There is only one solution.

"Tingly" as in electrodes pasted to your testicles. You go to war with the sadists you've got.

I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls...and probably doing warrantless physical searches of people's homes and offices as well.

I don't think anyone is surprised by the fact that Dick Cheney's worldview is fundamentally un-American. He'd've been a great Soviet apparatchik, though, down to the furry hats & vodka.

Why would a CIA official have to lie to Harman? She is a democrat who will always agree with the administration that whatever they do for national security is legal.

=================================
SIDE NOTE FOR KEVIN DRUM
=================================

Just wanted to offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to USC fans and alumni. USC point guard Ryan Francis was shot and killed in Baton Rouge 3am this morning. News of this senseless tragedy is just starting to get out and condolences are now coming in to the WeAreSC message boards from college basketball fans around the country.

"I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls"

If they are, America will love them for it. Doing "whatever it takes" to keep America safe has proven to be a winner at the polls for the last 2 major elections. Plus, all the administration needs to say is that congressional Dems were informed of and approved the programs, but now are playing politics with the safety of Americans. This is a losing issue for the sniveling and backboneless Democratic party.

Yes, it's good to know that the terrorist surveilance program was compromised because liberal democrats were concerned about the civil liberties of terrorists.

"Yes, it's good to know that the terrorist surveilance program was compromised because liberal democrats were concerned about the civil liberties of terrorists."

We can agree the Democrats have compromised national security, but I don't believe for second it was for civil liberties for anyone. That would imply Democrats having principles and standing for something (and standing is quite hard without a backbone). No, the Democrats have compromised national security purely for poltical gain. Once again, they have shown that Americans are right when they perceive Dems to have no core ideas or values.

Re: Thomas's comment,

How do you say 'vote your hopes, not your fears' in post-9/11ese?

I'll admit a little skittishness, but can still imagine an effective Feingoldian (though never in a million years a Hillarious) statement to the effect that

1. W & the Rs were right on Afghanistan,
2. they were dead wrong on Iraq, to the tune of over 100,000 souls,
3. They're fearmongers, pure and simple,
4. It's time for clearheadedness and a national, not a partisan response (insert Clinton impeachment stances, vote against the Patriot Act, call for censure, etc. here)

Um, does this belong at Kos instead of here?

Not at all. We know our trolls intensely dislike any thought that time tested and proven techniques of investigation might be a superior medthod to dashing around madly in all directions ; accomplishing nothing well.

thomas sounds an awful lot like old 'al'.

There you have it folks, today's Republicans don't even believe there is a possibility people might object to being monitored by the government. No, the only reason someone might raise such objections is purely for politics.

and did her friends have clearance to receive leaks about detainee treatment, secret DOJ opinions, and CIA testimony before closed hearings?

If the CIA started assassinating political opponents to Republican hegemony, she'd probably be the first one screaming irrationally to the press like a chicken with it's head cut off.

Those CIA guys.

I wonder if they have these bearded, rag dressed Islamic, wanna be sheiks, mumbling Allah stuff, face down on some cold concrete, windowless room. Like a twisted, middle aged version of Jesus by Jim Caviezel, except a toothless smirk, twisted in hate, half healed scars from last year's interrogation.

Electro shock?

"Whose your prophet!!!"
"Muhammed", he said, attempting a defiant pose.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzaappppppp, right in the old testicles. That'll make em tell where old Osama is.

Doing "whatever it takes" to keep America safe has proven to be a winner at the polls for the last 2 major elections.

Doing "whatever it takes" to keep Germany safe also proved to be a winner at the polls.

Make no mistake about it, link analysis is a very important component in making sense of communications. Beware of red herrings... It may not be the communications contents, but I'd question the ability of the NSA to do much with that anyway. Ultimately, the NSA needs to crunch as much human intel as possible that is built into the communications structures to even begin extracting useful information from the contents of it.

Yes, it's good to know that the terrorist surveilance program was compromised because liberal democrats were concerned about the civil liberties of terrorists. Posted by: American Hawk on May 14, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

No, what we're concerned about is this document called the Constitution. You might have heard of it.

Want to spy on someone? Get a fucking warrant. In fact, FISA allows you to begin spying on them and THEN get a warrant within 72 hours. Fine. But follow the goddamn law. We're not the USSR, for Chrissakes.

It's people like you, Chickenhawk, who allow police states to happen. Hell, you look forward to it.

MaryCh writes:

1. W & the Rs were right on Afghanistan,

Really? They were? What have we accomplished there, for all the billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost (counting Afghan lives as well)? I'd really like to know.

