O.K., once and for all for the record then, no investigations into the leaks of classified information?

Nope. None that I can see.

Democrats had better have a more crowd-pleasing answer on this subject than they did in 2002 and 2004

they won't.

George Bush is going to do his best to keep national security front and center...

Looks like Iran is certainly doing its part in this too. For the record.

But it turns out the White House OK'd NSA domestic wiretapping immediately upon taking office. 9/11 had nothing to do with it.

Hear, hear Kevin. Sage advice and it should be taken seriously by all.

Well, I would be careful about anything Bushall Wittman has to say, as he is a Radical plant.

But in any case, Fitzgerald will also have some say in this. An indictement of, say, Rove and 2 or 3 top WH aides in May would change the focus of the fall campaign a bit I should think.

Cranky

Two points.
1. If a majority of Americans are so cowardly that they'd let the president break the law so they'll feel better about the brown-skinned boogeyman under the bed, this country deserves its catastrophic fate.
2. There will NOT be airstrikes on Iran, not while we've got 130,000 American troops hostages to Shiite goodwill in Iraq.

Kevin and Wittman are exactly right: We should do nothing whatsoever to curb Bush's ever-expanding powers. No hearings, no investigations, nothing. After all, it would be a political loser.

Bush already has the following powers (and no Democrat has ever disputed them):

1. He can arrest any citizen without charges.

2. He can have any citizen held indefinitely without charges and without access to a lawyer.

3. He can have any citizen sent to a secret prison to be tortured or killed.

4. He can ignore any law passed by Congress or any order issued by any court, including the Supreme Court.

So, the only way for Democrats to win in 2006 and beyond is to simply allow Bush to spy on any citizen he wants whenever he wants without cause or warrant. After all, it is only when Bush has ALL the powers of a supreme dictator that Democrats have a prayer of winning even local elections.

Provided, of course, there actually are any more elections--this being wartime and all.

Condi was all over TV this morning doing her "And the beat goes on" and "These boots were meant for stompin'" - The new movie "Thirty Seconds over Tehran" is already in the can.

"Politically, this is almost certainly how a majority of Americans will see it, "

No, dummy, Americans right now see it as a power grab and unwaranted intrusion on the live of americans. they see it as big government fishing expeditions. Polls show that any sort of question framing around "should the executive be able to wire tap US citizens without enough evidence to get a warrant" strongly goes against the president. People like you who amplify the republican spin and make it appear bipartison are teh ones who are going to fuck us again.

"George Bush is going to do his best to keep national security front and center, and Democrats had better have a more crowd-pleasing answer on this subject than they did in 2002 and 2004. Just saying"

Don't you mean Kevin Drum is going to do his best to keep national security front and center? Are you going to stab us in the back again for the 2006 elections, just like you did for 2004 and the run up to the war?

Could we PLEASE get the washington monthly to get a non-bedwetting blogger, instad of leaving this forum to Kevin "I think there's a terrorist under my bed, and don't you dare tell me there isn't, now SAVE ME" Drum?

Kevin-- Did you read this Truthout piece titled "Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11"?:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

If Bush *came into* office skirting the constitution, even before 9/11, that's a different story, isn't it?

Leaders can always get their people to do their bidding, be it a democracy or a dictatorship. Just beat the drums, point out the enemy, rally people around God and Country, and off we go. In the case of Iran and Iraq, however, the Democrats had best figure out what indeed IS best for the United States. We need Democrat Hawks much like Henry Jackson (D-Senate, Washington State) to stand up and tell it like it is. The Defeatists and "peace above all" crowd that is part of the Democratic Party needs to realize that we are indeed involved in the Fourth World War, and we can win it, or we can lose it. rarely is there a draw. Iran is much more dangerous than even North Korea: Iran has decided that Persians, much like Arabs, are mortally threatened by Israel. Both of those countries have strong extremist views, and are not known to back down. Democrats in this country are not prepared for that. They will not win the 2006 midterms.

George Bush is going to do his best to keep national security front and center,

Don't you mean "national insecurity"?

Spot on. and also from The Economist January 7th 2006:

...the prospect of having to defend Mr. Bush against the charge that he went a tad too far trying to avert a terrorist attack is the sort of thing that Karl Rove salivates about.

The focus should not be on "going too far" rather the 2,000+ fallen soldiers and climbing; the budding Civil war in Iraq; and the consequent inability to to take action versus the REAL THREAT* of Iranian nuclear weaponry.

*No false intelligence this time.

That's a pretty piss-poor job of making America more secure, and Bush and his ilk should be thrown out of office.

It is time to give up and embrace crony capitalism before it is too late. The country has embarked on a literal scorched earth program in order to protect the hysterical American people from the boogy man. You better secure your financial freedom now, by cashing in on the Republicans' defense spending boondogles, so you can escape to Sweden or Venezuela before the doors close and we all become servants to Moloch.

Funny, I don't see anything in Kevin's post about not holding hearings. The point is that they have to make them about the rule of law, not villifying in principle wiretapping that would have passed court scrutiny had the administration bothered to follow the law (if an investigation does turn up a clear example of abuse of power, like bugging domestic opponents, that's another story entirely, of course).

Polls show that any sort of question framing around "should the executive be able to wire tap US citizens without enough evidence to get a warrant" strongly goes against the president.
Depends on the wording of the question. When you start adding in "foreign calls", you get a different picture.

30. Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?

Should: 58%
Should not: 36%
Not sure: 6%

31. In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls coming in and out of the United States without getting warrants?

