Well, the Secret Service doesn't laugh at that stuff at all.

So enjoy your little moment of safety while you've got it, my Red State friends, because we're coming for you.

Back when the Plame thing was taking off, I said that the key would eventually be Miller. The key to this one is who these leakers are, and when those names come out, wait and see what happens.

This is your way of claiming prescience? Or apologizing for chronic know-nothing-itis? Because the key was Miller, how?

This whole thing is kind of depressing, isn't it?

Well, it is annoying as hell to hear you, Kevin Drum, a frequently very smart guy, throwing in the towel instead of standing in and fighting on the merits.

this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats.

If you thought hard about it, I think you would withdraw this sentence and apologize for it. You sound like Mike K.

President wipes ass with Law and Democrats are the worse for it. Talk about defeatism.

I'm not sure I want that attitude on my team...

Dan:

You know, you make a very good point. Maybe the reason the Left sees Big Brother in everything the administration does with surveillance is because this is exactly what they would do if they were in charge.

At the very least, we can't let them get away with using rhetorical tricks of language to imply that the only people being monitored were Al Queda.

Everything we know about this program suggests it was much broader, and likely used for much less noble purposes - or else they wouldn't have avoided FISA.

Democrats would be a lot more successful if virtually every Democratic-leaning pundit from the blogosphere to the mainstream media didn't have an idiotic tendency to prematurely start bemoaning the impending political loss coming from every issue rather than keeping up with focus on the substantive issue.

They didn't start bemoaning the loss. They started celebrating the possibility of impeachment along with such fools as Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy K, Jonothan Alter, Howard Fineman, etc., etc., The Democrats led with impeachment charges and phoney outrage over a loss of privacy without a clue as to who's privacy was violated. It's was pure unadulterated partisanship. At no point have you asked if this was a valuable tool to track terrorists. To my kowledge you still have not.

Seriously, why do so many people feel the need to start placing blame for a loss that hasn't happened yet as soon as controversy starts rather than actually fighting to win on the merits?

Because the Rasmussen poll was so decisive.

People are following the story, as if they could get away from it, and they understand Bush authorized warrantless searches. That might be the only thing they know. Yet by 2/3's they support it. In this environment that's a landslide. There is NO way a politician is going against the wishes of 2/3's of the people on a naitonal security after seeing what it got Max Cleland and Tom Daschle. Further consider that 90% of the remaining 1/3 are from CA and NY and you have an even better picture of your weak political position. It's easy for you to criticize but they have to run before the voters.

BTW: I know you won't listen but your party has to forget Vietnam, Watergate and Bill Clintons impeachment. No matter what happens it's a repeat of Vietnam or Watergate or an opportunity to impeach GWB. You constantly look as if your hair is on fire.

You've got 10 different fools out there yelling impeachment without ever considering if this is a valuable tool for stopping terror

Oh yeah. The Quakers and PETA are a huge threat to American lives and liberty. The issue here is that most of the MSM, and probably most voters, don't understand the Constitution. Checks and balances, sound familiar? After 9/11 there was a brief movement to legally mandate instruction on the Constitution in public schools, and before those of us greybeards over the age of 35 could get over the fact that this was needed, it was judged superfluous. I think every blowhard cable TV pundit should have to pass a high school civics test from before 1980 before being allowed to speak on camera. The forced retirement of Chris Matthews, Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity would just be the icing on this cake.

Dan:

You know, you make a very good point. Maybe the reason the Left sees Big Brother in everything the administration does with surveillance is because this is exactly what they would do if they were in charge.

Hmmmm....interesting. Yes indeed, who knows? In any case, keep thinking that thought tbrosz!

In fact, maybe I'll apply for the job myself. So many records of intercepted emails and phone calls, and so little time! It will be a data maining gold rush for the left. And remember this: Vee haff vays of enforcing the politikal korrectness!

So enjoy your little moment of safety while you've got it, my Red State friends, because we're coming for you.

Who's we you twit?