Matt writes:

Bzzzzzzzzzzzaappppppp, right in the old testicles. That'll make em tell where old Osama is.

Boy, that's a real knee-slapper, Matt.

Democrats -- and traditional Republicans -- support working within the principles set forth by the Constitution to protect the rights of law abiding citizens, not terrorists. If people are breaking the law or conspiring to break the law no Democrat or traditional Republican I know would object to a legitimate court warrant being obtained to monitor their calls or search their property.

Democrats and traditional Republicans across the country uninamiously support the fight against organized crime. After all, that's largely what al Qaeda is -- an international crime family. al Qaeda is to Islam what the Mafia is to Brotherhood. America has been pretty effective dismantling the Mafia in America over the years, thanks in large part to aggressive prosecutors like Fitzgerald who enforce the rule of law to devastating effect.

We're seeing how effective his work can be right now.

And in other intelligence community news, it turns out that Dick Cheney wanted...

This reads as if Cheney is playing bad cop. Only problem is there don't seem to be any good cops in this administration.... only bad cops, worse cops, and idiots; everyone else has resigned, been fired, or been indicted.

And, Kevin, these are only the abuses of American intelligence agencies that have seen the light of day. Look, the Bush family has a decades-long history of suppressing the truth, especially when it comes to the CIA, which let us not forget, was once headed by Dubya’s dad. As an example, CIA Director George H.W. Bush blocked the release of a report on CIA abuses investigated by Rep. Otis Pike, D-N.Y. in 1976. These criminals habitually misuse the power of the government and then try to cover it up. That is why, when the Democrats take back control of the House in November, it is imperative they immediately file Articles of Impeachment and use their constitutionally given investigative powers to turn this White House upside down and shake out all of the rats and bugs, like Dick Cheney…

WELL, if you weren't just tuned into WJ on c-span..you missed a lively "debate" between Robert Tyrrell (American Spectator) and Greg Palast (author of "..Best Government Money Can Buy")...I put debate in quotes because it was mostly Mr. Tyrell behaving like the majority of wingnuts (including here) and interrupting, accusing, name-calling, and belitting the positions of Mr. Palast, liberals, CLinton (naturally), and anyone else who doesn't march lockstep behind BUSH AND COMPANY. They are becoming screeching harpies and getting nastier...WATCH OUT...this next election will be BOGUS!

Could the trolls in this thread please identify their posts? Because I'm having trouble distinguishing which posts are sincere and which are sarcasm.

""I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls"

If they are, America will love them for it."

That's a joke, right?

"Yes, it's good to know that the terrorist surveilance program was compromised because liberal democrats were concerned about the civil liberties of terrorists."

So all the people who use Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth are terrorists? Or was that sarcasm, too?

So all the people who use Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth are terrorists?

Only those who think the Constitution doesn't keep us safer as toilet paper are considered "terrorists." Real patriots think Bush is a God.

Remember when Republicans were fiscally conservative and suspicious of government intrusion into the private lives of Americans? I sure miss those days ...

When the history of this administration is written, I think they will say that the single worst decision made by the President, one resposible for the vast majority of problems it has faced over its two terms, is the selection of Dick Cheney as Vice President. Look behind every single pile of poop this White House has laid, and there he is.

Looks like someone is trying to get out in front of the Tice story this week.

NSA Watches US Citizens from Space

I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls...and probably doing warrantless physical searches of people's homes and offices as well.

of course they are.

"today's Republicans don't even believe there is a possibility people might object to being monitored by the government"

Once upon a time, the Republicans also defended civil liberties.

Check out David Brooks' column in the NYTimes this AM. He's arguing that before Reagan the US was a stagnant place and that Reagan liberated American enterprise. But now, alas, the economic and social freedom that Reagan unleashed have eroded into disorder, even chaos, so the body politic seeks a more authoritarian state.

In other words, Republicans dismantled the orderly state, unleashing chaos in the process, and now, in impose order--and secure their gains--they need to dismantle the fragile structure of civil liberty that remains.

in related news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/pl_nm/bush_laura_dc_1

sorry that should have been "somewhat related news"

I meant to add, in my comment above, that with leadership like this, who needs "enemies".

I am less afraid of the terrorists than I am of Republicans.

"The program we got........were actually compromise positions" Ah, and YOU KNOW the program the USToday reported on IS, in fact, the ONLY 'program' we got? How many times does this guy, and this admin, have to lie to you before you say 'who the fuck knows what we got'?

