We are going to have an election in 2008, right? Or is George just going to quash that too?

He is the Decider.

And I suppose that means he gets to decide what is good to investigate and what isn't.

So when is he going to ask for someone to prosecute the Clintons over that durn Whitewater thing? Or maybe stringing Kerry up for War Crimes? God forbid he look over crucifying Ted Kennedy for Chappadaquick(sp?).

And thank god he stopped this investigation. I mean, if it went any further, we could have had that out of control DoJ investigating things like (heaven forbid!) WAR CRIMES! It gives me the shivers just thinking about it!

I'd rather talk about the boorish, suck-his-teeth, movie-parody-toughie Bush's remarks to Blair were. What a clown.

Of course, the NSA program is illegal. And they know it. They "think not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth." (Not really. They're thugs and gangsters and dopes and don't care.)

We are going to have an election in 2008, right? Or is George just going to quash that too?

What are you, a commie? You don't change horses mid-stream!

We need the protection only Dear Leader, the Majestic George W. Bush, President-for-Life, lest the evil islamo-libero-facists kill us all with their latte scuds or nuclear sushi bombs!

I especially liked Specter's strong and principled reaction to Gonzales stating that Bush personally quashed the investigation:

"Well, the president made the decision and that's that. I'd like to move on to another topic."

Feh!

So it was a personal decision by Bush to quash the investigation. Even with longtime friend Alberto Gonzales in charge, Bush apparently didn't trust his own Department of Justice to investigate this program.

Wrong again Kevin. It's because George W Bush was ELECTED by the American people to make decisions like this. Bush is head of the Unitary Executive. As the head of the Unitary Executive, it is his responsibility to decide which investigations have merit and which don't have merit. That is what the American people elected him to do. They didn't elect his underlings to make these decisions Bush decided the investigation was without merit because it would harm national security and the War on Terrorism. And as head of the Unitary Executive, that is a judgment we should respect.

A correction will be issued by the WH tomorrow morning. I'm sure that Bush will not admit to that.

"A correction will be issued by the WH tomorrow morning. I'm sure that Bush will not admit to that."

I don't see why not, it's not a crime.

There is a certain respect in which Al is correct; an "investigation" of the legality of a Presidential policy is most appropriately not conducted by the executive branch, which is dependent on the President and has no power against him, but by the legislative branch.

A few months ago the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility...

The words "professional" and "responsibility" are ones that must set alarm bells ringing in the Bush White House. "Professional Responsibility? Crikey, if they get wind of this we're done for! Quick, everybody hide!"

It must be good to be King.

I wonder what size Blue Dress Alberto Gonzales wears when he visits Bush in the Oval Office?

"Well, the president made the decision and that's that. I'd like to move on to another topic."

You know, if you replace the word "president" with "king" in the sentence above it reads so much better....

"Well, the president made the decision and that's that. I'd like to move on to another topic."

Imagine it's 1998. Can anyone here imagine Specter saying, in response to news that the president had personally quashed a DOJ investigation into possible criminal misconduct by the White House, "well, President Clinton made the decision and that's that. I'd like to move on to another topic"?

No? Yeah, me neither.

"There is a certain respect in which Al is correct; an "investigation" of the legality of a Presidential policy is most appropriately not conducted by the executive branch, which is dependent on the President and has no power against him, but by the legislative branch."

well, legality is most (ultimately only) appropriately determined by the judicial branch. but whether Congress thinks that their oversight responsibilities have been usurped is for Congress to determine.

I'm not really sure this is news...decisions as to the legal viability of this program have been made above the OPR pay grade. This is not an Archibald Cox scenario.

The recent New Yorker article about Addington had one startling revelation: he was good friends with AZ Governor Napolitano's (D) brother while growing up in NM. I have always felt Gov. Sasquatch was too conservative for me, being a former prosecutor, and this news helped explain why. Perhaps Addington can keep his job working for VP Napolitano after the 2008 elections.

well, legality is most (ultimately only) appropriately determined by the judicial branch.

Even on determination, as Congress has a final and unreviewable ability to decide and sanction illegality by the President, among others, I'd disagree with you that the judicial role here is as the "ultimately only" decider.

"Well, the president made the decision and that's that."

Fuehrer befehl, Ich gehorche!

I'm not really sure this is news

The fact that Gonzales confirmed that Bush persdonally quashed the investigation isn't news? Would you like to reconsider, Nathan?

"Even on determination, as Congress has a final and unreviewable ability to decide and sanction illegality by the President, among others,"

I suppose you mean impeachment. ok fine...insofar as "high crimes and misdemeanors" for purposes of impeachment are whatever Congress says they are and its unreviewable...(in other words, Congress could theoretically impeach a President (or a federal judge) for an act which no court would consider illegal)....but if you want to get that theoretical I'll make the equivalent argument that Congress has complete oversight and power over everything the President does already since Congress has the power of the purse....

"The fact that Gonzales confirmed that Bush persdonally quashed the investigation isn't news? Would you like to reconsider, Nathan?"

eh...since this program was so highly classified that any extension of clearance required specific Presidential authorization...

'I'd rather talk about the boorish, suck-his-teeth, movie-parody-toughie Bush's remarks to Blair were. What a clown.'

Yeah, the image has stuck in my mind like glue. And these are the guys (Bush and lackey Blair) that are entrusted with our well-being? At least Blair 'looked' the part. Not to be oh-so-proper, but Bush's tableside slouch and manner would have gotten me a reprimand when I was a teenager. And his oversimplification of the current ME problem is just plain laughable. He's just SO simpleminded.

This is paragraph 5 of Article one of the Impeachment of Nixon:

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

"And his oversimplification of the current ME problem is just plain laughable."

Is it? Since Syria controls Hezbollah's supply route its pretty clear that Syria could pressure Hezbollah to desist.

Now whether Annan is the person to put pressure on Syria to do so is another matter altogether...but then its often asserted on the left that the U.S. should act more often through multilateral organizations.

Al, why do you hate democracy soooo much? What did it ever do to you to make you such a bitter misanthrope? Apparently, the only man who can be trusted in this whole universe is George W. Bush.
But whose ass will you be licking when his term is over?

Quick, find me a male authority figure to worship, or I might be forced to think for myself!

"Well, the president made the decision and that's that."

Life is so much simpler since The Decider took over. Now where's that remote?

'Is it? Since Syria controls Hezbollah's supply route its pretty clear that Syria could pressure Hezbollah to desist.'

Somehow I thought I'd hear from you, Nathan. I'd say that Bush's thinking on the crisis is hopelessly simplistic. Even if Syria were to stop financing and arming Hezbollah I can imagine that Hezbollah would find a way to get what it needs. There's Iran, as well as black market sources, and popular support for the Palestinians throughout the region. Israel's destruction of a newly rebuilt Lebanon is hardly going to endear it to the Arab world. The crisis is so much more complex than Bush's small mind can grasp, even given his position on 'blame,' which I certainly don't share.

"Even if Syria were to stop financing and arming Hezbollah I can imagine that Hezbollah would find a way to get what it needs. There's Iran, as well as black market sources, and popular support for the Palestinians throughout the region."

Last time I checked, Hezbollah was composed of Shiite Arabs, not Palestinians. As for why Syria can effectively shut down Hezbollah...look at a map.

Last week, under a deal with Specter, Bush agreed conditionally to a court review of his antiterror eavesdropping operations.

Wait, so the whole point of that article is that Bush eventually DID agree to a court review of anti-terror surveillance methods? Why did the Washington Post bury that in paragraph 7 of the article?

Oh wait, I know why.

I guess the important point is that he agreed to a court review, but it was the WRONG court. Wow, I'm glad they cleared that up.

Nepeta:

Here is a good post from an old acquaintance of mine who's a middle east expert and posts at American Footprints on why Syria is the primary player. He's not exactly a partisan for Israel either.

http://www.bjulrich.blogspot.com/

" . . . why Syria is the primary player."

This is what Brian Ulrich actually wrote:

"*If* foreign interests are involved, and Husni Mubarak definitely claims there are, then Syria *seems* much more *likely* to be the major player, and certainly its interests align more closely with those of Hizbullah regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanese politics."