Unlike most libs, Red State types actually know people who serve in the military, defense, police, etc. They really don't give a crap about snivelling blue state libs afraid of their own shadows. Plus you're too friggin boring.

jim,

So much for civil rights. I can understand the forced retirements of everyoen there but Chris. He'd like Bush impeached as much as anyone

You know, Kevin, I really don't care how this helps or hurts the Democrats. This is about our rights as Americans. You are not old enough to remember Watergate, but at bottom the same issue is presented by the President's spying program. Is the President above the law. If he is then we should just get it over and name him king. If he isn't, we have to stand up and just say "NO."

Anyway, I don't think you understand just how disturbing this scandal is for folks. The polls aren't framing it right, but the folks I know are all taking it very seriously. You should too.

Seriously, Kevin, it sounds as if you came back a little bit soon. Whiny, partisan defeatism isn't attractive, and this was an un-edifying start to the year.

Spend some more time doing things you enjoy with people you love. Take some long walks. Think of the constitution. Think of the sweeping powers claimed by this incompetent, criminal clique.

You know, Kevin, I really don't care how this helps or hurts the Democrats.

Thank you for coming right out and saying it. The truth is that Bush is wrong, and whether this is "poitically good" for the Democrats takes a back seat to whether we want a country in which the president claims he can disobey the law at will.

The important thing for any political officeholder worth his salt is to take a stand on something that he already knows is right (in this case, that the president must obey the that) even if it's not necessarily something which pays off political dividends.

Who's we you twit?

Unlike most libs, Red State types actually know people who serve in the military, defense, police, etc. They really don't give a crap about snivelling blue state libs afraid of their own shadows. Plus you're too friggin boring.

Yeah, yeah. That's what Jeff Davis said.

"Only I go further-- I've written this country off to the republicans."

A wonderful idea. But what sort of a tax break do I get?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regarding the various tbozo posts up above:

You must be young enough to have acne on both your ass and your face. And no, this is not a post suggesting you learn to control your bacterial infections by washing your hands. Rather, since you so implicitly trust BIG GOVERNMENT when it is in the hands of the repuglicans, and apparently distrust it when it is in the hands of the Dimocrats, I suggest the very least you should do is offer your mouth up this year as a fuck hole for Your King.

In other words, since you aren't bright enough to realize that "Absolute Power Corrupts Abosolutely..."

Get down on your knees like a good wittle boy and say: AHHHH....

(What a dimwitted motherfucker... you sure tbozo isn't a dimocrat?)

Shorter Kevin Drum: Dems always lose so we might as well let bush solidify the US as a fascist state. (how 'bout another week off Kevin?)

rdw, to you little coward, you might be swo fearful that you think the president has to break the law to save your cowardly ass from terrorism in your budding metropolis of suburban pennsylvania, but I assure you that your local police force and mayor does a hell of a lot more to keep you ungrateful ass alive than Bush's monitoring of PETA and the Quakers-- and they have to do stuff like, you know, obey they law when worrying about how to keep you safe.

Plus you're too friggin boring.

Please leave then. Your bombastic jingoism provides zero intellectual stimulation, and clogs up the boards.

I don't know how many times in the last five years (at least when the NYTimes had no walls) that Paul Krugman asked the media to stand up to the Rove and the administration. Time and again they wimped out. Again we wait.

A good review of Dylan's It alright Ma.. is in order
http://bobdylan.com/songs/itsalright.html

Plus you're too friggin boring.

I love how our resident right wing crazies think that the opposite of "boring" is "mindless repetition of right-wing talking points and faux-outrage at liberals' criticism."

tbrosz and rdw exist in a moral void where they through hyperactive temper tantrums whenever someone deigns to criticize bush or make him look bad while they lack any moral ability to actually be bothered by Bush's incompetence or failures of his own. Once again, they are those who view their leaders like a child views his parents, while it falls upon the liberals to view their leaders like an adult views his parents.

Ron,

Kevin is the example of why you should drop the constant Watergate references. 1st off it does not resonate with the half of the voting public under 50. 2nd it does not resonate with that 50% of the voting public over 50 and still sane. This is perfectly born out by the 23% in the Rasmussen poll bothered by events. That's small.

If you have an example of Bush or someone else using intelligenc agencies to spy on Americans to get political dirt then bring up Watergate. Otherwise you are just another liberal with your hair on fire.

rdw, the Watergate comparison is true. There is no other justification needed. Kevin is not running a political campaign. His job is to provide insight using facts. Just because the Watergate comparison gets you upset and causes you to wet your pants does not make it any less true.