Should: 60%
Should not: 34%
Not sure: 7%

The biggest problems with the NSA wiretapping program are:

1) All the review was conducted within the administration, so if the extent of the wiretapping exceeds the narrow anti-terrorism mandate that is claimed for it, there is no independent agency in a position to put the brakes on it. Briefing (and from all the accounts we have heard so far, they were very brief briefs) the chief judge of the FISA court and the heads of the congressional intelligence committees is not the same thing as having meaningful outside oversight.

2) The entire program was conducted with a high level of secrecy, which is being maintained even now. We still don't know more than bits and pieces of exactly what the NSA was authorized to do or who ended up being targetted. Not only does this make engaging in meaningful oversight even more difficult as noted in 1), it eliminates any chance to debate whether this is a proper direction for the country to be taking. Even if it is eventually determined that the program was innappropriate or illegal or even simply worthless and it gets shut down, there is little or no remedy for the 4 years it has already been in place.

Even if it is decided that this program was appropriate and necessary, people should be concerned about the process by which it was implemented and the precedent it sets for more extensive and troubling intrusions into domestic spying.

Who cares what opinion polls say? opinion polls are useless when it comes to the law, to the Constitution. opinion polls merely point out that the tyray of the majority is well established in this country.

Now add "in direct violation of Federal law" to those questions and see how that changes things.

The poll CN quotes from can be found here, and there's a lot of good stuff in it.

Can I assume question 30 is specific enough for you all now?

Timid idiocy! If the Democrats continue to fold on every hand, waiting to be dealt 4 aces, they will continue to lose. They must call Bush's bluff and raise the stakes. Bush has nothing at this point but the willingness of the Democrats and the conventional media to back down and roll over. And if the Democrats lead, I believe part of the CW and the public will follow.

The Dems hold the better framing cards -- unconstitional, illegal, King George, etc. They just have to play them and not make the fatal assumption that Bush has a "national security" ace up his sleeve. Now's the time for the Dems to go all in.

Well, we have a wealth of other wrong-doing by George W. Bush to put before the American people:

- His rape of a 15 year-old girl when he was 22;
- His two decade dalliance with cocaine;
- His extramarital affair with Tammy Phillips;
- His insider trading of Harken Energy stock;
- His leveraging of government subsidy to make a killing off the Texas Rangers;
- Him going AWOL from the TANG;
- His failure to find the anthrax killer or Osama bin Laden;

Let's take out a full page ad in the USA Today and urge the media to - Bring 'em on!!!

I don't care how many of my other rights they take away as long as I can still have my guns.

Ya know, maybe it's time we democrats just take what the GOP has given us and run with it, presidential authority outside of any law because the president can declare war and define war?

Sure. Then we can start wiretapping the dangerous radical right and dangerous religious zealots that pop up every few years and blow up a building. The republicans and conservatives are going to pissing into the wind when the democrats retake the whitehouse.

Now add "in direct violation of Federal law" to those questions and see how that changes things.

Posted by: Viserys

That would be adding a false assumption to the question. Since it is doubtful that monitoring calls from terrorists overseas to someone in the US is illegal. There is the support of executive orders from two previous administrations and court rulings. So until you lefties can overcome that you have nothing but rabid Bush hating to go on. That is one of the reasons Bush welcomes a congressional investigation. He will be vindicated and the Democrats will be shown as weakass partisans looking for political advantage at the expense of our national secrity. I love it!

The Conservative Deflator...
Well, we have a wealth of other wrong-doing by George W. Bush to put before the American people...(stuff deleted)...Let's take out a full page ad in the USA Today and urge the media to - Bring 'em on!!!

Damn, with stuff like that, GW doesn't stand a chance of being reelected in 2008.

Now add "in direct violation of Federal law" to those questions and see how that changes things.
I don't think it's been decided that the NSA program is clearly in violation of Federal law. You might not remember the Eschelon bruhaha.

One can question the legal rationale that was employed by President, but there is absolutely no evidence that he was attempting to do anything else but protect America.

Really? How does Marshall Wittman know this? Without an investigation being done, how the hell does he know what evidence there is and what it will show. But, even based on the evidence publicly available now that's not true: Dick Cheney has explicitly admitted that an overwhelming motive was centralization of executive power for its own sake.

Politically, this is almost certainly how a majority of Americans will see it, especially after a few friendly rounds of traitor-mongering and mushroom-cloud-alarmism to soften up the crowd.

Well, certainly notional liberals like you pushing this spin before any investigation occurs makes this more likely, but I don't see why before we know what evidence will come out, your willing to make predictions like this about how the American public will see the process.

What's more, there's another looming national security issue on the near horizon as well: Iran.

In what specific way is Iran an issue for the security of our nation?

Sometime this summer and fall we can probably expect yet another marketing campaign from the White House, this time aimed in the direction of Iran, and before long the alternatives are going to get pretty stark: do we recommend continuing sanctions and multilateral opprobrium, or do we support air strikes? Do we "live with" Iran's nuclear program or do we do something about it? Yes or no?

Our presence in Iraq leaves us little choice but to live with it. Even were airstrikes practical, opening up any kind of war with Iran makes the loss in Iraq vastly more costly, and any military action short of nuclear annihilation that would be likely to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions -- such as invasion and occupation with wide multilateral support -- while only a distant possibility in any imaginable circumstances has been rendered completely unacheivable by our policy in Iraq.

Just freakin' tell the truth: we can't do anything about Iran because Bush screwed up Iraq. Whether or not this is portrayed as weak-kneed defeatism, I don't care. Stop with the political calculations and framing and tell the truth.

KEVIN DRUM: Democrats had better have a more crowd-pleasing answer on this subject than they did in 2002 and 2004. Just saying.