So, mister "measured and nucanced" Nathan, it turns out that the meaning of "is" in your case is actually "If . . . seems much more likely . . ."

Joel:

my point was that Syria has more leverage over Hezbollah than Iran...

Nathan, I went to the link you posted but find nothing about Syria in Brian's most recent postings.

Sorry, that should be "measured and nuanced" Nathan.

My bad.

Syria is the primary player.
----------------------------
Posted by: Nathan

Great, then Iraq will make a great base of operations for our invasion. They think I'm so dumb. Heh. Iran to the east, Syria to the west (Condi helped me read the map). Iraq is a great place!

P.S. to Newt: stop blabbing about WW3. I told you that only Dick can authorize leaks.

I understood what you were saying, Nathan. I also understood what Brian was saying. I'm saying that Brian's post was more "measured and nuanced" than you represented it to be.

But, don't worry, I don't expect you to concede the point.

Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand which is Bush's quashing a criminal investigation of himself and his co-conspirators....

Time for the Decider to go...

sportsfan79, revealing his complete ignorance, writes: "Wait, so the whole point of that article is that Bush eventually DID agree to a court review of anti-terror surveillance methods? Why did the Washington Post bury that in paragraph 7 of the article?"

Mostly because Bush did not, in fact, agree to a court review of his domestic spying. He agreed only that a) if he ever decided to have a court review, it would be the FISA court and not the regular courts, and b) he might one day decide, at his sole discretion, to have the program vetted by that court.

In short, Bush agreed to ... nothing.

But what happens if they go through with this and this is not the Rapture.Falwell will be so pissed.Isn't Syria the main player in the Bible as to how this Rapure thingy works.

Nice thing about this is Bush can still be prosecuted after he leaves office.

eh...since this program was so highly classified that any extension of clearance required specific Presidential authorization...

Which authorization is routine for Justice Department investigators, but the decision to deny the clearance was made, not by some faceless White House bureaucrat, but by the President himself. I suggest that the facts are not kind to your characterization, Nathan.

But then, they rarely are, are they? Ford help your clients...

Stefan: I don't believe the OPR conducts criminal investigations.

Gregory: "Which authorization is routine for Justice Department investigators,"

is it? your basis?

"but the decision to deny the clearance was made, not by some faceless White House bureaucrat, but by the President himself."

er, if only the President can grant clearance, then by definition it is the President who chooses to deny it....

Conservative definition of progress, success, and an effective foreign/military policy . . .

Killings of civilians [in Iraq] are on "an upward trend," with more than 5,800 deaths and more than 5,700 injuries reported in May and June [2006] alone . . .

I guess the only thing that would make it more successful in the eyes of conservatives would be an increasing number of deaths among American soldiers.

The more civilians and soldiers that die, the more emotional blackmail material conservatives have to use to justify sending even more civilians and soldiers to their deaths.

Conservative refrain: "If you are just willing to tolerate a few more deaths, we will achieve success . . . in 10-20 years . . . of a few more deaths per day . . . maybe . . . if the American press and liberals don't undermine our efforts to kill even more civilians and soldiers for nothing in return . . . because that is the only thing standing in the way of our eventual success . . . not the administration's incompetence, the immorality of our policies, or the partisan selfishness of our goals."

is it? your basis?

Sheesh, Nathan, you claim to be a lawyer? The routine nature of granting these clearances on an ad-hoc basis has been part of the coverage of this angle of the story from the beginning. From Reuters, only today:

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Gonzales why Bush declined access, saying, "Many other lawyers in the Department of Justice had clearance. Why not OPR?"

er, if only the President can grant clearance, then by definition it is the President who chooses to deny it....

From the Washington Post:

Until today, Gonzales and other Justice officials had declined to provide details on who made the decision to block the Justice probe.

...which, of course, implies that the decision might have been made by more than one individual.

And why not? Security clearances are rountinely granted -- or denied -- on the President's authority, without the POTUS necessarily being personally involved in the decision.

In this case, though, there is no doubt, and as noted above, it is an additional element to the story that was not known before. Now, are you sure you don't want to reconsider your contention that it is not news? 'Cause professional news organizations would seem to disagree....

"Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Gonzales why Bush declined access, saying, "Many other lawyers in the Department of Justice had clearance.""

the fact that lawyers with oversight responsibility for the program had clearance does not translate into such clearance being "routine"

"...which, of course, implies that the decision might have been made by more than one individual."

it implies that other individuals could have blocked the probe; it says nothing about whether other individuals could have granted clearance (denying clearance not being the only method of blocking an OPR investigation)

I also never asserted that this was "not news"

"Nice thing about this is Bush can still be prosecuted after he leaves office."

For what? He hasn't committed any criminal offence (unlike the scandal-laden Clinton administration).

And, in any case, since the American people will never elect a Democrat president again I think we can expect a pardon for any trumped up charge that comes up.

For what? He hasn't committed any criminal offence (unlike the scandal-laden Clinton administration).

Ah, satire. You just gotta love it.

...it amazes me the lengths libs will go to in scandal-mongering. The story here is Bush did his job, protected national security, and saved a bunch of tax-payer money. He should be lauded, but instead Drum acts like something illegal happened.

I eagerly await the post in which Kevin apologizes for implying the President acted in an unethical manner. I thought libs were "reality-based" and didn't "swift-boat" people...

But then, they rarely are, are they? Ford help your clients...

You'll get a kick out of his increasing twistings and turnings on the "So How Are We Doing?" thread below....I've given up arguing with him there because he's started to employ the hack lawyer's defense of throwing so much chaff at the screen that it would take me hours to untangle all the evasions, distortions and mischaracterizations.

the fact that lawyers with oversight responsibility for the program had clearance does not translate into such clearance being "routine"

Nathan, again, the fact that the DoJ routinely investigates cases requiring the granting of security clearances -- and are routinely granted said clearances -- has been an element of the reportage of this story from the beginning.

More from the WaPo:

in a series of memos to Gonzales's deputy also released today, OPR chief H. Marshall Jarrett noted that "a large team of attorneys and agents" assigned to a criminal investigation of the disclosure of the NSA program were promptly granted the same clearances. He also noted that numerous other investigators and officials--including the members of a civil-liberties board--had been granted access to or briefed on the program.

If ""a large team of attorneys and agents" assigned to a criminal investigation of the disclosure of the NSA program were promptly granted the same clearances," that fact also suggests that such clearances were routine.

it implies that other individuals could have blocked the probe

But the mechanism for blocking the probe, in this case, was the denial of security clearances, Nathan.

"our repeated requests for access to classified information about the NSA program have not been granted," Jarrett wrote on March 21. "As a result, this Office, which is charged with monitoring the integrity of the Department's attorneys and with ensuring that the highest standards of professional ethics are maintained, has been precluded from performing its duties."

Once again, the question must be asked -- are you dishonest or merely ignorant?

But thank you for the two-fer: Not only do you contradict your earlier assertion that "this program was so highly classified that any extension of clearance required specific Presidential authorization," but also you tacitly acknowledge that the fact that the President himself -- as opposed to "other individuals" -- blocked the probe by refusing the security clearances -- an act that -- unless you have specific information to the contrary -- another individual could have made acting on the President's authority -- makes this revelation newsworthy.

I also never asserted that this was "not news"

Fair enough. You said "I'm not really sure this is news."

But the question remains: Now, would you care to reconsider that position?

I don't believe the OPR conducts criminal investigations.

While OPR does not conduct criminal investigations, any illegal activity they uncover in the course of their investigations can of course be referred to other units in DOJ for future criminal prosecution. Therefore if you were committing a crime you really wouldn't want them peering over your shoulder.

The story here is Bush did his job

The story here is Bush broke the law. Actually, as I'm pointing out to Nathan, the story here is that Bush personally took steps to cover up his breaking of the law.

You'll get a kick out of his increasing twistings and turnings

I have been, Stefan. I have been.

Nathan at 4:06 PM: I also never asserted that this was "not news"

Nathan at 2:01 PM: I'm not really sure this is news...

2 words

"Enemies List"

What is the big deal? What is so secret that Bush can't allow anyone to see it? Who's phone and email records? The DNC? George Soros? Patrick Fitzgerald?, Bill Clinton? Hillary? Warren Jeffs? Nancy Pelosi? Ted Kennedy?