Stephen Kriz: Yes, the CIA has been a real problem since it's creation and most Americans just haven't taken the time to really pay attention. The findings of the Church committee, back in the 1970s were amazing to me, first, because of what they revealed, and second, because there were a significant number of Americans who, best I could tell, had no problem with a renegade CIA. Like children, they were trusting parents to take care of them, do the right thing, secretly abuse and kill only the bad guys.

Investigations related to Iran-Contra in the 1980s revealed a Bill Casey-led CIA out of control and unaccountable to anyone. Again, while a significant number of Americans were disgusted and disappointed, many Americans said “so what”, we need to have a Daddy sneaking around outside the law to protect us from the bad guys. They never seemed, to me, to appreciate the need for effective Congressional oversight, or other check and balances. Such Americans were not even interested in a real discussion of cost-benefits. To them, that’s just the way the wicked world is and those who disagree are simply naive.

The ignorant frequently accuse others of being naive because it allows avoidance of a real discussion of facts and implications. Buying into prejudices is a lot easier.

We still get the CIA we deserve. Occam's razor tells me that a significant number of Americans truly do support the kind if CIA we have under Bush. Many of these same folks don’t subscribe the ideals and mechanics of our constitution and never understood them in the first place. What’s the answer? Education? That’s got to be part of the answer.

If there was a terror attack in Southern California by a terror cell in Orange County, you can bet Kevin Drum would be bashing Bush/Cheney/etc for not connecting the dots.

What’s the answer? Education? That’s got to be part of the answer.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on May 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Well Jim, as more and more of these ignorant, fact avoiders home school their children because they want completel control over the information available to their kids, you are going to get more and more ignorant people. That crowd is never really going to study the Constitution. Only the cherry picked pieces that support their positions.

David Brooks, like a lot of 'conservative intellectuals' is so steeped in the mythology of the Republican Party that his columns are useful only as case studies.

If there was a terror attack in Southern California by a terror cell in Orange County, you can bet Kevin Drum would be bashing Bush/Cheney/etc for not connecting the dots.

I doubt that any of the dots would connect to my parents in St. Louis, by priest in Maryland, or your lawyer in what ever backwater you hail from. But the government collected all of them.

The fact that the government does something doesn't make it right, and just because they claim that it is for "National Security" doesn't mean it actually enhances national security. As someone pointed out, when you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you don't make the haystack bigger.

The failure of the intelligence community has nothing to do with the in ability to collect data. It has everything to do with the inability of the IC to maintain productive relationships with its assets and their foreign intelligence partners. That is completely due to the Administration's foreign policies.

But what the heck, lets check on the communications of all Americans, maybe we'll find something! (I think that Jack Abramhoff's calling patterns would be interesting, as would Rush's calls to all those doctors!)

c.

2437

The goal of terrorist attack isn't to physically destroy the target but to provoke an overreaction. Osama bin Laden's goal of closing down the openness and internationalism of the United States is greatly aided by fear-stricken traitors like Frequency Kenneth.

Liberal media at work:

A failed democratic operative Brazile balanced by Bush lapdogs George Will and David Brooks.

Dems are so screwed. I don't think 2006 and 2008 elections will be good for the Democratic party despite all the fuckups of the GOP. Propaganda always works, and they own all the media.

Sad but true.

I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls...and probably doing warrantless physical searches of people's homes and offices as well.

If your circle consider the single biggest threat to national security to be neither Wahabi fundamentalism, nor loose nukes, nor failed states, nor even China, but the prospect that somehow the legal opposition party might somehow come to power through peaceful means in this country, then you would be neglegent if you didn't intercept domestic phone calls and emails, and perform black bag jobs.

Failure to surveil a national security threat the size of the Democratic party in these circles would be criminal neglegence.

Before the 4th of July, we'll get the first leaks about wiretapping and e-mail sucking performed against the Kerry campaign, Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, and selected members of the media.

Go to your bookie and put your money down -- it's a lock.

Before the 4th of July, we'll get the first leaks about wiretapping and e-mail sucking performed against the Kerry campaign, Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, and selected members of the media.,/i>

That's funny, Davis--just this morning, in a conversation with mr. shortstop, I gave the exact same time frame for the exact same activities. I think the list of tappees and suckees will be quite a bit longer, though.

Gonna be a long, hot summer for the Republicans. Let the row of dominos fall.

Before the 4th of July, we'll get the first leaks about wiretapping and e-mail sucking performed against the Kerry campaign, Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, and selected members of the media.