Unlike most libs, Red State types actually know people who serve in the military, defense, police, etc.

Some 30 Iraq vets are now running for congress as Democrats. Quick, guess how many Iraq vets are running as Republicans. I believe the number is two, but you may correct me if I'm wrong.

All but two of the veterans in congress today are Democrats. Why won't Republican vets run for office? If they do run, why do they lose? Does Iraq service turn them into Democrats?

Why did my 60s Army sevice (E-5) turn me into a lifelong liberal? When did YOU serve?

i haven't seen ol' rdw posting in a little while (although i could have missed it), but it's reassuring to know that he/she is still as clueless and stupid as ever.

not a single orignal thought, simply the doltish repetition of whatever the propaganda robots are dutifully reciting, whether it's the nonsense that the rasmussen poll proved anything or the nonesense that everything is make-up for the clinton impeachment or just every other piece of nitwit swill that circulates among the ill-informed.

truly pathetic.

as for kevin's post, i'll just agree with those who say that there is no reason to assume this will be framed in a pro-bush way: actual conservatives, for instance, have noted the gross expansion of presidential powers that this program relies upon. Running against the lawless presidency of the dishonest Bush and reminding people of just how bad his judgement is doesn't strike me as a losing position to take into 2006.

on top of everything else, rdw, it's clear that you don't understand watergate: the issue in watergate was presidential lawlessness, just as it is here.

and really, stop embarassing yourself by citing the rasmussen poll: i approve of wiretapping potential security threats without a warrant too. i simply approve of it when it's done legally, through FISA. when rasmussen asks that question - "do you approve of illegally wiretapping american citizens by going around the FISA court?" - and gets a 64% yes, then you've got something to say.

it will, of course, be a cold day in hell when that happens (that is, when a propaganda robot like you has something to say).

About that quarter, my sleigh broke down and the Easter Bunny was too drunk to give me a ride...

In fantasyland constitutional disagreements are well defined and there's a force field up based on public opinion to enforce the borders.

Sure I can throw out facts and demonstrate clearly how Democratic/Pluralist politicians have gutted the entire premise of the constitution (that ancient document made by rich white men to be used to keep the poor and non-whites under control - look ma, I'm a liberal) in order to further their goals. Laughing all the way, ha ha ha, calming the nerves of strict constructionists by explaining it is a "living document" intended to be expanded and altered.

Let's see, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Interstate Commerce Clause, 14th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, unfunded state mandates, Use of executive branch to create administrative laws bypassing Congress, Internal Revenue Service, etc.

Now, we can quibble over which political party is worse, but I think you'll miss the point.

Constitutional protections don't exist based on popularity. The first amendment is not up for Prom Queen. Article II is not running for County Commissioner.

Stop acting like little children accusing everyone in class of stealing your pencil and then finding it behind your ear.

FACT 1: FISA - Congress DID authorize warrantless taps in legislation. Democrats and Republicans in Congress were advised about Bush's use of that authority and had 3 years to overturn it.

FACT 2: Every President, Democratic and Republican believed they could and did act this way. So this is not about Bush, it's a legitimate issue about Presidential authority.

FACT 3: Supreme Court authority to declare a law or action unconstitutional comes from a Supreme Court decision long before there were any Republicans. See how easy it is to just make up the rules as you go along?

Need I really say more? Oh, and about that quarter, due to depreciation based on the Populist's (I call them liberals) call to dump the gold standard, you now owe me $432.23. Please, no food stamps.

Constantine,

I'm not a coward. I am not afraid. I just have an opinion that liberal elitists are morons. I am glad you have so high an opinion of yourself and your elitist peers. But I am even happier yet a majority of Americans do not share this high esteem you have for yourself.

rdw

I meant it. I really don't care how this helps or hurts Democrats.

I referred to Watergate because this issue is constitutional. We either have a king, or we have a democracy.

The problem with Bush's secret program is that he knew the congress wouldn't go along with it, so he didn't ask. What the fuck kinda program wouldn't the congress go along with in the days following 9/11. I don't know yet, but it had to be pretty damn far out there. Don't you think? If it wasn't that far out there, then Bush is just a scofflaw. Either way, he claims to be above the law, and that just can't be allowed to pass. I think there are a lot of Republicans who agree.