The only proper course for the Democrats is to call for Bush's impeachment. They need to unify their declaration of his administration being entirely corrupt. They must not fear asserting the truth: Bush lies, he cheats, he steals, he kills. No euphemisms: not misleads, not obfuscates, not mendacious -- Bush LIES, period. For the good of the country, he must be impeached.

I feel so weary of fighting the GOP. Nothing sticks, they are clever and in power and will beat us up again on NS using Iran in the midterms. Plame, Abramoff, Scalito, Delay, Iraq, WMD...all this crap and still the House is and will be filled with repugs. That fact has to tell you something. The people want what the GOP is selling.

I am sinking fast... Maybe they are right, maybe Bush is a good President and wants only to protect us. Maybe its time to succomb to Jesus Think and all the rest.

Reading the Note today and the Daou post from Eschton yesterday, seems like we are dead in the water and most of Amer wants these crooks to lead them. We've got no traction anywhere. And Kevin and Armondo and the rest are just a bunch of crazy liberal bloggers.

feeling very hopeless.

'Damn, with stuff like that, GW doesn't stand a chance of being reelected in 2008.'
--red ass mike

Who cares about elections? I only want impeachment, imprisonment for George W. and utter and complete humiliation for the rest of the Bush crime family.....

In what specific way is Iran an issue for the security of our nation?

See? This is why we don't want the liberals driving the car.

You honestly can't figure out where crazed mullahs with nuclear weapons in the Middle East figures into our national interest?

Here's a clue: It matters a lot more than Bosnia did.

9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11,9/11

You honestly can't figure out where crazed mullahs with nuclear weapons in the Middle East figures into our national interest?

Yeah--and George W Bush is just the man for the job. At least he has credibility, right?

Damn right Bragan. Bush is restructuring America to be a dictatorship and we dont want one, regardless of party.
As far as Iran goes, tell them we will monitor them like Winona Ryder in a jewelry store and if we catch any nuclear weapons leaving their country in a truck, in the air, whatever we will vaporize them. The only assured destruction will be theirs.

Yep, Georgie knows how to run a war. He's proven he's the man to protect us from the nasty mullahs in Iran.

sorry, posted on wrong thread:)

i don't think he wants hearings, this is just the spin now that hearings are inevitable.
10 days ago Bush said any hearings would "aid the enemy" or some such ...
and there is evidence of Abuses, already. Russ Tice said he witnessed "abuses" of the program, and Andrea Mitchell still hasn't explained her question about Amanpour being spied on.
Whatever the political fallout, Bring on the hearings, judiciary, intel and even in the house thanks to Conyers.
Let's find out what this program really is.

Oh, go suck your thumb, Kevin.

If it's politically bad for the Democrats - too bad. This is about polical liberty.

Cheney/Charlie/Chuckles will shut down the thread if you provoke him.

Here's his response to that claim:

I never spammed the Howard Dean thread, but I did post in direct response to someone's challenge to prove Bush never said "imminent threat" - I doubt me posting here 1/2 hour per year is going to kill anyone (unlike the number of abortions in the past 1/2 hour).

He spammed the thread. The vast majority of those posts which bear the Cheney handle on the thread were transcripts from the White House archives of speeches given by the President. When asked to stop Spamming, he continued. He even boasted about it, and made threats later in the week to continue doing that to close debate.

HOWARD DEAN'S TRACK RECORD....—Kevin Drum 12:42 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (753)

Here is the Permalink:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007726.php

"One can question the legal rationale that was employed by President, but there is absolutely no evidence that he was attempting to do anything else but protect America. It might be satisfying for partisans to cast around comparisons to Nixon or Harding, but this was a program to thwart terrorists not for political aggrandizement."

I don't know what political aggrandizement means but not so unlke Mr Nixon the President believes that nothing is above using for political purpose (i.e. maintaining his power and control), including the war, 9-11, Homeland Security, and now warrentless searches.

This is not about protecting us, it is about protecting himself politically. Everything he is doing now...and I mean EVERYTHING....he could be doing legal if only he had done the proper thing. Police and DA's get search warants everyday that often do not pass the smell test, but we as a society have sort of said that is ok because the rules can not always address every need. Along the way when they go too far a court with the help of a defense attorney serves as a check on just how far over the line they have gone. What this administration has done, with the help of weak congressional oversight, is to take away that safeguard and replaced it with just trust me and I am doing it for your own good. This is not a partisan issue this is about the framework in which this society holds together. SHAME on anyone who tries to make political hay out of this including the press. SHAME.

Just for the record I am a card carrying independent with 22 years service in the US Army. I am not weak on National Security but I am very strong on checks and balances and this Congress and President and it seems now the courts have just thrown that out the window.

One of Risen's sources has identified himself and appeared on Hardball last night. He is a former official at the NSA. I say 'former' because after the leak the government made him take a psych test and they say the results show he is a paranoid schizophrenic. Sounds like old gulag USSR stuff. He has no recourse to the protections of the Whistleblower Act because it doesn't cover the intelligence agencies. Anyway, he seemed perfectly sane to me, Chris Matthews and Risen. Chris's questions to him about whether this program was being used to spy on US political groups, etc. was not directly answered. His reply was that if the program were being used only for 'terrorist' related surveillance then why didn't Bush seek FISA approval. So, my sense after listening to him was that he knew a lot more than he was telling. He also seemed to be quite conscientious about not revealing national security info by describing anything in specific detail. Today he talks to members of the Senate Intel Committee.

In my view, Dems need to push this investigation to the hilt. Dems have to risk their political backsides for once.

Yep, Georgie knows how to run a war. He's proven he's the man to protect us from the nasty mullahs in Iran

Sure, if Iran gets the bomb Indonesia is toast baby!