Followed soon thereafter by bombs falling on Tehran.

Well there are enough transgressions that are known that it is somewhat unnecessary to extrapolate and speculate about what will happen by July 4. If the Dem leaders cannot offer a better alternative at this moment, given what is now public knowledge, there is little to suggest that any new revelations will in anyway help them further to move the public to vote for the Democratic Party in 2006.

well there's this: maybe you want to keep your shoes on and your pens in your pocket next time:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn14.html

It seems that WaPo is dedicated to learning about McCarthy from her friends and Cheney from his enemies. In like fashion, some commentators here have concluded that Libby is guilty, based on indictments.

For me, I await the sworn testimonies and cross examinations according to the rules of evidence.

I think that, if there is another Democratic president soon, he or she should count on Republican sympathisers to leak damaging information about the Democratic administration. It depends on how the McCarthy case and the Wilson/Plame case are handled. The Republican defense will be the same as the defense of McCarthy: "Friends say Smith-Jones has no axe to grind and believes that the administration is acting illegally and counter to the interests of America."

My recommendation is to indict McCarthy, and try her in parallel with Libby and (possibly) Rove. Then we'll have sworn testimony in the public record, and cross-examinantions and exculpatory evidence (if there is any) that was omitted from the grand jury proceedings. I believe that this line came from "Law and Order": indict them all, and let the juries sort it out.

That is not unprecedented: Pres. Jefferson abused his presidential powers by arresting Aaron Burr and trying him for treason; the jury acquitted forthwith. And those were the good old days when the US was still governed by the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

matt: The goal of terrorist attack isn't to physically destroy the target but to provoke an overreaction.

How do you know this?

From what we know of the Bali bombers, Madrid bombers, London bombers, WTC bombers, Taliban and Wahhabist suicide bombers, Iraqi insurgents, PA bombers, etc., their goal is indeed to physically destroy the targets, and to defeat the other societies militarily, and to impose their own governance. What they need in order to succeed is not overreaction by the enemy but complacency by the enemy.

"I'll bet my last dollar we'll find out they were intercepting domestic emails just like the phone calls"

That seems to be somewhat off topic. The NSA program involving 30 million or so Americans has not involved "intercepting" phone calls.

Doing "whatever it takes" to keep Germany safe also proved to be a winner at the polls.

That's positively ignorant.

That crowd is never really going to study the Constitution. Only the cherry picked pieces that support their positions.
Posted by: jcricket on May 14, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Same goes for the Bible.

For me, I await the sworn testimonies and cross examinations according to the rules of evidence.

republicrat,

Your impersonation of a rational, disinterested observer needs some work.

Back to the drawing board, Kid.

Well, of course they wiretapped Cindy Sheehan! She was on the side of the terrorists! She's loves the terrorists, as does anyone who questions anything our President does!

And John Kerry too! If he were president, we wouldn't be safe from the terrorists! He's such a flip flopper he would never tell the terrorists to "bring it on"! Since God called George W. Bush to be president in this time of crisis, tapping Kerry's phones and email was doing the Lord's work!

Ha!
Republicrat, you got some interesting ideas.

For starters, Mary McCarthy can't be indicted until there is evidence that she committed a crime - she could be arrested on suspicion, but filing charges without anything to substantiate them is something that competent prosecutors tend to avoid.

Insofar as terrorist attacks are concerned, major elements of 4G warfare involve destroying targets in pursuit of a larger aim, often provoking a disproportionate response deliberately. Which can often have the effect of moving public opinion in a particular realm in favor of the terrorist organizations aims.

You are correct that the NSA program hasn't involved intercepting phone calls - that would suggest the calls did not reach the intended recipient, would it not? Capturing information about those calls however, seems to have been what was and is being, done.

That word ignorant you just used? I don't think it means what you think it means. You may not like it that there is a valid comparison and parallels, but denying it is in fact ignorant, in a wilful fashion. It's true. Deal with it.
If you don't like being compared to something, don't act in similar fashion.
For instance: if you don't want to be accused of being a pedophile, don't have sex with children!
It's really not that difficult to understand, once you are willing to accept: that your beliefs may not be justified, and denying a fact does not alter reality.

republicrat: while your appreciation for due process and the "rules of evidence" (as you put it) are admirable, I'd feel better about it if you had applied your sense of balance and desire for evidence prior to the death of 40-100,000 or so Iraqis.