Thanks, Tbroz. Nice summary. These are calls, remember, originating from only some phone numbers outside the US. So far, none of the hysterics here has explained how this has caused any actual, tangible harm.

Why does John Ashcroft hate America?

And not one of the lefties posting here have any idea whether the program is legal or not. Not one. Just. Hot. Air.

Some 30 Iraq vets are now running for congress as Democrats. Quick, guess how many Iraq vets are running as Republicans. I believe the number is two, but you may correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure. Most of those 36 or so (at last count)veterans are not Iraqi war veterans, but either peacetime veterans or Gulf War veterans. I think one article mentioned nine Iraq veterans, one of which was a Republican, but I have yet to see a complete tally on either side.

The lower number of Iraq veterans is probably more an issue of age than anything else--Iraq war veterans would tend to be younger and not as ready for political office.

Happy New Year, Kevin! Welcome to the United Soviet States of America!

So far, none of the hysterics here has explained how this has caused any actual, tangible harm.

So, lab, is it your position that no illegal activity should be prosecuted or even investigated, unless it causes actual, tangible harm?

I've always disagreed with right wingers, but in times past I could at least respect some of them for their integrity. That's getting harder and harder these days. There's nothing Bush could do that they wouldn't sell their souls to justify. No principle of liberty that they won't betray for partisan advantage.

As to the Rasmussen poll: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the poll question leave out the pertinent notion that these taps were warrentless and therefore illegal, i.e., the pollster did not ask people if they thought warrentless taps were OK, only if they had a problem with taps on suspected terrorists? So the poll results were hopelessly skewed.

And as to the person whose call acknowledging the gift of socks might be tapped--what if NSA, or DoD or CIA or any other agency that shared NSA data, decided that "socks" was code for yellowcake uranium? Would you then find it more intrusive if a file on you and your aunt was started, and all of your friends and aquaintences had their e-communications tapped, and your boss and your neighbors and everyone you've met were questioned about your reading habits, work habits, conversation, and the like? Joseph K didn't do anything wrong, either, and look what happened to him

FACT 4: I am a either 1) an idiot or 2) a liar

Constantine, Howard,

I am trying to help you out here.

Have you noticed that since the Rasmussen poll no one except the whacko's speak of impeachment? Think that's just an odd coincidence do you? Kevin was one of the 1st out of the gate on that one. The boy creamed his pants. From the sounds of it now he's not able to get it up.

The key to Watergate was Nixon covering up illegal acts which were done to give him political advantage. The illegal acts were generated by his desire to harm his political enemies. It was about Tricky Dick.

Bush isn't spying on the DNC. There's nothing he's done that is remotely partisan or for political gain. He is trying to find terrorists. That's a huge distinction and makes it totally unlike Watergate.

When you are making the comparison it is solely and obviously partisanship. That's wht Kevin is so crestfallen. He saw this a purely an opportunity to get Bush and he realizes it's a stone loser for the Dems. He didn't say this but he's hoping voters forget it by November. He knows the GOP holds a substantial edge on the leading of national security and it just got wider.

"IF" you had approached this as a civil liberties issue with a concern for protecting civil liberties WHILE AGGRESSIVELY HUNTING TERRORISTS you would have had a very good political issue.

I understand the press and the constant Watergate references. They've been getting
beat up for a while and that recalls for them the glory days. I can't understand a political pundit. They know there's only so many times you can yell the 'sky is falling' before you are forever a fool.

Kevin, with all due respect. Your take on this is exactly why Dems could have that outcome. Why don't you make the GOP argument for them!

If you want my full response, and I'm sure you will, go here:

http://greyhairsblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/did-i-miss-something.html

Dan S.

The poll was far from perfect. But it was better than most. 68% have been following the story. The ONLY reason it's a story is because the searches were WARRANTLESS. You can't have been following the story and not know the searches were warrantless.

Knowing the searches were warrantless almost 2/3's of Americans SUPPORT Bush.

Kevin is crestfallen, as was Steve, because they realize this is a good poll and it is a DISASTER.

The GOP isn't using fear.

That's funny! "Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm"

The key to Watergate was Nixon covering up illegal acts which were done to give him political advantage.