And again the trolls show that they don't have the slightest clue what Bush is doing. Bush UNDENIABLY violated Congressional statutes when he authorized NSA wiretapping within the US without seeking warrants. He has not even bothered to deny this. His defense is that the commander-in-chief clause of Article II gives him the authority to break the law, Congress' Article I powers to regulate the military be damned. Therefore, the question is not whether the President should be allowed to order those wiretaps, but whether he should be able to order them whether or not he's allowed.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

While it is a bad thing, that's not my immediate point. Since Dick Cheney has explicitly stated a motive aside from national security it is eminently clear that the claim that there is no evidence of any such alternative motive is false.

...most Americans want the President of the United States to protect them agaisnt terrorists...

No doubt. Accountability is a means of assuring effectiveness, consolidation of power in the executive makes it less, not more, likely that the President will protect them against terrorists.

if some future Chief Executive abuses that power, that will be the appropriate time for impeachment.

Impeachment after the fact is a poor remedy for failure to protect against terrorists by abusing the power for other purposes. Applying safeguards to keep the power focussed where it belongs -- as the US Congress did in the wake of demonstrated abuses through FISA -- is a means of preventing such abuse and ensuring that the foreign intelligence resources of the US government are properly used to protect the American people. Deliberate evasion of those restrictions in order to consolidate personal or institutional power is, in and of itself, significant abuse, and the time to address it is immediately when it occurs, rather than waiting for the smoking gun to be, e.g., a mushroom cloud.

Two points.
1. If a majority of Americans are so cowardly that they'd let the president break the law so they'll feel better about the brown-skinned boogeyman under the bed, this country deserves its catastrophic fate.
2. There will NOT be airstrikes on Iran, not while we've got 130,000 American troops hostages to Shiite goodwill in Iraq.

Two very good points. We've backed ourselves into a corner in Iran. The best we can hope for is that all global energy companies will buy into sanctions of their oil (LOL). But the bigger point is that foreign policy is not as important for midtern elections. Among other things, keeping the executive branch in check will be important. Let the hearings begin. I want to know exactly how much internet communication, phone communication, and other data is being snooped on.

the democratic position is very simple: we do not support presidential lawbreaking, no matter what the worthiness of the cause.

in fact, the dems should go one step further: we invite george bush to submit the necessary legislation to authorize his actions.

with the exception of his paid retainers, everyone who has looked carefully at this issue has concluded that bush's arguments as to why this is ok are, in a word, abysmal. dems need not fear pointing this out.

but on the broader context, kevin is right. the democratic task is to bring some rationality to the national security debate. As iran proceeds down the nuclear weapon path, it's worth remembering that terrorism is only one of a series of national security issues: nuclear proliferation, the orphan generation in Africa, the looming collapse of North Korea, managing our relations with emerging economic forces china and india - all of these are every bit as important to day-to-day life in the united states as the threat of another terrorist attack.

The problem the dems will have to face up to, though, is that as long as we are bogged down in iraq, chasing phantoms, we can't do much about either terrorists or the other looming problems. Bush and the republicans are stuck, and they're going to stay with their line: iraq is the central front, and terrorism is the only issue.

dems aren't going to win in a direct encounter on those terms.

instead, dems need to say iraq is a diversion, a massive problem created by george bush and the republican party, that has reduced, not increased, our security, and until we reduce the scale of that diversion, we can't address the other problems.

I mean - if you can't, at this stage, make stick that bush and the republican party combine bad judgement and no ethics....

It's what so depressing to me about the Iraq invasion & occupation. Here was a country we didn't need to fight because they posed us no threat but while we focused on this needless battle real dangers such as South Korea & Iran were allowed to gain further strength. I still think those three little words, "Axis of evil" did us more harm than good. Bush's rhetoric helped push to the side & isolate Iran's growing moderate faction while the politics of the invasion & occupation helped usher in Iran's current hardline leader.

I wish we had a president who wasn't soft on democracy.

Here's a clue: It matters a lot more than Bosnia did.

What about Japan?

Message: Democrats must never challenge the Republicans on any issue that the Republicans will lie about.

More gutless "triangulating" from "sensible liberals", a.k.a. Bush's enablers.

The FISA permits warrantless wiretaps, as long as the Court is notified within 72 hours. The more important point, however, is that neither the Judicial nor Legislative branch can infringe on the war powers of the Commander in Chief.

Just for the record I am a card carrying independent with 22 years service in the US Army.
Yes, but the NSA program can't possibly get warrants. They are sifting through databases of overseas calls that occurred in the past.

The talking point about tapping phones without a warrant isn't an accurate description.

Marshall Wittman is a Republican.

I expect to be flamed, and maybe as a whiny liberal I deserve it, but I see a difference between computerized data mining of telephone traffic and a "wiretap," which I always thought of as listening in on a specific line.

IF (and I admit it's a big if) the data mining is limited to national security issues, and IF (and I don't think the NSA was doing this) the data mining is used to support a request for a warrant for specific lines, I would maybe be OK with the data mining.

I think this is only the second time I’ve pimped a somewhat off-topic blog here, but I think this is worth reading. Peter Daou writes about “Bloggers in the Wilderness”

This, then, is the reality: progressive bloggers and online activists - positioned on the front lines of a cold civil war - face a thankless and daunting task: battle the Bush administration and its legions of online and offline apologists, battle the so-called "liberal" media and its tireless weaving of pro-GOP narratives, battle the ineffectual Democratic leadership, and battle the demoralization and frustration that comes with a long, steep uphill struggle.

Some Democrats are trying to develop a strong progressive national security strategy and image over at blogs like the new Blue Force or Democracy Arsenal.