What?

"The story here is Bush broke the law."

Gregory, the new Republican talking point is that this is a war president, and during a war, the president isn't bound by laws--he *is* the law.

Stalin, Mao, Milosovic, Kim Jung Il, Saddam . . . they led the way for this interpretation, so it has a certain, er, *tradition* behind it.

With all due respect, Stefan, Nathan is pedantic enough to insist that his statement of 2:01 PM was not an "assertion," however fairly it can be read as one.

Which, of course, doesn't matter. The falsity of his premise -- that the revelation that the President personally interfered with this investigation is arguably not news -- has been abundantly demonstrated. Unless he renounces even the opinion that he is "not really sure this is news" -- a judgment, of course, with which professional news organizations disagree, uncomfortable as that fact might be to Bush apologists -- Nathan is revealed as either foolish in the extreme, willfully ignorant, or abundantly dishonest -- or some combination thereof.

So, Nathan: Are you sure you wouldn't care to reconsider your position?

Gregory, the new Republican talking point is that this is a war president, and during a war, the president isn't bound by laws--he *is* the law.

That's true. Fortunately for those of us who belong to the American tradition of insisting we do not need a King, the Supreme Court recently disagreed.

Stefan:

I hesitate to say this...but you're a liar. you misquoted me and call it an obfuscation for me to insist that you consider the statement as a whole?

Gregory:
"Nathan, again, the fact that the DoJ routinely investigates cases requiring the granting of security clearances -- and are routinely granted said clearances"

that says nothing about whether clearances for THIS PROGRAM are routine.

"But the mechanism for blocking the probe, in this case, was the denial of security clearances"

true. but that doesn't indicate that other individuals could have blocked the probe by denying security clearances, now does it...

"Fair enough. You said "I'm not really sure this is news.""

Correct. Stefan, on the other hand, is unable to parse the English language.

Stefan:

"While OPR does not conduct criminal investigations,"

so, you retract your false statement above?

Maybe Bush was concerned that if too many people knew about the program, it would leak out and become ineffective. Events have proven that such a concern would have been well founded.

Nathan >"...As for why Syria can effectively shut down Hezbollah...look at a map."

We have & I suggest you pull your head out of whatever dark & oh so smelly orifice you have it buried in

Please note that there is a large body of water to the west of Lebanon which means that, for instance, ANY boat/ship from any where in the world can land supplies for any group of thugs in the area of Lebanon so it isn`t believable by any one with real world experience/knowledge that just because one country (nation state) has a common border with another it is the only possible supplier of weapons to any group of thugs in the second country (nation state)

Weapons can be transported in many ways, only one of which is over land paths (donkey trails, roads, sheep trails whatever)

Many are the confusions amongst the world`s intelligence agencies as to EXACTLY who is supplying who with weapons in this area of the world so it ain`t no "slam dunk" just because these two nation states happen to share a border

I`m curious as to how you can run a law practice from your mother`s basement since you seem never to have left it

You are, obviously, in waaaay over you head trying to discuss these issues here with us; come back and see us in a couple of decades when you actually have some experience

"No place is so strongly fortified that money could not capture it." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Please note that there is a large body of water to the west of Lebanon which means that, for instance, ANY boat/ship from any where in the world can land supplies for any group of thugs in the area of Lebanon so it isn`t believable by any one with real world experience/knowledge that just because one country (nation state) has a common border with another it is the only possible supplier of weapons to any group of thugs in the second country (nation state)"

I never said it was.
Its an issue of scale.

As well, the fact that Syria stopping Hezbollah now might well result in increased Hezbollah dependence upon Iran in the future doesn't change the fact that in the short run Hezbollah will have no choice but to comply.

You can't change your entire logistical train overnight...not a group of Hezbollah's size...

"Events have proven that such a concern would have been well founded."

Which events? Got a cite?

Events have proven that such a concern would have been well founded.

Really? Name any such "event."

Alek and Joel - I was referring to the leaking of this program in the newspapers. The publicity had the effect of alerting terrorists to communicate in a way that woould evade this counter-terrorism program.

that says nothing about whether clearances for THIS PROGRAM are routine.

Oh, good Ford, Nathan! Given that it is routine for the DoJ to receive security clearances, and it was routine (see my quote above) for others to receive clearances, what is not routine was for the President himself to personally scotch the investigation by withholding the security clearances.

No, Nathan. The information in the public domain, which I have quoted above, suggests that clearances for this program were, in fact, routine. That dog just won't hunt.

but that doesn't indicate that other individuals could have blocked the probe by denying security clearances, now does it

Actually, Nathan, yes, it does. Someone blocked the probe by denying security clearances. It was not known until today that it was, in fact, the President that did so. Since the clearances were blocked, but it was not known who did it, that does in fact indicate that other individuals could have blocked the probe by denying security clearances. It also renders rubbish your assertion that only the President could have done it.

Stefan, on the other hand, is unable to parse the English language

I predicted you'd split hairs over this topic, but your hypothetical could failry be read as an assertion (and really, Nathan, your seemingly constant use of hypotheticals and subjunctive case to provide yourself plausible deniablility does no credit to your veracity and honor).

Moreover, as I've demonstrated, even your hypothetical is not supported by the facts.

Honestly -- a more logically and factually challenged argument would be hard to imagine. Truly, I weep for your clients. So, Nathan: Are you sure you wouldn't care to reconsider your position?

"The publicity had the effect of alerting terrorists to communicate in a way that woould evade this counter-terrorism program."

Not an atom of evidence to support this assertion, ex-lib. More Republican bafflegab.

Rock: You said Bush was doing his job protecting us from terrorists,I was just looking at a picture of New York ,What the hell happened to the twin towers? What a Bush!!!

ex-liberal: Events have proven that such a concern would have been well founded.

No, they haven't, but don't let that get in the way of the imaginary world you live in.

The publicity had the effect of alerting terrorists to communicate in a way that woould evade this counter-terrorism program.

You, of course, have absolutely zero proof of this assertion.

Rock: ...it amazes me the lengths libs will go to in scandal-mongering.

It doesn't amaze me the lengths conservatives will go to in rationalizing the immoral, incompetent, and criminal way in which Bush is running this country and in lying about what libs are doing.

"The information in the public domain, which I have quoted above, suggests that clearances for this program were, in fact, routine."

considering how highly classified and how supposedly illegal this program is, heck no are clearances for it "routine"....keep your talking points straight...

"but your hypothetical could failry be read as an assertion (and really, Nathan, your seemingly constant use of hypotheticals and subjunctive case to provide yourself plausible deniablility does no credit to your veracity and honor)."

a. I realize that my use of conditionals and nuance is out of the ordinary here. I've long ago concluded that many PA posters viscerally hate G.W. so much because they are so similar to him.

b. I presented no "hypothetical" on that thread. look, if I said that for proposition A to be true it must meet conditions x,y, and z. and then note that z has been met but x and y have not...it stands to reason that I am saying proposition A is not true.
However, you, Stefan and a few others seize on "z has been met" and conclude that I am saying proposition A is true.

I can't help it that it's clearly too complex for your G.W. style minds to grasp.

Nathan: I hesitate to say this...but you're a liar. you misquoted me and call it an obfuscation for me to insist that you consider the statement as a whole?

Oh, good Lord. What a hysterical drama queen. Given that Nathan's definition of "misquoted" seems to be that, when quoting a sentence of his in its entirety , I did not also quote every single sentence he wrote above and below it to provide the proper "context," I can only laugh.

so, you retract your false statement above?

Presumably by "false statement" Nathan is referring to my hypothetical (the clue for slow readers like Nathan is that it begins with the word "Imagine...") below:

Imagine it's 1998. Can anyone here imagine Specter saying, in response to news that the president had personally quashed a DOJ investigation into possible criminal misconduct by the White House, "well, President Clinton made the decision and that's that. I'd like to move on to another topic"? No? Yeah, me neither.

So, is he asking me to withdraw my hypothetical? Admit my hypothetical is "false" (well, it's imaginary, as most hypotheticals are)?

"I can't help it that it's clearly too complex for your G.W. style minds to grasp."

After all your sanctimonious bleating about "stooping" to my level, you've clearly covered yourself with glory here, Nathan. Congratulations.