Sort of like Libby's (alleged) illegal outage of Plame for political advantage, eh? With the (probably) connivance of his boss, Cheney.

And in speaking of such people you expect us to believe the following, on the basis of absolutely no evidence:

Bush isn't spying on the DNC. There's nothing he's done that is remotely partisan or for political gain. He is trying to find terrorists. That's a huge distinction and makes it totally unlike Watergate.

How do you know he isn't spying on the DNC? How do you know that he has done nothing for political gain? How do you know that ALL he is trying to do is "find terrorists"? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statements, or are we just supposed to trust Bush blindly?

Kevin Drum: I don't mean in just the obvious sense, but also in the sense that this issue seems like such a clear loser for Democrats.

Ahh...that's the attitude I want to hear. The President of the United States, who is in the writer's opposing party, admits on national television that he has broken the law and intends to continue to do so. And the writer's reaction, stick a fork in me, I'm done? I am back from vacation and I'd like to move on to talk about bigger and better things, like the new season of 24 and Survivor.

Remember Kevin, those that stand for nothing will fall for anything. And the DLC wonders why so many Americans are independents and think the Democratic Party is filled people who are scared to push back and fight for their beliefs. If the Democratic Party truly believes the President should be held to account for his actions, they shouldn't try to sit around and think about polls.

John Kerry's biggest strength was his military record, and what did Karl Rove do to negate that. Attack it head on.

Now some Democrats, such as Kevin, are handed a gift horse and they look it in the mouth. What a pathetic lot? Would you like some cheese with that whine? If Democrats can't win an argument that POTUS should not be able to break the law with impugnity, after it was thrown in their face for 10 years, they deserve to be the permanent minority party.

Unfortunately, the American people deserve a true alternative.

Bush claims that his actions are justified because we are "at war." He keeps reiterating that Sadaam had to go. Wait a minute I thought 9/11 was something else?

Folks, this crap about national security is scary stuff. Especially when you consider the fact that GWB wanted to take out Sadaam before 2000 (1999 campaign).

Heck, we've been bombing Iraq for 15 years now.

My point is, we aren't being given the whole truth about 9/11, why the wire-tapping, or the destruction of Iraq.

"You're either with us or against us." (GWB)

Think how convenient it is for George to label a "war-on-terrorism" and con everyone into letting him engage in executive tyranny, commit impeachable offenses while cloaking everything with a faith-based mantra about...

CIP (after being slapped by somebody) - thanks I needed that.

Usual suspect - ...so what is someone at the NSA was listening in when my aunt in Paris called me last week? What is somebody in the govt going to do with the information that I got the socks she sent??? What is the risk here?

The risk here is that the spying was used illegitimately. We know the courts refused some warrants - who exactly did the President want to spy on? The New York Times? Joe Wilson? John Kerry?

We've seen this movie before. Bush, like Nixon, conflates political opponents with the enemies of the country. Let's remember that Nixon, besides burglarizing Americans, contemplated setting up concentration camps for his opponents. Just how close, tbroz, do we need to get to a fascist dictatorship before you start to get nervous?

Maybe Bush's use of the NSA was for valid purposes, and otherwise harmless. If Congress does it's job, it will find out. If it finds out that he used the NSA for domestical political purposes, he should be impeached, and promptly.

Kevin -- apparantly playing dijeridoos alleviate sleep apnea. Not kidding.

has anyone run a search for quotes like "the president is bound by the law" dating to the clinton impeachment and uttered by currently sitting members of congress and other people in the administration? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of those, not just quotes from dead guys who wrote the constitution and then died 200 years ago.

The Kool-Aid guzzlers have a "gallant leader" named Twigless who proudly proclaims he does not follow polls, yet the guzzlers stagger drunkenly and swoon over Rasmussen's incomplete poll.

The fat lady's been singing since the first Abu Ghraib revelations resulted in barely a ripple amongst the hoi polloi. She's reaching her climactic crescendo while you dither about whether GWB, or whoever's POTUS, is king or just Imperium Personum.

The republic is already kaput. Whine away.

You woke up too late for dinner.