Dems cannot be afraid to fight Bush on his outrageous warrantless eavsdropping. Most people think it is outrageous that this President beleives he has authority to listen in on any telephone or internet communication he pleases. It's not a question of national security at all; that's what Bush and Rove will try to make it but that argument is pure bullshit. Bush thinks no law applies to him, and he is surrounded by syncophants and ideologues who just enable this criminality. And that's what it is--criminality.

It's no longer 2002. Most Americans now realize Bush will lie repeatedly to get his way. They also know now he does not know what he is doing and his team is full of incompetents. In 2002, Americans were still shaken by the 9/11 attacks, and trusted Bush to protect them. The majority of Americans now realize Bush's course isn't working.

In what specific way is Iran an issue for the security of our nation?

It is filled with brown-skinned men with thick black beards, and they might get a nuke or two. Obviously an existential threat to the U.S.A.

On the larger issue of warantless wiretapping despite specific federal statutes prohibiting it, the country is at a crossroads. Are we a constitutional republic or a fascist state? If the consensus is to do nothing about this, then we've picked the latter option. Democrats can run on this issue and lose, or they can silently acquiesce, but in either case the end result is the same.

If there is to be any hope of rescuing the old, small-d democratic U.S. of A., then this notion of the President being above the law cannot stand. The only way it won't stand is if the President's opposition (that would be us) fights tooth and nail. Time to break out all that dry powder we keep hearing about.

Yep, Georgie knows how to run a war. He's proven he's the man to protect us from the nasty mullahs in Iran.

True. Rove can gear up his marketing campaign all he wants but, with regard to Iran all it will ever remain is marketing. Bush is absolutely powerless to prevent Iran from going down the nuclear path, and his regime's increasing bluster and ranting will be designed to hide that fact. The real target of his continuing grab of dictatorial powers will be, as always, the Republicans' domestic enemies rather than America's foreign ones.

The basic gap in this issue is that some people believe that Bush and the Republicans are a greater threat to America than international radical Islamism and the terrorists it produces. Others believe the opposite.

If most Americans agree with the first group, the Democrats will do just fine. If not...

One of Risen's sources was Russell Tice. There's a story on him here. In defending his actions he talks about the views of the people in the intelligence community:

"The mentality was we need to get these guys, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get them."

If, like Tice, most Americans agree that this kind of thinking is just wrong, the Democrats will do just fine. If most Americans have the idea that "whatever it takes" in response to 9/11 is not a bad way to go about it, then the Democrats need to worry.

Remember the "Axis of Evil" speech. Bush pressured Iran into a national defense posture just like he did North Korea. Air attacks on Iran by the US are a forgone conclusion unless the Israelis' do it first. Bush has all ready attempted to gain support from Turkey to use airports from which to attack Iran. So far they have declined. Bush's remaining work is to decide when to attack based upon political gain from it and whether to use nuclear bombs or not. It's a matter of when not whether to or not. 2006 elections play heavily with respect to timing. Use of fear to retain power worked for Nazi's and will always work if an enemy can be developed but somehow the enemy can never be defeated somehow and can be used over and over. Whenever the opponent seems to gain popularity then fear is used to beat them back down. It's really quite effective and these guys no how to work it. They have no interest in national security, no their interest is in their own political security. Bush and repugs are doing more for liberal agenda advancement than liberals could ever do for themselves. People will remember, just as Germans remember now, who ran the train off the tracks. Bombing in Iran has the potential to cause Pakistan/India war as well as Chinese/American war. Drifting nuclear fallout from Iran could also cause Russian/American war. Boy, are we going to have some fun now. Bush, the republicans, and the rich power structure that helps them govern haven't the intelligence to determine that all out war will destroy them also.

but but Tbrosz, if we were going to do whatever it takes to get them, and by them I assume you mean Osama and his boys, why oh why aren't we doing that?

I guess one difference between Democrats and republicans is that Democrats actually want to punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Thankfully, the first stop on the new Bush Administration film The Runup to War II: Electric Boogaloo, is the United Nations.

Didn't we send a guy to the UN who was particularly interested in NSA wiretaps???

TEHRAN, Iran - President Bush said Friday that the issue of Iran’s nuclear program should go before the U.N. Security Council, challenging Iran just hours after it threatened to block inspections of its nuclear sites if confronted by the council.

It is “logical that a country which has rejected diplomatic entreaties be sent to the United Nations Security Council,” the president said at a White House press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The United States, Germany and other nations need to “send a common message to the Iranians ... to not have a nuclear weapon to blackmail or threaten the world,” Bush said.

Cue rdw, that's "old Europe" riding into town to save our ass on this one...

The counter to this argument is to attack. Frame it as "Americans do not cower in fear of terrorists, and Americans certainly do not fear death over loss of liberty".

What did Bush know about the murder of Gus Boulis and when did he know it?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/010706a.html

Time for us all to find that old bumper sticker and apply it to every surface we can find? You know the one I'm talking about...

I Love My Country, but I Fear My Government

The basic gap in this issue is that some people believe that Bush and the Republicans are a greater threat to America than international radical Islamism and the terrorists it produces.

Who are these people? Some factual evidence please. Links, reference, bibiliography, anything, would be welcome.

"The basic gap in this issue is that some people believe that Bush and the Republicans are a greater threat to America than international radical Islamism and the terrorists it produces. Others believe the opposite."

And most people believe something between the two, as usual.

What's the implication here? That those who believe Bush is a constitutional danger must, by definition, plan on ignoring international terrorism, rogue states, et al? That doesn't seem to be a neccessary or reasonable conclusion.

I'd rather not put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm trying to read between the lines a little bit. Feel free to clarify.