The publicity had the effect of alerting terrorists to communicate in a way that woould evade this counter-terrorism program.

Please explain how terrorists are managing to avoid the use of phones, email, and banks and yet still continue to function. Are there long strings with dixie cups at each end that connect the countries around the world? Is is telepathy? Sophisticated bartering systems to avoid banking transactions?

Also, please explain how terrorists were stupid enough not to know about those programs which the administration and Bush himself had already made public, keeping in mind that many members of Al Qaeda have received college education, some at Western schools, and that presumably most of them read newspapers.

If you cannot give rational, persuasive, detailed explanations for these questions then please cease and desist from making unsupported, passive-aggressive claims.

Thank you.

"Presumably by "false statement" Nathan is referring to my hypothetical (the clue for slow readers like Nathan is that it begins with the word "Imagine...") below:"

sorry, I should have been more clear.

I was referring to your false description of the other thread.

News of President Bush's Nixonesque stonewalling should allay any lingering doubts regarding the folly of Senator Specter's so-called compromise bill over illegal NSA domestic spying. But instead of waging a constitutional battle to halt the illegality by the Bush White House, Specter seeks to codify it.

For the details, see:
"Gonzales: Bush Blocked NSA Probe."

Nathan wrote: "However, you, Stefan and a few others seize on "z has been met" and conclude that I am saying proposition A is true."

You still don't get it, Nathan. I rather suspect that people are challenging your assertion that "z has been met," or rather that "z" had been met as a result of the Iraq invasion. Instead of defending or clarifying this, you got all huffy.

"Given that Nathan's definition of "misquoted" seems to be that, when quoting a sentence of his in its entirety , I did not also quote every single sentence he wrote above and below it to provide the proper "context," I can only laugh."

considering that the sentences above it changed the entire meaning of that sentence...yes, it was dishonest.

how would you react if it was done to you?

I realize that my use of conditionals and nuance is out of the ordinary here.

No, really, its not. Frequent use of conditionals is hardly uncommon among posters here, regular and occasional alike.

And frequent use of them where they are completely irrelevant except as raising an assertion for which they provide a kind of deniability, and serving only as a distraction tactic is also common, though primarily among the trolls.

So, in no sense is your use "out of the ordinary".

I've long ago concluded that many PA posters viscerally hate G.W. so much because they are so similar to him.

I don't think any regular posters here hate George Washington all that much; certainly none of them that I can recall have expressed such feelings. Now, GWB might be a different story.

I presented no "hypothetical" on that thread.

Yes, you did. You, in fact, presented three hypotheticals, in one post, one of which has been the center of dispute, because other posters have argued that even if you accept its premise, the conclusion is not true.

look, if I said that for proposition A to be true it must meet conditions x,y, and z. and then note that z has been met but x and y have not...it stands to reason that I am saying proposition A is not true.

Which is a nice hypothetical, but irrelevant to what you said. What you said was more of the form (to use a similar style to illustrate the misrepresentation):

If A is defined by achieving x, A has not been achieved.
If A is defined by achieving y, A has not been achieved.
If A is defined by achieving z, A has been achieved.

The issue that others have raised is that the last rests on the assumption that z have both, in fact, been acheived, which they dispute is true, at least as regards the act (the war in Iraq) by which they were supposedly achieved.

However, you, Stefan and a few others seize on "z has been met" and conclude that I am saying proposition A is true.

No, they are seizing on "z has been met" and arguing that it is false in the context offered, so that even if (as your third hypothetical proposed) we took A to be defined by z, A would still be false.

Joel wrote: Not an atom of evidence to support this assertion, [that the leak of the NSA program and the publicity had the effect of alerting terrorists to communicate in a way that woould evade this counter-terrorism program.]

Advocate for God wrote a similar comment.

In effect I made two assertions:

A. The leak and attendant publicity alerted terrorists to the existance of this counter-terrorism program.

B. Once alerted, terrorists took steps to communicate in some other way, so as to avoid detection.

I suppose (B) is based on the implicit assumption:

C. Terrorists want to avoid detection.

Which of A, B and C do you folks disagree with? Or, do you have some other way of understanding the impact of the leaks?

The issue that others have raised is that the last rests on the assumption that z have both, in fact, been acheived, which they dispute is true, at least as regards the act (the war in Iraq) by which they were supposedly achieved.

S/b (corrections in italics):

The issue that others have raised is that the last rests on the assumption that z has, in fact, been acheived, which they dispute is true, at least as regards the act (the war in Iraq) by which it was supposedly achieved.

Changed the presentation to make it match, stylistically, your erroneous one better, and missed the change to this paragraph that was required.

PaulB:

"You still don't get it, Nathan. I rather suspect that people are challenging your assertion that "z has been met," or rather that "z" had been met as a result of the Iraq invasion."

No, they haven't. Gregory started to recently.

I'd say that jayarbee's misrepresentation (repeated by Stefan and others) was precisely of the form: Nathan says Proposition A is true because x is true.

"A. The leak and attendant publicity alerted terrorists to the existance of this counter-terrorism program.

B. Once alerted, terrorists took steps to communicate in some other way, so as to avoid detection.

C. Terrorists want to avoid detection.

Which of A, B and C do you folks disagree with? Or, do you have some other way of understanding the impact of the leaks?

There is no evidence for A or B. Simply saying that it could be true is not evidence that it is true. I have no doubt that C is true, but there is no evidence that the "leaks," as you call them, by the NYT, LA Times and Wall Street Journal told them anything new about how to avoid dectection.

Nathan wrote: "considering how highly classified"

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Please present your evidence on just how highly classified the program was.

"and how supposedly illegal this program is,"

This has nothing to do with security, so this is a non sequitur. The Bush administration has certainly claimed that the program is legal.

"heck no are clearances for it 'routine'....keep your talking points straight..."

Might I suggest you defend your own "talking points" before you start criticizing someone else's?

ex-liberal wrote: "Which of A, B and C do you folks disagree with?"

A, of course. This isn't exactly rocket science.

I'd say that jayarbee's misrepresentation (repeated by Stefan and others) was precisely of the form: Nathan says Proposition A is true because x is true.

You'd be wrong to say that, and, what's more, you'd be as guilty of taking one sentence out of context as you accuse of Stefan of being.

It was clear from the context of his post that he was challenging the lesser claim (not whether we "won" or not, but whether we stopped Saddam from giving WMD to terrorists in the 1990s rather than through GWB's war in Iraq):

"You began by saying we won when we went to war and made Sadam incapable of giving WMD to terrorists. You followed that up by telling Stefan he was incorrect when he said that we'd "won" that back in the 1990s. And then you completed the trifecta by saying that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War."

Your entire accusation of jayarbee misrepresenting your position revolves around deliberately taking the first sentence of those three out of context, and trying to radically alter its meaning in a way that is clearly indefensible given the context.

cmdicely:

your interpretation is certainly an alternate reading..and acceptable to me so it doesn't change anything:

"If A is defined by achieving x, A has not been achieved.
If A is defined by achieving y, A has not been achieved.
If A is defined by achieving z, A has been achieved." except that I also stated that the unintended consequences of Z probably outweigh benefit A.

"The issue that others have raised"

no they didn't. jayarbee stated: "You began by stating that proposition A had been achieved."

when I denied this, Stefan responded by quoting jayarbee, quoting my denial and then stating that "But you said "If A is defined by achieving z, A has been achieved.""

I of course took offense to this cherrypicking. At no point did he dispute that z had been achieved (one can certainly assert that z had already been achieved, but that doesn't change the fact that z has been achieved) or indicate that was his disagreement.

in fact, Stefan followed by stating that he saw "little daylight" between Jayarbee's statement "You began by stating that proposition A had been achieved" and my actual statement. which, of course, is patently false. In fact, my very first statement on the thread, that Proposition A was false, indicates otherwise.

no they didn't. jayarbee stated: "You began by stating that proposition A had been achieved."

I will again note again that your presentation relies on taken jayarbees sentence out of context; it is clear, in context, that he his argument is not about whether the definition of proposition A by alternative proposition x, y, or z is appropriate, but whether your description of the realization of alternative proposition z is correct; not about whether we in fact "won" the war in Iraq, but whether the thing you describe as a potential definition for "winning", and which you claim we achieved (implicitly through the war) was even any longer an issue, as of several years before the war occurred.