RDW,

I'm sorry, but "You can't have been following the story and not know the searches were warrantless" doesn't quite cut it. A poll question that assumes knowledge that the polled may not have is likely invalid (and no, I'm not talking about common knowledge like the sun rising in the east). If it were so, then the 40 some-odd percent of Americans that still poll as believing that Saddam was linked to 9/11, despite massive news coverage that it just wasn't true, would be worth taking into consideration rather than being pathetically ill-informed.

And not one of the lefties posting here have any idea whether the program is legal or not. Not one. Just. Hot. Air.

I think there is ample evidence that someone in the Bush administration has exceeded his statutory authority, lab. The warrantless searches authorized by 102(a)(i) of FISA are permissible only if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that:

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

I assume it is subsection (i) which is in play here. Now, we are given to understand from the news reports that the surveillance being conducted is not limited to the "contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers", even when "foreign powers" is understood according to the definitions in other parts of the statute to include any members of international terrorist groups, even those members that might be US citizens. Rather the objects of the surveillance are reported to include communications that are not at all "used exclusively by foreign powers", no matter how inclusively the term "foreign powers" might be used. The administration is tapping the communications of people for whom there exists no evidence linking them to terrorist groups. The aim is to mine broad swaths of communications in order to find out whether there might be some terrorist needles in the haystack. You might think this is fine and dandy, and that it out to be legal. But according to the laws under which we are currently governed, it is not legal.

Now, if these are indeed the kinds of communications being tapped, then either the Attorney General did make the written certifications decribed in the statute, in which case he perjured himself, or he did not make those certifications and Bush ordered them anyway, in which case Bush's orders were illegal.

Ron,

Neither Watergate nor Clinton's impeachment were serious constitutional issues in the sense that Congress was after each for Presidential intrusion on their constitutional powers. Clinton and Nixon violated long established laws and were unquestionably guilty. They then threw up legal smokescreens claiming Presidential immunity. And they lost every one thus losing Presidential power. Neither faced impeachment due to constitutional issues.

In this case Bush is claiming warrantless search powers under the constitution. He is not trying to cover up some other act. It's all about this claim. There are no other charges. You can have an opinion these rights are constitutional or not but you cannot deny there is a legitimate disagreement among legal professionals and if it is to be pursued it will be a Supreme Court decision.

They sharpest distinction remains GWBs intention. He was not spying on George Clooney or Tom Daschle. He was looking for terrorists.

As a political issue the bozo's in your party blew it as they do so often.

"So far, none of the hysterics here has explained how this has caused any actual, tangible harm."

it takes quite a simpleton to make such a statement.

a) except for whistleblowers willing to risk all for the truth, how would anyone know about the harm inflicted by a president that has no problem by-passing the law - the repukelican called government steadfastly refuses to investigate the multiprogged wrong doing of the bushcriminal regime.

b) eviscerating the rule of law and the checks and balances that are the cornerstone of the US Constitution does irreparable harm in and of itself, for this particular instance, as well as for all the untold future instances where a president invents metaphorical war in order to ursurp the constitution and claim unlimited, unchecked power (BTW, such a governing condition is called a military state).

c) the facts of this particular illegal program by the buchcriminal are far from fully revealed as yet.

d) appeals for many criminal convictions are in the process of being filed specifically because the evidence used in gaining the convitions may have been tainted by the bushcriminal's illegal acts.

As to the Rasmussen poll: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the poll question leave out the pertinent notion that these taps were warrentless and therefore illegal, i.e., the pollster did not ask people if they thought warrentless taps were OK, only if they had a problem with taps on suspected terrorists? So the poll results were hopelessly skewed.

Most of the people who took that poll knew quite well what wiretaps were being discussed, and assuming that all of them treated the question as an abstract one instead of dealing with what has been in the news for days is a little silly.

Look around you. What are the Democrats who are actually up for a competitive election in 2006 saying about this issue?

...one of those whiny liberals who's allied with Osama in all but name.

Look at all of the issues pertaining to the war on terror or the war in Iraq over the past year. Which side has the Democratic Party leadership appear to have been taking in each and every case?

Dan S,

You and I can continue to argue all night if Rasmussen was valid. It's valid if it has influence and if you read kevin and Steve you know it does. Rusmussen is a highly reputable pollster who has been around for a good while. No politician is going to ignore such a powerful message.