What ever happened to the libertarian wing of Republic party? Didn't it used to contain the majority. Guess they've been cowed into silence by the kill-for-Jesus crowd, too.

They shut down an IG investigator who had evidence of perjury and contempt of Congress by her superiors. Nothing to see here. Al, Thomas and Chicken Hawk are the same people. Must be an administration operative because he is obviously not a Republican. Everything Bush hyas done has been anti conservative, anti libertarian, anti GOP. He has wrecked "his" party. Republicans are for good government, sensible taxes, strong national defense, and little to no intrusion into their private lives. This administration has had to shift objectives under his own party to seem legitimate. Republicans have the power to impeach this guy and reclaim the office if they have some spine. Spineless Democrats? That's freaking funny. How long does the GOP keep selling out its soul?

What ever happened to the libertarian wing of Republic party?

This is what has my jaw dropping. We now have conservatives prepared to argue that there is no government intrusion too great; while liberals are now apparently the party of privacy. We really have gone into the looking glass now.

Are these people really so frightened of fanatical brown people that they are willing, even eager, to give up ever right they have ever had? And if so, why now? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh scary enough? Not brown enough?

If Clinton had responded to that atrocity by declaring himself above the law, and everyone's conversations, whereabouts, relationships, and communications traffic to be the property of the White House, am I really to believe that all these people would have said "yeah, right on!"

It just boggles the mind...

Are these people really so frightened of fanatical brown people that they are willing, even eager, to give up ever right they have ever had?

Yes, and they're cowards to boot.

American Hawk, Yes, it's good to know that the terrorist surveilance program was compromised because liberal democrats were concerned about the civil liberties of terrorists.

Yes, that is good to know. That's because we're better than they are. Republicans aren't, apparently.

lib:"Propaganda always works, and they own all the media."

...and the voting machines....

If Clinton had responded to that atrocity by declaring himself above the law, and everyone's conversations, whereabouts, relationships, and communications traffic to be the property of the White House, am I really to believe that all these people would have said "yeah, right on!"

Some people whould have definitely said "yeah, right on!", but that would have been Lieberman, Harmon, Feinstein et. al and their ilk in response to Republicans' calls for immediate beheading of the President.

Are these people really so frightened of fanatical brown people that they are willing, even eager, to give up ever right they have ever had? And if so, why now? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh scary enough? Not brown enough?
...
If Clinton had responded to that atrocity by declaring himself above the law, and everyone's conversations, whereabouts, relationships, and communications traffic to be the property of the White House, am I really to believe that all these people would have said "yeah, right on!"

There was in fact considerably increased scrutiny of the militia groups of the sort that McVeigh had associated with. It soon became clear that there was no conspiracy among them, and that McVeigh and his small band had acted alone. that's different from the international support of the WTC, Madrid, London, Bali and other bombings; and it's different from the support for international terrorism that is provided by some American mosques.

while your appreciation for due process and the "rules of evidence" (as you put it) are admirable, I'd feel better about it if you had applied your sense of balance and desire for evidence prior to the death of 40-100,000 or so Iraqis.

Which Iraqis? The sanctions were, according to UNESCO, killing about 35,000 women and children per month.

or maybe only 2,000,000 in the ten years they were enforced. It's hard to tell for sure even now because not all of the unmarked graves have been found, and many of those found have not yet been counted.

This is what has my jaw dropping. We now have conservatives prepared to argue that there is no government intrusion too great; while liberals are now apparently the party of privacy. We really have gone into the looking glass now.

Hmm, last time I checked the Republicans didn't like it when two guys were getting it on in the privacy of their home either. Face it, craigie, it's always been the case that conservatives need the government for one thing and liberals for another.

lib,

fwiw, harmon on FTN today (MTP?) stood up, said bushco was breaking the law, etc. i know she completely buckled at first, but half a loaf…

"Bush thanked Goss indirectly for the action when he said Goss had "instilled a sense of professionalism" at the agency." (from the article)

War really is peace, I guess.

By forcing America to shred the privacy protections in the Constitution, has Osama won?

Which Iraqis? The sanctions were, according to UNESCO, killing about 35,000 women and children per month.
Posted by: republicrat

please, spare me your concern about iraqis dying due to a saddam which we installed, armed, invaded, and then sanctioned. for fuck's sake, show SOME shame.

Which Iraqis? The sanctions were, according to UNESCO, killing about 35,000 women and children per month.

Where is your cite for this "information"?