I of course took offense to this cherrypicking.

Yes, apparently you view misleading cherrypicking as your exclusive privilege, to the point that you will engage in order to accuse others of violating your franchise.

"You began by saying we won when we went to war and made Sadam incapable of giving WMD to terrorists. You followed that up by telling Stefan he was incorrect when he said that we'd "won" that back in the 1990s. And then you completed the trifecta by saying that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War."

ok, are we agreed that Jayarebee is making three separate statements here:

A. I said we won when we went to war and made Saddam incapable of providing WMD to terrorists.
B. I said that Stefan was wrong when he said that we won in the 1990's.
C. I said that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War.

"A" is patently false. I said that was a possible win condition.

B and C, which are not at issue, center around my misunderstanding of a Stefan statement. The moment he clarified I immediately retracted my criticism.

"Please present your evidence on just how highly classified the program was."

see the original NY Times article. see the relevant Congressional testimony.

cmdicely:

ok, assume for the moment that I misconstrued jayarbee (which I did not..."You followed that up" clearly separates the second statement from the first), read that in context of Joel's and RedDan's clear misreadings...
more importantly, Stefan didn't read me as misreading jayarbee, rather, he indicated that jayarbee's standalone statement was correct...thus stating that I had said "Proposition A was true because of z"

just to be clear, here is what jayarbee said:

"You began by saying Proposition A is true because of z. You followed that up by ..... And then...... you ........."

The second and third sentences do not modify the first one.

ok, are we agreed that Jayarebee is making three separate statements here:

Insofar as "separate" is anything but absolutely redundant with "three", no.

Its quite clear that jayarbee, again was not taking issue with the characterization of stopping Iraq from giving WMD to terrorists as a "win" in any case. He was taking issue with the timing, with, particularly, your taking issue with Stefan's claim that it was done well before the present war, and that what you refer to as Statement "A" was background that to the criticism in "B" furthered by "C", and the substantive part of the claim and criticism was not the characterization of what constituted a "win" but when the thing that may or may not constitute a win occurred.

Its true that jayarbee could have preempted this kind of tendentious and mendacious misrepresentation of his argument by being more precise, beginning, perhaps, "You began by saying that, for one possible definition of victory, we won when we went to war and made Saddam incapable of giving WMD to terrorists." This is certainly one reason why my sentences are often qualified a bit more than I think they should need to be. But your accusations of dishonesty here are, themselves, dishonest, and, what's worse, rest on the precise kind of dishonesty you are chastising Stefan for (allegedly) engaging in.

"Joel's and RedDan's clear misreadings..."

There you go again.

Look Nathan, you *did* say that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War. That wasn't a misreading on my part, that was the simplest, best reading of the plain English you wrote.

Above, you admit that this claim, which you did make, centered around your misunderstanding of a Stefan statement. So it was you who misread, not me.

Just admit it, Nathan. You goofed.

Joel and Paul B, disagreed with statement A. "The leak and attendant publicity alerted terrorists to the existance of this counter-terrorism program."

So, you guys believe either:

C. Terrorists knew about the NSA program all along, or

D. Terrorists didn't know about the program, but they pay so little attention to the news that they are still unaware of it.

(C) is refuted by the fact that the NSA program has been effective at finding things about certain terrorists. Also foreign terrorists would likely know less about the NSA program than the American public and Congress, most of whom were unaware of it.

The other logical possibility, (D), is silly, as I'm sure you agree.

Joel also objects to (B) "Once alerted, terrorists took steps to communicate in some other way, so as to avoid detection."

The NSA probably knows for sure. Maybe they were following certain terrorists' international phone calls, but these calls have ceased.

Not being privy to secret info, we cannot absolutely prove or disprove (B). It seems reasonable to me that once alerted, terrorists took steps to avoid detection. YMMV.

To me, the bottom line is acknowledging cost vs. benefit. The NSA program has a cost, namely reduction of civil liberties. It has (or had) a benefit: helping to monitor terrorist activity. It may be right to discontinue the program, because of the civil liberties issue. However IMHO it's wishful thinking to imagine that we can eliminate the cost without giving up the benefit.

Posted by: Nathan on July 17, 2006 at 7:34 PM on the "So how are we doing" thread (in its entirety):

" jayarbee:

1996 was not "after the Gulf War""

Explain to me, Nathan, how I misread this post when I interpreted you as having asserted that 1996 was not after the Gulf War.

"Joel and Paul B, disagreed with statement A. "The leak and attendant publicity alerted terrorists to the existance of this counter-terrorism program."

So, you guys believe either:

C. Terrorists knew about the NSA program all along, or

D. Terrorists didn't know about the program, but they pay so little attention to the news that they are still unaware of it."

Nope. I don't know whether terrorists knew about the NSA program by name. I believe they knew their electronic activities were being monitored, which is why, by 2003, they had dropped off dramatically.

"(C) is refuted by the fact that the NSA program has been effective at finding things about certain terrorists."

Name one thing that was discovered specifically by the NSA program.

"Also foreign terrorists would likely know less about the NSA program than the American public and Congress, most of whom were unaware of it."

Whether they knew about the NSA program specifically is irrelevant. They knew they were being surveiled for electronic activity. By the time the NSA program was reported specifically, its tactics were anachronistic.

"The other logical possibility, (D), is silly, as I'm sure you agree."

So why did you bring it up?

"Joel also objects to (B) "Once alerted, terrorists took steps to communicate in some other way, so as to avoid detection."

The NSA probably knows for sure. Maybe they were following certain terrorists' international phone calls, but these calls have ceased.

Not being privy to secret info, we cannot absolutely prove or disprove (B). It seems reasonable to me that once alerted, terrorists took steps to avoid detection."

By the time they were alerted to the NSA program, they had long since taken steps to avoid detection by electronic monitoring. There is no evidence that the NSA was collecting any data on terrorists at the time the NYT, LA Times and Wall Street Journal published information about the NSA program.

ok, assume for the moment that I misconstrued jayarbee

Why would I need to "assume" something I've already concluded based on evidence?

read that in context of Joel's and RedDan's clear misreadings...

What clear misreadings? RedDan's comments in that thread center around attacking you over when disarmament was acheived, (plus your ridiculous side arguments like the Norman Conquest one) not whether or not disarmament constituted victory or whether or not you claimed "victory" in a general sense.

likewise, I've got not idea what clear misreading on Joel's part you are referring to.

more importantly, Stefan didn't read me as misreading jayarbee, rather, he indicated that jayarbee's standalone statement was correct.

False. He never characterized it as "standalone", and your characterization of it as such is new and not one that anyone else involved in the discussion has agreed to. He argued that jayarbee's statement was true, but never that it should be construed as you did in isolation. And it was true, construed in context.

Further, looking back to Stefan's initial response to you on the issue (July 17, 6:31pm), and reading his other posts in light of that, its clear that his criticism, too, was centered around when we had "won" in the sense of your third proposed definition.

Though you've done a great job of avoiding the substance of the criticism of your argument in favor of making spurious charges of misrepresentation, after failing in your ludicrous attempt to argue that the sanctions, inspections, and related policy in the 1990s after the Gulf War and a revelation on Iraq's WMDs that occured during those sanctions, inspections, etc. were as much related as the latter was to the Norman Conquest of England.

Al,

You stupid motherfucking asshole.

Take your "unitary executive" and stuff it up your diseased ass.

Posted by: Nathan on July 17, 2006 at 7:34 PM on the "So how are we doing" thread (in its entirety):

" jayarbee:

1996 was not "after the Gulf War""

Tell me, Nathan, how to interpret this post so that it could be correct.

Joel wrote: I believe they knew their electronic activities were being monitored, which is why, by 2003, they had dropped off dramatically.

This is conceivable, but I haven't seen it confirmed anywhere. Is it fact or speculation?

Name one thing that was discovered specifically by the NSA program.

The people who operated the program said that useful things had been discovered, but, of course, they didn't say what.

By the time they were alerted to the NSA program, they had long since taken steps to avoid detection by electronic monitoring. There is no evidence that the NSA was collecting any data on terrorists at the time the NYT, LA Times and Wall Street Journal published information about the NSA program.