It's very hard to get 2/3's to agree on anything in this era. But they do not this. The mesage is unambigious. The people want these searches done. The move now will be how to do it and protect civil liberties.

Kevin and Steve are just much clearer headed on this than you.

d) appeals for many criminal convictions are in the process of being filed specifically because the evidence used in gaining the convictions may have been tainted by the bushcriminal's illegal acts.

Actually, since the Left has declared that this program generated no real benefits or arrests, the criminals you're talking about, the ones complaining that an "illegal" program was responsible for their current status, apparently don't exist.

The Rasmussen poll did not ask people about warrantless searches. It asked about interception of conversations in general between Americans and individuals overseas known to be AQ. These wiretaps are perfectly legal with a FISA warrant.

Of course this won't stop the wingnuts who hate freedom and democracy, and who view the president as an elected King, from claiming that this poll proves something about the public's view of warrants, which the wingnuts hate, and want to eliminate, since warrants represent an intrusion on the president's royal powers. The poll did NOT ask people about warrants, or his failure to seek them even when a secret rubberstamp court was available to him for that very purpose. It just asked whether they approved of the wiretaps in general, without stating outright that they might be illegal. Even I approve of wiretaps if a known AQ person is on the other end of the line and the government secures a warrant for the wiretap to make it legal.

The fact that only 64% of respondents approved of legal wiretaps and 36% disapproved of even those out to tell the wingnuts something about this crap "political capital" they think they're holding. How do you think that "64%" will hold up once the question becomes one about getting illegal wiretaps?

Just keep on selling that police state, idiots. Everyone wants to live in a police state. Everyone is just like you.

"He was looking for terrorists"

Yeah, just like Tommy Franks and higher officials in DoD calling off using military forces in Tora Bora when we had Osama on the ropes. Two Midland boys "really looking" for Osama.

mm,

where did you get your 36% genius?

100-64

3rd Paul,

Come, it can't be that hard. GWB needs to keep people afraid. Isn't Osama more valuable alive than dead?

MM

Figured that. Too bad it doesn't work that way. Some people don't have an opinion. Look at the poll.

No doubt the 68% polled who were following the story were more aware of the basic facts than you are. They knew the searches were warrantless.

Mr. Brosz

I was disappointed when you were tag-teaming with Al, but that was positively stellar compared to your current slumming. Aren't you just a little bit ashamed?

Come, it can't be that hard. GWB needs to keep people afraid. Isn't Osama more valuable alive than dead?

Nice parody. More coherent than the original.

Really Dumb Wootten,

Tell that, you stupid ASS, to the families of those killed in the World Trade Center.

"Actually, since the Left has declared that this program generated no real benefits or arrests, the criminals you're talking about..."

what a dumbass bush licking sycophant. Whether or not any convictions eventually get overturned due to the bushcriminal regime's illeagl program, it will be a huge legal morass. The existence of illegal wiretaps permits a defense attorney to question and throw 'reasonable doubt' on all evidence in a case obtained by wiretap. If nothing else, it permits and requires re-opening a case and investigating whether or not any evidence was tainted. Furthermore, the secrecy the bushcriminal regime always hides behind will make it next to impossible for the government to prove that there wasn't any involvement of an illegal wiretap.

You and I can continue to argue all night if Rasmussen was valid. It's valid if it has influence and if you read kevin and Steve you know it does. Rusmussen is a highly reputable pollster who has been around for a good while. No politician is going to ignore such a powerful message.
It's very hard to get 2/3's to agree on anything in this era. But they do not this. The mesage is unambigious. The people want these searches done. The move now will be how to do it and protect civil liberties.
Posted by: rdw

This seems somewhat ... generous ... to say the least. To claim that the message is unambiguous, and that most pollsters KNEW the unasked part of the question, is highly suspect.

especially when you consider that these are americans, who are the most uninformed ignorant motherfuckers of the developed world. You're claiming that the same populace which possess the 30-40% who believe saddam had wmds, was linked with osama, an/or directly responsible for 9/11 is somehow connected enough to reality to know that the question in that poll implied illegal warrantless searches.

No doubt the 68% polled who were following the story were more aware of the basic facts than you are. They knew the searches were warrantless.

Yeah.