I think you're a lying turd, personally. If I'm wrong, would you kindly show me so?

please, spare me your concern about iraqis dying

ok

Are these people really so frightened of fanatical brown people that they are willing, even eager, to give up ever right they have ever had? And if so, why now?

Sure, because now the implicit promise for the right wing is that they can cement privileges, which count more than rights. They're not as worried about being attacked or injured as they claim-- at least I'm not going to give them a pass based on an assumption of stupidity wrt that topic-- but they very much like the idea of reasserting dominance over brown people, non-[fundamentalist] Christians, uppity women, poor people, and so on. Basic rights are way too, well, universal for the tastes of most conservatives, who assume they are due an elevated position anyway, and at least from the perspective of someone who grew up in the south, this has always been the subtext of social conservatism.

Wait, if her friends were spies. Isn't that leaking classified information? Doesn't just have to be journalists to be treason.

concern about iraqis dying due to a saddam which we installed, armed, invaded, and then sanctioned. for fuck's sake, show SOME shame.

Posted by: Nads on May 14, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

So you believe your country is responsible for Saddam and support doing nothing about him?
Have some shame.

frightened of fanatical brown people that they are willing, even eager, to give up ever right they have ever had? And if so, why now? Wasn't Timothy McVeigh scary enough? Not brown

Posted by: craigie on May 14, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

So you believe Brown people aren't capable of doing your society enough damage? Racist.

Look if you believe a White Cheerleader From Yale is capable of organising an evil conspiracy to take power through fake intelligence ..you should believe that Arab graduates from foreign universities can do significant damage to the countries they hate.

9-11. More 'connect the dots' was what you wanted. Neo-cons, 'connect the dots' with little electroshock devices. Bzzt. Bzzt. Bzzt.

Its what you asked for.

McA, you're a good Christian as we all know. Who should we pre-emptively murder today?

Your stupidity is so re-assuring. You wrote to Nads: So you believe your country is responsible for Saddam and support doing nothing about him?

Show us where Nads advocated doing "nothing" about Saddam. Would you please, you tiresome clown?

wing is that they can cement privileges, which count more than rights.

Posted by: latts on May 14, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

And getting a bomb off before people kill you is a basic right of the third world? Tell you what, if you find any terrorist groups who wait for a UN resolution before they set off bombs....you can take them off the pre-emption list.

Just because its you, latts.

So, republicrat, you concede that you're a lying turd then, no?

please, spare me your concern about iraqis dying due to a saddam which we installed, armed, invaded, and then sanctioned. for fuck's sake, show SOME shame.

Posted by: Nads on May 14, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Here.

The conspiracy theory crap about the origins of Saddam is cited to argue that the fact that Iraqi's were dying in large numbers under sanctions is not relevant.

I say that:

If false, the numbers dying under sanctions are justification.

If true, the numbers dying uner sanctions result from US action and are even greater justification.

The left. The objective is to hate George Bush and recite illogical rhetoric. Straight out of Animal Farm.

McA, you're a good Christian as we all know. Who should we pre-emptively murder today?

Posted by: obscure on May 14, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Murder no one. Declare war on, plenty....Iran (if they proceed with Nukes), Syria (if they keep sponsoring terrorism and suppressing Lebanon), North Korea (for starving people to death to keep the dictatorship going). But the US seems busy, so you can take your time.

I think you are ignoring the bad shit that is going on because of US inaction, because of some anti-war obsession.

So you believe your country is responsible for Saddam and support doing nothing about him?
Have some shame.
Posted by: McA

I figured the guys involved in arming saddam shouldn't be the ones running the current gulf war, no. I don't think they had the Iraqis' best interest at heart then, and I see no evidence of it now.

I don't think my country (not yours, btw, as much as you seem to wish to be a white american) is a fair or legitimate broker when it comes to the mideast, or has any sort of moral authority there, ... so no, I didn't think unilateral american action would go well, or be perceived well.

Uh, the terror attacks in London, Madrid and Bali did not destroy London, Madrid or Bali. They killed a number of people and had the chilling effect I described. Read up on terrorism and counterterrorism and get back to us once you absorb what I stated which is pretty much lesson one in that material, before you come back here with your stupid shite.

Thanks.

If true, the numbers dying uner sanctions result from US action and are even greater justification.
Posted by: McA

the deaths under sanctions do justify a response. saddam's existance, it can be argued, justifies a response. but not the response which we got, involving lying to the american public, maximization of oil revenue, and opportunities for war profiteers.

the mideast expects this of america, and we obliged. several types of international responses would have been superior.

but america has never been honest when dealing with the mideast, so I certainly wasn't surprised.