The issue where there should be traction to be had is how to best phrase the following thoughts:

1. Replace the "cadillac driving welfare queen" meme with the "S-Class Mercedes Driving military contractor" meme. Where the hell is Dwight Eisenhower when you need him? Sometimes you have to have enough guts to simply live your life. Right now the fraidy-cats are in charge. Don't like nuclear bombs? Well, that particular ship saild quite a while ago. Not only that, but if you want to persuade another country to forego nuclear development, it might be a good idea to not publicly lable them as a member of the axis of evil.

2. We're isolationists at heart, not wannabe colonialists. I almost spit my coffee all of the desk every time someone posits that the Iraq invasion is "all about the oil." All about the oil? Here's what's going to happen. We'll spend hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and then we are going to hand the government over to some form of barely democratic Israel-hating religious theocracy, then, we will contract to pay for the oil. The odds are that we aren't going to get a whole bunch of great permanent bases out of this, and even if we did, so what? We're proving beyond doubt that we have neither the will nor the manpower to actually occupy Iraq. How stupid to you think the Iranians are? The French, who so many are eager to diss, would have skipped the hundreds of billions and thousands of lives and simply contracted for the damn oil directly.

cmdicely is right, until the Democrats can point out that it takes more than "saying" you are tough on terrorism (what a friggen joke "a war" on a concept! Every time Bush said he would win the "war on terrorism" Kerry should have said that in contrast, if elected he would declare "war on sloppy reasoning and dumb policy." At least it would have been entertaining.) to actually protect the country's citizens it will cost votes.

While Kevin's probably right that the country can be suckered into accepting the NSA wiretapping them without a warrant, and the bloggers he links may be right in terms of Turd Bottom's evil plan, the key thing for the Dems to do is start throwing punches. A big part of the reason people don't trust the Dems on national security is the perception that "they won't fight the bad guys". How the hell can a party be trusted to fight bad guys if they won't fight their own political opponents? The only way to look like you stand for something is to stand for something. Bush can almost always be backed into a corner by his unwillignness to admit error, but that requires pushing back.

The Dems have nothing to lose at this point - not the presidency, the Congress, or the Supreme court. Pick a strategy, articulate it loud and clear, and fight for it. I'd personally prefer pushing for a real investigation over demanding impeachment, but hell I'll take either over asking for nothing. The long term path to victory involves breaking the frame of "terrorists everywhere, danger, stern father, protection", but that requires a more advanced message machine that we possess right now, and as near as I can tell "we're tought too" is about as well as we can presently hope to do on that front.

lib:

Who are these people? Some factual evidence please. Links, reference, bibiliography, anything, would be welcome.

Are we reading the same things on this board and others? I sincerely hope you're just pretending to be this thick just to get my goat.

The basic gap in this issue is that some people believe that Bush and the Republicans are a greater threat to America than international radical Islamism and the terrorists it produces.

Once again tbrosz speaking out of his ass.

Wow, what a lily-livered post. Who cares if we are right, Kevin asks, because the Republicans have spin! Fear their spin!

First off, I'd ask Dickerson what, precisely, would prevent the Republicans from portraying the Democrats as soft on terror? Precisely. Nothing. That's a canard they will continue to use ad infinitum and the only way to counter it is directly. We are, in fact, more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and we have less freedom, all thanks to Bush and his Republican cronies. Just look at DHS and port security; look at all the new terrorists they've created. If they couldn't save New Orleans, how the hell can you expect them to save New York?

Second, Wittman is being an idiot by saying that "there is no evidence that [Bush] was attempting to do anything else but protect America." So? That's not the goddamn point. The point is that no one knows what he was doing. The point is the President is not above the law. It is absolutely wrong to allow the president to break the law. I daresay you ask that poll question and you'll see only Republicans disagreeing.

And to Martin Walker I'll direct one thing: who the hell is letting Iran have a bomb? George W. Bush - by stupidly invading a country we had already kept from the bomb and thereby tying down and chewing up our military. Not to mention creating the huge incentive to get a bomb in the first place. Thanks, "Axis of Evil" Bush!

What a gutless series of positions.

It seems that Kevin feels that Democrats should simply give up the "framing" battle - because Republicans are going to play against them.

The Republican noise machine may be better at spinning, and they may have a lot more control over the media, but folding like a house of cards won't save this country.

Who are these people? Some factual evidence please. Links, reference, bibiliography, anything, would be welcome.

You are stupid and ignorant and evil. What little brain you every had to begin with has putrefied into jelly from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. You are the real enemy of America, not the insurgent fighters of Iraq [source] [emphasis added]

he counter to this argument is to attack. Frame it as "Americans do not cower in fear of terrorists, and Americans certainly do not fear death over loss of liberty".

Absolutely correct! Give me liberty or give me death.

Crowd Pleasing answer? WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT PLEASING THE CROWD?! This is about fucking rule of law, and the president and his cronies claiming absolute rule! Who the fuck cares if it's not 'politically smart' to go after this. What do we stand for if we DON'T?! And why are you listening to Marshall Wittman, someone who as proven time and time again to be riding W's jock and asking for more?

No, screw thinking ahead to the elections on this. This, and Alito, need to be taken care of in the NOW. Not by thinking ahead to November and worrying about how it's going to be painted. If we don't stand up for it now, what the fuck is left in America but one man, ruling above all, one of the very goddamn things this country was created to PREVENT?

"Who are these people? Some factual evidence please. Links, reference, bibiliography, anything, would be welcome.

You are stupid and ignorant and evil. What little brain you every had to begin with has putrefied into jelly from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. You are the real enemy of America, not the insurgent fighters of Iraq [source] [emphasis added]

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 13, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK"

that's our empirical demographic analysis? a blog comment? color me unconvinced.