Maybe you wouldn't consider it evidence, but I was impressed by the strong statements made by the President, General Hayden and others who knew about the program. They vehemently asserted that the program was useful and that divulging it hurt our security. To say there's no evidence that it was still useful is to say that the word of Bush, Chaney, Hayden, etc. is worth nothing.

P.S. Come to think of it, I believe Richard Clarke wrote an article for the New York Times along the lines of your arguments, Joel. If Clarke is your source, bear in mind that he lacks the actual knowledge of this specific program that Bush or General Hayden have. Clarke is an expert, but he was not involved with this particular program AFAIK.

"P.S. Come to think of it, I believe Richard Clarke wrote an article for the New York Times along the lines of your arguments, Joel. If Clarke is your source, bear in mind that he lacks the actual knowledge of this specific program that Bush or General Hayden have. Clarke is an expert, but he was not involved with this particular program AFAIK."

If Bush or anyone currently serving in his administration is your source, bear in mind that they will say and do anything to defend this administration. I'll certainly trust Clarke on this before I trust Bush, Cheney, or Hayden. Yes, on this issue, their assertions--bereft of any data to back them up--are worthless in my eyes.

If Bush or anyone currently serving in his administration is your source, bear in mind that they will say and do anything to defend this administration. I'll certainly trust Clarke on this before I trust Bush, Cheney, or Hayden. Yes, on this issue, their assertions--bereft of any data to back them up--are worthless in my eyes.

Joel, if you trust Clarke's statements based on expert speculation more than Bush's, Chaney's and Hayden's based on actual knowledge, that's your privilege.

So, assume the NSA program was worthless. That invites the question of why Bush and his team worked so hard to retain a useless program? Why were they so upset when a useless program was compromised? And, why is Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) busy crafting a bill to allow a useless program to continue in some form?

cmdicely:

"particularly, your taking issue with Stefan's claim that it was done well before the present war,"

I took no such issue. I, in fact, explicitly stated that it was accomplished by 1996. in fact, I even noted that such "win condition" had been accomplished "sometime ago."

Joel, er, my conflict is with you and RedDan specifically misstating and misapprehending my "win conditions" post.
I clarified the 1996 matter with Stefan yesterday...

"So, assume the NSA program was worthless. That invites the question of why Bush and his team worked so hard to retain a useless program?"

Why did they work so hard to suppress evidence that contradicted their claims about WMDs and a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda? Why are they working so hard to maintain a useless war in Iraq? Why are they working so hard to cut taxes during war time?

"Why were they so upset when a useless program was compromised?"

Because they were caught violating the law.

"And, why is Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) busy crafting a bill to allow a useless program to continue in some form?"

In the case of the Republicans, presumably to defend an administration of their own party. I don't know how many Democrats are busy crafting such a bill. I doubt you will see as many Democrats as Republicans supporting such a bill.

cmdicely:

I stated at 6:36 yesterday:

"...only a portion of the stockpiles and active programs were destroyed in 1991.
the rest were covered up and not found until 1996...."

so...how exactly do you translate the foregoing into "...particularly, your taking issue with Stefan's claim that it was done well before the present war,..."

"Joel, er, my conflict is with you and RedDan specifically misstating and misapprehending my "win conditions" post."

Nope. Wrong. I challenged the July 17, 2006 at 7:34 PM post. I didn't challenge any "win conditions" post. You've morphed my comments into someone elses.

In the case of the Republicans, presumably to defend an administration of their own party. I don't know how many Democrats are busy crafting such a bill. I doubt you will see as many Democrats as Republicans supporting such a bill.

Members of Congress from both parties are offering ideas. They're all involved in the drafting. Time will tell how much support the final bill gets. My guess is that it will pass with overwhelming majorities in both parties.

Why do I think so? Because AFAIK not a single Senator or Congressmn has argued that the NSA program is worthless and should be discontinued. Not one.

"Bush's, Chaney's and Hayden's based on actual knowledge, that's your privilege."

Indeed.

Bush and Cheney had actual knowledge of the intellegence that showed Saddam didn't have WMDs or WMD programs and didn't have a working relationship with al Qaeda, yet they lied about what they knew. It is my privilege to learn from this experience that they are liars and not to trust them. Similarly, it is your priviledge to be duped by these proven liars.

so...how exactly do you translate the foregoing into "...particularly, your taking issue with Stefan's claim that it was done well before the present war,..."

Because that was the claim you were taking issue with with that statement.

The fact that your argument didn't even contradict the statement that it was offered against was, of course, one of the fatal weaknesses in the argument.

"Because AFAIK not a single Senator or Congressmn has argued that the NSA program is worthless and should be discontinued. Not one."

That doesn't make them valuable or demonstrate that they should be continued. Yours is a faith-based argument. I'm a scientist. I'll stick with the evidence-based arguments. There is no evidence that the NSA program has yielded anything other than the bloviations of the administration and its supporters.

See what happens when you have oversight? Neither do I!

Basically, the Constitution is being dragged through the dung by these Ivy League hooligans. If the Senate and the House weren't such a corrupt of Good Ol' Boy Ivy League Golf Clubbers we'd probably have a decent country to live in. I mean, they've been advocating prison work farms, right? Why not make them go and spend a few years there to see how fantastic their policies have been for the once Land of the Free?

ex-liberal wrote: "C. Terrorists knew about the NSA program all along, or"

Yup. Unlike you, I don't assume that our enemies are incredibly stupid. I assume they pay attention to the news, to what George Bush says, to publicly available information about the various ways that the U.S. handles intelligence, to logic, to common sense, and so on. This information was already out there to anyone interested in finding it. Do you really not think that Al Qaeda was interested?

"(C) is refuted by the fact that the NSA program has been effective at finding things about certain terrorists."

Sorry, but no. On the one hand, there is no hard evidence that I'm aware of that the program has, in fact, been effective, nor that any obtained information was not also obtained or obtainable through other means. Moreover, it is not at all clear that any global terrorist organization can completely avoid any communication that the U.S. cannot, directly or indirectly, tap.

Right now, all we have is unsupported assertions on all of these issues.

"Also foreign terrorists would likely know less about the NSA program than the American public and Congress, most of whom were unaware of it."

Oh nonsense. Of course a terrorist organization would know more about this than the American public. Its success, even its very existence, depends on knowing such information.

"The NSA probably knows for sure. Maybe they were following certain terrorists' international phone calls, but these calls have ceased."

Since you do not know, you have no basis for your original assertion and it remains wholly unsupported.

"Not being privy to secret info, we cannot absolutely prove or disprove (B)."

It's your assertion; thank you for conceding that you just made it up.

"To me, the bottom line is acknowledging cost vs. benefit."

And to me, the bottom line is acknowledging legality vs. illegality, not to mention the checked vs. unchecked power of the president.

"The NSA program has a cost, namely reduction of civil liberties."

Not to mention the breaking of the law.

"It has (or had) a benefit: helping to monitor terrorist activity."

The effectiveness of this benefit has been disputed by the FBI and has not been supported by the Bush administration with anything like hard evidence.

"However IMHO it's wishful thinking to imagine that we can eliminate the cost without giving up the benefit"

There's that false dichotomy again. Those are not our only two choices. Obeying the law does not require that they stop such surveillance.

ex-liberal wrote: "Why do I think so? Because AFAIK not a single Senator or Congressmn has argued that the NSA program is worthless and should be discontinued. Not one."

That's because, unlike you, they acknowledge that there are more than two choices. The president can certainly continue the NSA program. All he has to do is comply with FISA. Thus far, there has been zero evidence presented that they are incapable of doing so. They simply do not want to.

ex-liberal wrote: "Maybe you wouldn't consider it evidence, but I was impressed by the strong statements made by the President, General Hayden and others who knew about the program."

Of course they were forceful; why wouldn't they be? It's in their own self-interest to defend this administration. Given that self-interest is involved, though, and given the track record of this administration, it behooves the careful observer to ask for a bit more than their unsupported word.

"To say there's no evidence that it was still useful is to say that the word of Bush, Chaney, Hayden, etc. is worth nothing."

No shit, Sherlock. Of course their word isn't worth anything; they've lied too many times.