McA, you're just a chickenshit who doesn't deserve the level of civilization you currently enjoy. I'd love to see you wingnuts try to function in a truly Darwinian social structure, without the same protective privileges that I cited before. I reiterate, modern conservatism is about the preservation and/or reinstatement of privilege among those who remember it even as they have lost any legitimate claims to it.

The fact is, no, I'm not cowering under my bed waiting for the baddies to come and get me. And more to the point, no one's doing squat to actually protect me anyway, because there's nothing more useful to those currently in power than the specter of further attacks-- 9/11 was the best thing that ever could have happened for the Bushies, and they're perfectly aware of the fact that they hit the jackpot on that day.

McA -- shouldn't you take a minute off from your scolding to go cane someone or abuse an Indonesian maid? Wog. Hilarious how someone who lives in the anus of the third world has so many criticisms. Maybe cleanup your shithole country and then come here and make comments. Silly twat.

Murder no one. Declare war on, plenty...

The cool thing about war is that you get to kill people but it isn't murder!!

Just what a good Christian wants.

think you are ignoring the bad shit that is going on because of US inaction, because of some anti-war obsession.

Yes, indeed. It is the anti-war people who are responsible for the 'bad shit' that goes on in the world. Your powers of observation are exceedingly acute.

So, I guess we're THE POLICEMEN OF THE WORLD now, mmmm?

After all, violence is the solution to the world's problems, right? I mean, that's what Jesus taught us, right?

Shower us with more of your wisdom, McA!

I think you are ignoring the bad shit that is going on because of US inaction, because of some anti-war obsession.

what would ignorant malaysian hicks be called, I wonder? in lieu of knowing an answer, I may have to refer to them all as mca.

believe me, you ignorant dipshit, I definately don't believe that a fair portion of bad shit going on worldwide is the result of US INaction ... mostly just really, really poorly thought out actions.

this being my country, I will do what I can to change that trend.

I think you are ignoring the bad shit that is going on because of US inaction, because of some anti-war obsession.

Not to mention, McA--you sterling genius, you--that 'anti-war obsessed' people don't control the White House, or the US Senate, or the US House of Representatives. (And I'll thank you not to construe that to mean Democrats are united under an 'anti-war' banner.)

I know all this is sort of painfully obvious to persons of average intelligence and all but I'm kind of in a squirrelly mood tonight so thanks for being my little punching bag.

No, seriously.

It both amuses and concerns me how ignorant of their own history most Americans are. This accumulation of telephone call record details that has everyone up in arms is not new. Project Shamrock involved the very same agency, the NSA, gathering massive amounts of telegraphic information on Americans from roughly 1945 through 1975, when the Church Commission recommended the creation of the FISA courts to oversee the renegade NSA and it’s excesses. The CIA director that was around about that time was a reptile named George H.W. Bush. Frank Church, a Democrat, had to clean up the cesspool of corruption left behind by a corrupt Republican administration (Nixon/Agnew). The same thing will likely replay itself in 2008, when a Democrat will be elected to clean up the filth and corruption from the Bush/Cheney era.

So, as Karl Marx put it, all things in history reoccur, the first as tragedy and the second as farce.

"Bush to Call for Guard Troops on Border" Is it to keep immigrants out or us in?

Next: "Bush confiscates all investments"

McA: read David Brooks's column yesterday. He has surrendered. The ideological underpinning of conservatism is collapsing like Eastern European Communism in December '89, and its adherents are fleeing, abandoning the Party, denouncing each other, and denying they ever supported the things they supported.

Again I repeat - throw your ideology in the trash can and get a new one. It's over.

Off Topic: Congratulations Kevin! I read a Molly Ivins column yesterday where she listed her favorite liberal blogs and Political Animal got a nod. Good Job, Kevin! Keep up the good work.

'Kay, I'm going to bed, republicrat.

So I guess now it's official:

republicrat, lying turd.

Mind if I call you 'lying turd' for short? I know, 'LT' is actually shorter but I think 'lying turd' is more descriptive, wouldn't you agree?

Uh, the terror attacks in London, Madrid and Bali did not destroy London, Madrid or Bali. They killed a number of people and had the chilling effect I described.

They are not intended to destroy, they are intended to conquer. Your claim was that they were intended to create an overreaction, not a "chilling effect".

nads: ... , I'd feel better about it if you had applied your sense of balance and desire for evidence prior to the death of 40-100,000 or so Iraqis.
...
please, spare me your concern about iraqis dying due to a saddam ...