Gimme a break. In late 2002 it was only a year after 9/11, we weren't currently waging a war in another country (a war which is not going that well), and the Bush administration had still not demonstrated clearly where it lay as regards competence and ideology. That isn't a stealthy way of saying everything they do is bad and partisan, just that as of 11/2002 the administration was more of a blank slate than it is now. People were more willing to say, "I guess so, Let's try it," etc. than they would be now.

Okay, got it. Politicians need to reach for a message to please millions of frightened, under-educated, misinformed citizens who have already been hyped up into war fever by rabid religious fundamentalists. Otherwise those politicians will certainly not get elected.

Yeah, that's the situation over in Iran, all right. So, Kevin, what about those running for office here in the U.S.?

Kevin,

I have to say that between your AMERIKA post today and your NATIONAL SECURITY post today it seems as though you napped to closely to one of those Republican pods. You seem to be able to foresee the shape that the Republican straw men arguments will take and immediately capitulate the real debate.

In your AMERIKA post your statement that:

"we're still pretty distant from being the fascist state some seem to think we are"

is a completely false description of the efforts by some Americans to maintain our current liberties. I will admit though that your false argument will no doubt make a powerful straw man for the opposition.

And in your NATIONAL SECURITY post you again immediately capitulate the NSA surveillance argument to the Republicans based on their future straw man that:

"there is absolutely no evidence that he was attempting to do anything else but protect America"

The real debate is: If the president saw a legal impediment to his ability to fight terrorism then why (after being aware of this problem for 4 years) wasn't he attempting to fix this problem within the constitutional checks and balances that define American democracy?

My suggesting to Democrats (you included) would be to stop reacting to all of their arguments (present and future) and start framing your own arguments. In other words speak first and carry a big stick.

Watching these blogs, I'm reminded of the college professor who found himself at a professional wrestling event - he did not cry out "this stuff is fake." He instead made for the exit saying, "Excuse me, fine sirs and ladies. I must access the arena's tobacconist, as my can o' snuff appears to have run empty. Back in a jiff."

This country is majority-ruled by the intellectually checked products of underfunded idiot-factory schools (or not, but Diebold will make this moot).

Expecting abstract thought and deliberation from the audience at a roller derby event? Think again. As you delude each other that you're making a difference, I recommend you spend at least a little of your energy getting used to the fact that this country is eff-double-ucked.

Carry on.

but let us, in fact, give tbrosz some credit here. his initial phrasing was poor, but his follow-on is correct: to the extent that americans believe that doing "whatever it takes," regardless of legality, is essential to our survival, then the republicans win.

to the extent that americans recognize we won the second world war and the cold war against enemies far more heinous and dangerous than islamic jihadists without feeling like we had to shake in our boots all day long and without feeling like the president got to do whatever he wanted, then the democrats win.

this is why i said earlier, the response to kevin's point is that dems need to elevate the discussion: the dimwits in the white house and their enablers now have us in a bind where little iraq is the central obsession of american national security policy. that's wrong. until we get that clear, it's hard for democrats to gain traction....

tbrosz: The basic gap in this issue is that some people believe that Bush and the Republicans are a greater threat to America than international radical Islamism and the terrorists it produces. Others believe the opposite.

You're creating a false dichotomy. Bush and his congressional ilk (not all Republicans) are not only a threat because of their disdain for the Constitution, but because they're so bad at fighting terrorism and other threats. We have the worst of both worlds.

They ignored pre-9/11 warnings.

They let OBL walk out of Tora Bora rather than let the Marines take a crack at him.

They invaded a country that posed no credible threat to the US. In the process they squandered America's credibility and stretched our military to the point where it can't handle anything else.

Get rid of this pretender and his cronies. Save us from them and the terrorists.

tbrosz

I will give you $100 if you show me one post that says what you claim.

Howard
Given what happened to Japanese-Americans during WWII, maybe you'd better stick to the Cold War. And given the response to Eschelon (I was reading an old NYT clip today praising that program), it could be an uphill fight.

The appeasement of the radical right-wing takeover of the country has to stop, particularly when they're reckless enough to agree to hearings.

Their spin on events does not always prevail, contrary to Conventional Wisdom. The Plame Affair and Katrina are but two notable examples.

We just have to organize better to fight smarter -- the real story here is not warrantless wiretapping; after all, that is permitted by FISA for up to 72 hours.

The real story is that this administration does not have a clue about how to fight terrorists. You don't fight terrorists by indulging in wiretapping that can render the key evidence in criminal cases against them and their co-conspirators inadmissable. You don't fight terrorists by engaging in police state behavior that undermines the willingness of people the world over to cooperate with our efforts. You don't fight terrorists by beating questionable at best and counterproductive at worst information out of suspects.

We should be raring to fight these guys on the national security issue. If we can just manage to tone down the outraged liberal pieties and go for the jugular of their incompetence, we won't go far wrong.

Martin:

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I tend to agree with you. Bush had his second bite of the 9/11 apple in 2004, and I don't think he's going to get a third.

And bush's tough talk looks increasingly impotent in the face of the Iraq insurgency and the Iran nuclear program. The American people are stupid, but they are not so stupid that they are going to keep giving this bunch of liars, thieves and dolts new opportunities to screw this country.

Scary poll tbroz,

If that stuff is accurate, it is a Fox News poll after all, then we are on a downward spiral towards giving George the crown. That is what you supposed repubs want, right? King George for life?

Would he be called George II or just George? Perhaps we can call him "The Supreme Commader of all that is moral". Or a tough name like "Bunker Buster W" or a cute name like "Imspyingonyoubecauseiloveyou Man"

Freedom can never be equally traded for security.