Two things-
Isn't Nathan the Cheney poster from a few months ago?

What do we really think about the president denying security clearances to block a probe of a secret surveillance program ?

You people better wake up and stay on message, or Kryptik's proposition may come true.

我向大家推荐:您想要了解 广告机 吗？请到中国广告机网来寻找广告机。上海 包装设计 公司专业生产包装设计产品，欢迎选择包装设计。北京 VI设计 厂向广大客户提供VI设计产品及VI设计服务。北京 VI设计 厂向广大客户提供VI设计产品及VI设计服务。要想寻找标志设计信息请访问 标志设计 网，各种标志设计应有尽有。北京 外观设计/家电设计 厂向广大客户提供外观设计/家电设计产品及外观设计/家电设计服务。包装设计 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的包装设计,丰富包装设计行业资讯助您成交。工业设计 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的工业设计,丰富工业设计行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找广告设计信息请访问 广告设计 网，各种广告设计应有尽有。您想要了解 包装设计 吗？请到中国包装设计网来寻找包装设计。

"You began by saying we won when we went to war and made Sadam incapable of giving WMD to terrorists. You followed that up by telling Stefan he was incorrect when he said that we'd "won" that back in the 1990s. And then you completed the trifecta by saying that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War."

ok, are we agreed that Jayarebee is making three separate statements here:

A. I said we won when we went to war and made Saddam incapable of providing WMD to terrorists.
B. I said that Stefan was wrong when he said that we won in the 1990's.
C. I said that 1996 wasn't after the Gulf War.

"A" is patently false. I said that was a possible win condition.

B and C, which are not at issue, center around my misunderstanding of a Stefan statement. The moment he clarified I immediately retracted my criticism.

As I stated in an earlier discussion on this issue, the only constitutional issue presented by the NSA program is whether any evidence that it gathers on an individual is going to use to prosecute that person for a committing a crime in a criminal trial. If it is, then the evidence must have been aquired by the government legally in order for it to be used at trial.

If, on the other hand, the evidence is being used by the military in defense of the nation, then the Constitutional concerns, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, are not present. There is no "case or controversy" that can be brought by a plaintiff with standing to mount a legal challenge to the program that can be heard by a federal court. There is simply no reason for the courts to concern themselves with the constitutionality of the program if it operates completely outside the sphere of law enforcement.

The continued existence of the NSA program is not a legal decision to be made by the court, but, a political decision to be made by Congress. If they believe that the program is unconstitional or that the President has abused his powers in the execution of the program, then they can impeach and remove him from office. If they don't have a problem with it, then it is not up to the courts to second-guess the decision of the American people as represented by their elected members of Congress.

I have no doubt that C is true, but there is no evidence that the "leaks," as you call them, by the NYT, LA Times and Wall Street Journal told [terrorists] anything new about how to avoid dectection.

How hard it must be for lefties to convince themselves to BELIEVE statements like this. The fact that exposing classified details about surveillance programs gives information to the terrorists would be obvious even to the 3 year old.

You should look up "deluded" in the dictionary.

The fact that exposing classified details about surveillance programs gives information to the terrorists would be obvious even to the 3 year old.

No information that they didn't already know, since it had already been published on the internet long before the above newspapers wrote about it.

Look up "dumbshit" in the dictionary--you'll see sportsfan79's picture.

Well, we have to be kind to the poor bastard, haha. After all, he managed to convince himself that Bush had agreed to a court review of the NSA program, despite the fact that Bush had done no such thing.

What was that about "how hard it must be" to "BELIEVE" statements like that?

What's funny about people like sportsfan and ex-liberal is that when pressed for specifics on just which details were revealed that would be oh-so-helpful to any terrorist organization, they get strangely quiet. Why is that, I wonder?

Il Duce ha sempre ragione.

Here are two worldviews.

In my worldview, Bush is telling the truth when he says he's working hard to prevent another terrorist attack here. He implemented a number of surveillance programs on the edge of legality, because he thought they'd help prevent another attack. He restricted knowledge of the programs to a small group in order to keep terrorists from learning of the programs, so they'd be effective. They were effective. Several potential attacks were discovered and prevented. There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack here for almost 5 years.

Notice how consistent my worldview is.

In the Bush-hater's worldview, everything Bush says is a lie. He implemented surveillance programs on the edge of legality, even though they weren't effective, because he's stupid or because he likes breaking the law. He kept the programs secret in order not to be harmed politically, even though a substantial majority of Americans supports the programs now that they're public. We haven't had a attack for almost 5 years and several terrorist polts have been broken up, not because of surveillance, but due to luck or timing or something. Republicans in Congress support continuation of these ineffective programs because they enjoy spying on people. And, they don't care if there's another terrorist attack, because they're evil. Democrats in Congress also support continuation of the ineffective surveillance programs because...hmmm -- I've run out of rationalizations.

See how complicated the Bush-hater's worldview is.

There is definite illegality and abuse of power within the NSA scandal. Bush broke the law by asserting he was above it. He should be impeached for this too (torture, dereliction of duty for 9-11, misappropriation of funds, fraud, vote tampering, Plame). Nathan, get a life. The trolls really wanted to disrupt this thread.

This disclosure is more evidence in the articles of impeachment. It is really quite simple. Multiple crimes are in play too. The Classification or withholding of access to classified data cannot be done simply to avoid embarrassment or prosecution. In one fell swoop, he obstructed justice, misused classification authority, hindered a federal prosecution, withheld data from an official investigation with clear "need to know" and is in breach of federal statutes governing abuse of office. Clean sweep. Wait till we find out it was all for political purposes. Eventually the many crimes of this administration will be known and prosecuted and the rage of 70% of the electorate will be heard from Topeka to Thailand.

There is definite illegality and abuse of power within the NSA scandal.

Actually lawyers disagree. General Hayden reported that 3 separate lawyers had vetted the program and found it legal. Others now say it's illegal. If this program were to go to the Supreme Court, I'd guess we'd see a 5 to 4 decision, one way or the other.

Ex-lib: Your consistent world view would be nice were it not for all the killing and destruction.
These people have to invent terrorists to capture them. What ever happened to the one-legged Zarqawi we allowed to live in Kurdistan? Who was that guy anyway?

Anyway, this administration's record for truth and positive results is laughable now--his thoughts and actions bespeak of a man who has lost his grip and is propped up by a greek Chorus of smitten, daft enablers. Just yesterday Bush thought the German Chancellor needed to be groped from behind by someone she barely knows at a world summit. He is some decisive guy, huh?

"In the Bush-worshiper's worldview, everything Bush says is the truth. He implemented surveillance programs on the edge of legality, even though they weren't effective, because he's divine or because he is the "war president" and thus above the law. He kept the programs secret because he holds us in the palm of his hand, even though a substantial majority of Americans (as shown by all polls for several months) believe he's taking us in the wrong direction. We haven't had a attack for almost 5 years and several terrorist polts have been broken up, not because of good luck, but due to the fact that random people have been arrested and incarcerated without charges in Gitmo. Republicans in Congress support continuation of these ineffective programs because they know that our gentle leader does nothing without our best interests in mind. And, they know there's another terrorist attack, because Saddam had those WMDs secretly shipped out of Iraq just before the US liberated Iraq. Democrats in Congress also support continuation of the ineffective surveillance programs because...hmmm -- well, actually, they don't, but that's because they don't clap hard enough.

Ex-liberal, excellent post at 9:49.

PaulB wrote:
What's funny about people like sportsfan and ex-liberal is that... blah, blah, blah...

What's funny about people like PaulB and haha is how nicely they fit into your second scenario in your 9:49 post. You really nailed them.

Upthread, PaulB took a direct quote from the article, paraphrased it, and added the word "IF" in the middle, all twist facts. I was bored by it, so I didn't bother responding. Also, he is none to bright, so it didn't seem worth it.

Notice how consistent my worldview is.

See how complicated the Bush-hater's worldview is.

Actually, the opposite of complicated is uncomplicated not "consistent," and yes -- you seem to have a very uncomplicated worldview. One might almost describe it as simple, pat, and wilfully naive.