Make up your mind. The worst action (actually inaction) by the US in the Mideast was that the US did not denounce the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis against the Iranians; the US had no influence over Iraq (Iraq attacked an American frigate during the Iran-Iraq war), but the result of the inaction may have been more Iranian deaths, not Iraqi. The US did not install Saddam Hussein or the Baath party, and only supplied 0.5% of his total arms, the rest being from France, Germany, Russia and China. The deaths under the sanctions were a reault of Iraq stockpiling medicines and food, and investing their cash in the palaces/military compounds. The Brookings institution estimates the Iraqi deaths since the invasion at around 36,000 (the figure is updated biweekly at www.brookings.org, search for Iraqi index.)

obscure: pre-invasion estimates of Iraqi deaths due to the sanctions ranged from 3600 per month up to 2,000,000 over an 11 year time span. Secretary of State Albright admitted that the number might have been as high as 500,000 which she consided a not unreasonable price for keeping Saddam Hussein contained. Links to diverse sources for these figures have been posted at Calpundit and PoliticalAnimal frequently. You can call me whatever our host permits. I have been called worse.

it isn't that hard a concept to grasp, republicrat ... the country responsible for saddam, iran-contra, arming both sides of the iran-iraq war, conveniently ignoring saddam's atrocities, covert CIA wars, and in possession of the most ridiculously one-sided policy towards palestine simply cannot be trusted to be an honest broker in the mideast.

there is no evidence that american politicians give one tiny shit about arab civilian well-being, iraqi or otherwise. again, spare me the rhetoric that somehow, THIS time, the administration of george fucking-w bush is better than any of the prior in this regard.

nads:there is no evidence that american politicians give one tiny shit about arab civilian well-being, iraqi or otherwise.

I didn't say they did. reread the comments in order. What I wrote is that the current war is responsible for many fewer deaths than what went before. I also wrote that the US had little to do with arming Saddam Hussien, who was mostly armed by others, and that the US had nothing to do with the emergence of the Baath party as dominant after the overthrow of their king. But I was mostly concerned with a simply tally of the dead: lots more under Saddam Hussein, killed by Arabs.

If Iraqi lives matter, then the present course is an improvement over what went before.

Well Republicrat, I am concerned about the sectarian violence that is decimating Iraq (as false construct in a region of ancient cultures) right now. On Sunday morning, between 0100 and 0700, the main morgue in Baghdad received 70 bodies, most showing signs of torture.

Two Iraqis blew themselves up near the entrance point to the Baghdad airport and killed 14 more of their "countrymen."

I'm sure I'm on the NSA watchlist - I email friends from college and my 20 years in medicine frequently who are residents of middle-eastern societies.

'The US did not install Saddam Hussein or the Baath party,...'
--republicrat

Uh, actually the U.S. did help put Saddam and the Baath Party in power. Just one more example of the CIA creating more problems than they solve…

Global Citizen: Well Republicrat, I am concerned about the sectarian violence that is decimating Iraq (as false construct in a region of ancient cultures) right now. On Sunday morning, between 0100 and 0700, the main morgue in Baghdad received 70 bodies, most showing signs of torture.

I was admonished above not to express concern about Iraqis. BUT "Decimating" is not what is happening. I agree about Iraq being a "false construct", but so is Syria; and so, for that matter, are the nations of Europe, where the boundaries of all nations were decided by war. Pakistan is another "false construct", where there is a civil war only slightly less deadly that what is in Iraq now (under Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan was more deadly than Iraq is now.)

In Iraq, the Kurds have more peace than they have had in for decades; in the South, the Marsh Arabs are restoring their land and recovering from the "decimation" (really!) of the Baathist era. The monthly death totals are lower than they were at their peak (check out the Brookings Iraq Index), and lower than they were under Saddam Hussein.

The CIA "helped" install Saddam in the same sense that they "helped" install Pinochet: i.e. they did very little. You write the same exaggeration that other people write when America's supply of 0.5% of Saddam's weaponry becomes "America armed Saddam". Without US intervention, everything would have happened almost exactly as it did, right up to Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Whether you are more concerned by the Iraqis killed in the current fighting, or more concerned by the Iraqis killed in the Baathist regime, you ought at least get the rank order of the count correct: more killed per month, by a wide margin, under the Baathists.

It would be a lot easier to respect Miss McCarthy if she had resigned in protest rather than decide to keep her job and her tainted paycheck while feeding secret information to her favorite journalists.