Martin Walker seems to have a somewhat relaxed attitude about a nuclear-armed Iran.

A couple of points:

--Jerusalem and its mosques are not the only populated targets in Israel

--An Iranian leader is already on record as more or less declaring that riding out a retaliation would be worth it if Israel was destroyed.

--Deterrence only works if the one you are deterring is nuts, thinks he's beyond retaliation somehow, or is convinced you won't retaliate. Obviously, our nuclear arsenal didn't impress the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

U.S.A.
July 2, 1776-Jan 20, 2001

Does GW Bush have an honorary doctorate? If he does we will be able to call him Dr. George W. Bush, President for Life

So, when Iran or N. Korea drops a bomb, are we going to invade Venezuela?

Good ol' Georgie

It's hard to see how, on balance, the national security issue raised by the NSA wiretaps could really directly help the Republicans. At worst, Democrats could beat them back to a stalemate on the issue, given the illegality of the program, a point of view even some Republicans endorse.

The Iran issue is certainly much more of a wild card here.

But I think the real danger of the NSA and Iran issue is in the amount of distraction it might allow. An issue the Republicans can draw to even is far, far better for them to talk about than all the other truly ugly issues facing them.

What Democrats absolutely must do is to figure out how to get out the issues THEY want to talk about, and in way people will truly hear.

GreatCan I assume question 30 is specific enough for you all now?

Actually, I'd have to examine the methodology for the poll before I gave it any credence.

If there's some secret poll out there that phrases the question in a meaningful way, I haven't seen it.

Before anyone else jumps on Kevin, I think his basic point is that the Democrats must address the question of how they will better protect the country than the President.

Until they do that, they will not be able to get the debate shifted in their favor. They avoided the subject in 2002 and got clobbered despite scandals and a sorta recession, and got beat in 2004 despite a souring war and no net job growth.

And it's a huge opportunity, because the Democrats can make the case that the President has damaged severely the national security of the US. (and yes, the Moose's prescription is idiotic and the worst of the lot, but heh, he's not a Democrat..)

BUT they must address the question - and quickly say why they would better protect americans than would the republicans. Until they do, the GOP will go to National Defense every time.

But the opportunity is huge, because if the Democrats knock out that issue - there ain't much but cheating that the GOP has left.

We'd be in a better position to deal with Iran if Bush hadn't tied us down in Iraq.

On the NSA issue: Dems aren't against wiretapping, we're against doing it without legal oversight - as should every American.

Lib
I will give you $100 if you show me one post that says what you claim.

You'll have to send your money to Conspiracy Nut. He already quoted SecularAnimist stating just what tbrosz said.

As far as Iran goes, I think the answer Democrats should make with regard to it is that Bush has objectively made it HARDER for us to deal with Iran PRECISELY BECAUSE of the huge miscalculation and general incompetence he has demonstrated in Iraq.

Iran does NOT fear that we will invade them, when our military is already at the breaking point. That fact is the clear responsiblity of Bush himself, and his conduct in Iraq.

In short, Bush has essentially inspired defiance by Iran. They know we are already utterly stretched; what better time to thumb their noses at us and pursue nuclear ambitions?

Can we bet on other things, too?

Who's got the Pats this weekend?

Democrats should commence NOW pointing out how Bush has weakened our stance with regard to Iran. NOW is the time to get that idea out there, not post facto.

I disagree with Kevin's original post-if the Dems drop this issue now, that leads to 2 things: First, we fail in our responsibility to point out, and work to change, policy that runs counter to our tradition of liberty. Secondly, while Kevin may be right about GW's game plan next fall, you could just as reasonably argue that if the Dems shut up about this, the Repub argument will be something like, "the Dems raised a big public stink about a sensitive area of national security, then dropped it when they saw they werent getting the political gain they wanted. Another example of putting politics ahead of keeping the people safe."

Screw the politics, do the right thing.

Timestamped 2:54pm, conspiracy nut posted an excerpt from a comment that I addressed to him on this site on 8/26/2005. Here is my original comment in its entirety:

conspiracy nut, you are the one who wants to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship under the jackbooted heel of your little fake god-king George W. Bush. You express your hatred of all that is good and just about America with every comment you post.

You are stupid and ignorant and evil. What little brain you every had to begin with has putrefied into jelly from listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. You are the real enemy of America, not the insurgent fighters of Iraq, and the real "war" to protect America from its real enemies is the "war" to eliminate evil, sick, stupid, neo-fascist, treasonous Bush-bootlicker idiots like yourself.

Fortunately the public is gradually coming around to the realization that the war in Iraq is a criminal, gangster enterprise, a corrupt use of America's military for the private gain of the Bush and Cheney crime families, their cronies and financial backers, and has nothing whatever to do with protecting America from anything.

And the public is also gradually awakening to the fact that has been obvious since 2002, which the Bush-loving corporate-owned mass media has refused to report or discuss, that the illegal war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq was based entirely on repeated, deliberate, carefully crafted, and sickening lies told by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other members of the Bush administration to the American people, the US Congress, the United Nations, and the entire world.

George W. Bush is guilty of treason against the United States of America, and corrupt use of the US military for personal gain, not to mention crimes against humanity including the wrongful deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and hundreds of American troops, and the maiming and mutilation of tens of thousands more.

You support and endorse his treason and corruption. That makes you an enemy of America.

Take your brain-dead, Limbaugh-scripted babble about "leftists" and shove it up your ass, you cowardly traitor.

I stand by that. conspiracy nut and his anti-American fifth column filth support treason and corruption -- indeed, they revel and glory in treason and corruption -- and seek to dest