Your "Bush-Hater's worldview" piece shows your reasoning to be fuzzy, unnuanced, and crowded with strawmen. You employ an entire suite of logical fallacies in that short post that include false choices, appeals to authority, appeal to the majority, affirming the consequent, appeals to probability, post hoc ergo propter hoc and ad baculum.

From the standpoint of logical validity it simply could not have been worse. Seriously.

Any Philosophy professor reading it just died from a stroke at your hands.

Any Philosophy professor reading it just died from a stroke at your hands.

I studied Electrical Engineering at UW Madison. I took Philosophy when I wanted an extremely easy A. That class was a joke.

But after reading this board, I see what all the unemployed philosophy majors are doing with their time.

sportfart79: "Upthread, PaulB took a direct quote from the article, paraphrased it, and added the word "IF" in the middle, all twist facts. I was bored by it, so I didn't bother responding. Also, I'm none to [sic] bright, so it didn't seem worth it."

"I studied Electrical Engineering at UW Madison."

Too bad you didn't graduate. You might have a real job today if you had.

"I took Philosophy when I wanted an extremely easy A. That class was a joke."

Sounds like it was a good fit for you.

"But after reading this board, I see what all the unemployed philosophy majors are doing with their time"

Heh.

I notice you're posting here.

But hang in there, sportsfart79. Six more semesters and you'll have that phys. ed. shingle to hang out there . . . somewhere.

Dear little sportsfan, just as cute as can be, writes: "Upthread, PaulB took a direct quote from the article, paraphrased it, and added the word 'IF' in the middle, all twist facts."

ROFL... Dear heart, I didn't twist a single fact. Not one word I wrote was incorrect or even biased. Bush has not, in fact, promised anything, which means that your original assertion was simply (and stupidly) wrong. Since you can't argue with the facts, you have to instead issue meaningless ad hominem attacks. Cute, but transparent. You should try harder next time.

"I was bored by it, so I didn't bother responding."

Translation: I got caught making a stupid mistake, so I'll just duck my head and pretend it didn't happen.

"Also, he is none to bright, so it didn't seem worth it."

ROFL.... I'll just let this remark stand without further comment.

ex-liberal wrote: "Actually lawyers disagree. General Hayden reported that 3 separate lawyers had vetted the program and found it legal. Others now say it's illegal. If this program were to go to the Supreme Court, I'd guess we'd see a 5 to 4 decision, one way or the other."

Since the Supreme Court has already rejected the two primary arguments used by the Bush administration, there is no longer any real disagreement as to the legality of the program. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

ex-liberal wrote: [well, something rather silly, actually, particularly since he is unable to address the issues raised by the rest of the posters here -- a sure sign of desperation.]

"In my worldview, Bush is telling the truth when he says he's working hard to prevent another terrorist attack here."

In my world, I have no problem believing this. The effectiveness of that work and the legality of it are certainly under question, though, given the facts available thus far. Why are you having such a hard time dealing with facts?

"He implemented a number of surveillance programs on the edge of legality, because he thought they'd help prevent another attack."

That may or may not have been his motivation. Since you do not know, any speculation is fruitless. That he could have accomplished the same goal without acting illegally is a near certainty, given the facts available thus far. Why are you having such a hard time dealing with facts?

"He restricted knowledge of the programs to a small group in order to keep terrorists from learning of the programs, so they'd be effective."

In my world, he deliberately withheld information about the program from those he was required by law to inform. That terrorists would have learned about the program from any of these individuals is highly questionable. That such disclosure would have harmed our national security in any way is even more questionable, particularly given the Bush administration's own public comments about intelligence.

"They were effective."

In my world, no data has been presented to back up this assertion. Moreover, what data we do have, from the FBI, calls the effectiveness of the program into serious questions. Why are you having such trouble with facts?

"Several potential attacks were discovered and prevented."

In my world, no terrorists in the U.S. or elsewhere have been arrested, tried, or convicted based on evidence supplied by NSA surveillance. If such surveillance was indeed effective and potential attacks were discovered and prevented, then such arrests and trials should have taken place. Why are you having such trouble with facts?

"There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack here for almost 5 years."

Nor was there a successful terrorist attack in the U.S. for years before 9/11. This is a non sequitur. Why are you having such trouble with facts?

"Notice how consistent my worldview is."

Yup. Blind devotion to authority is indeed a consistent and simple world view. Alas that it always leads to trouble in the real world.

"In the Bush-hater's worldview, everything Bush says is a lie."

In my world, not everything Bush says is a lie. His administration has, however, been caught in repeated lies and exaggerations, which lead me to refuse to accept his unsupported word on matters such as this. Why are you having such trouble with facts?

"He implemented surveillance programs on the edge of legality, even though they weren't effective, because he's stupid or because he likes breaking the law."

In my world, I have no idea why the Bush administration broke the law in ignoring FISA nor do I know that the program was effective, since we only have Bush's unsupported word for this. In my world, sources at the FBI have said that the program was ineffective because they were wasting time tracking down complete crap. Why are you having so much trouble with facts?

"He kept the programs secret in order not to be harmed politically, even though a substantial majority of Americans supports the programs now that they're public."

In my world, I assume that Bush administration kept the program a secret because he was afraid it was illegal and that he'd have to answer to Congress and to the courts if it was revealed. In my world, a substantial majority of Americans want the Bush administration to not break the law. Why do you have so much trouble with facts?

"We haven't had a attack for almost 5 years and several terrorist polts have been broken up, not because of surveillance, but due to luck or timing or something."

In my world, the U.S. is almost never attacked on its own soil, including years prior to 9/11. In my world, the only terrorist plots broken up have been laughable ones, like the shoe bomber (not because of illegal surveillance), the would-be dirty bomber (not because of illegal surveillance), and those idiots in Miami (not because of illegal surveillance). Why do you have so much trouble with facts?

"Republicans in Congress support continuation of these ineffective programs because they enjoy spying on people."

In my world, Republicans are getting desperate about their prospects in the upcoming elections and are latching onto national security as the only thing they've got. They've invested so much into Bush that they now have no choice but to drive with him off that cliff, come hell or high water.

"And, they don't care if there's another terrorist attack, because they're evil."

In my world, this is called a really stupid strawman argument.

"Democrats in Congress also support continuation of the ineffective surveillance programs because...hmmm -- I've run out of rationalizations."

Democrats in Congress support surveillance that complies with FISA. Why do you have so much trouble with facts?

"See how complicated the Bush-hater's worldview is."

Questioning authority is, inevitably, not as safe and comforting as blind devotion to it but infinitely more rewarding in the long term.

In any case, your descriptions of the liberal "worldview" is flatly incorrect, consisting of just one stupid strawman after another and not based on any argument that anyone here or anywhere else has made. It's a lot easier to have an argument when you can conduct both sides of it but it just makes you look foolish. Care to address the points that we have made?

PaulB quotes...

Dear little sportsfan, just as cute as can be...

ROFL... Dear heart...

Weird.

I'm flattered, but taken, Paul. Also, I'm straight. You could try Match.com, though. Good luck.

Joel wrote:
But hang in there, sportsfart79...

"sportsfart". Wow, that's clever. Good for you, Joel.

I'll leave you alone so you can get back to making funny sounds under your armpits.

Wow. It appears some people are really out of their league here. I mean, sportsfan, seriously? Homophobia? Completely obliterating the entire discussion with that nasty poo-bomb? Are you really willing to bring everything back to the stone-ages to save face?

Captain wrote:
I mean, sportsfan, seriously? Homophobia?

Only a liberal would take my post of 2:14 and call it "homophobia".

I like it though. Be sure and beat that drum over and over just prior to the midterm elections. That hyper-PC stuff plays really well with average Americans.

Keep it up, Captain!

Dude, of my best friends for years was exactly like you, so I know how pointless it is to reason with you, or even get you to see facts. It's just one smokescreen after another. And if we took a poll, most people would call your comments homophobia. Whatever. Another dumb fucking conservative who wandered too far from an AM radio station...

In my world, the U.S. is almost never attacked on its own soil, including years prior to 9/11. In my world, the only terrorist plots broken up have been laughable ones, like the shoe bomber (not because of illegal surveillance), the would-be dirty bomber (not because of illegal surveillance), and those idiots in Miami (not because of illegal surveillance).
I think so!