Even National Review should be embarrassed to peddle it.

Shame? From these guys?

Not to split hairs, but if the definition of a terrorist is what the President decides is a terrorist, then Sowell has a point.

Of course, if the definition of "upholding the Constitution" is what 200+ years of Democratic tradition decides that it is, then yeah, Sowell's lying.

When has TNR ever been anything other than toilet paper? They peddle dishonesty. Doesn't Murdoch own it? It's Faux News on glossy paper.

Yes, because judges are experts in terrorism and international intelligence gathering. We'll listen in on Bin Ladin's phonecalls, just so long as we can convince a robed geriatric with a million other cases that Bin Ladin's rights will be respected.

Very insipid post Kevin. Let's leave counter-terrorism in the hands of counter-terrorists.

Or, alternatively, be consistent: Submit each of your posts to a judge and have them approved before publishing them. No problem, right? I'm sure the judges will get right on it.

That's right, Nancy Pelosi HATES America and wants to see your children DIE DIE I TELL YOU!!!

All the right has left in their empty bag of tricks to peddle is fear, fear baby, fear.

with a million other cases that Bin Ladin's rights will be respected.

Uh, that's not how it works. Shithead.

Get serious. The reason the Democrats opposed it is because Bush did it. Nothing else. I suspect warrants would not have changed a thing.

There's a special, secret, expedited FISA court for these cases. And a provision so that tapping can proceed as long as warrants are applied for within 72 hours if there are delays when time sensitive taps are required. It would help the country if right wingers knew anything.

The trolls of late have been particularly stupid. Are they just parodies?

AH writes:

We'll listen in on Bin Ladin's phonecalls, just so long as we can convince a robed geriatric

Law enforcement can convince a judge that someone has mob ties. They can convince a judge to extradite an alleged pedophile from Thailand. They can convince a judge someone is potentially engaging in money laundering. How would terrorists be any different?

I mean, why do we need a Constitution anyway? Just throw the whole thing out - let this administration do whatever they want. It's ironic that many conservatives argue for democracy in Iraq, yet they advocate what is very close to fascism.

when could one ever write about something a republican said and not say "This is, flatly, a lie."?

I always wanted to do parody but Am Hawk is the best I have ever seen. No matter the subject, he is always first with the lowest functioning, most fact free "analysis" anywhere. Kind of a "merkin patriot" that can spell.

Gotta love it.

Click the link!

Sometimes we Real Americans have to lie to capture the Truth!!

There was indeed a day when smear attacks like this worked.

Yet righties seem not to have noticed a very important point.

Nowadays, they are simply backfiring. In race after race, Republican negative ads and attacks are backfiring, bringing their poll numbers DOWN instead of UP.

Now, you see, the Republicans are fighting AGAINST popular opinion rather than WITH it. And therein lies all the difference. Before, when they smeared Democrats, they were defending the honor of the American people; now, they're just trying to cover their own skanky asses.

In politics, context is everything. But Republicans don't do context.

matt:

There's a special, secret, expedited FISA court for these cases. And a provision so that tapping can proceed as long as warrants are applied for within 72 hours if there are delays when time sensitive taps are required. It would help the country if right wingers knew anything.

We aren't talking individual wiretaps, but a widespread computerized tracking program. Maybe the NSA should have printed out the first fifty thousand numbers being tracked and slapped them on the judges desk for approval by the end of the day?

Besides, you really need to get away from this issue. The Democratic Party did as soon as they realized most Americans thought the program was okay.

Wow, what a liar. Republicans have gone so far over the edge they no longer know the difference between lies and the truth. Lying is their standard operating procedure. It's what they do. It defines their character -- or lack thereof.

with a million other cases that Bin Ladin's rights will be respected.

Bin Laden? I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned. And, again, I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Besides, you really need to get away from this issue. The Democratic Party did as soon as they realized most Americans thought the program was okay.

NEWSWEEK Poll: Americans Wary of NSA Spying:
Bush’s approval ratings hit new lows as controversy rages.
Newsweek Web Exclusive
By David Jefferson
Updated: 1:11 p.m. ET May 14, 2006

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

....57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

We aren't talking individual wiretaps, but a widespread computerized tracking program. Maybe the NSA should have printed out the first fifty thousand numbers being tracked and slapped them on the judges desk for approval by the end of the day?

Wow, we have fifty thousand terrorists in this country? Who knew?

No, what you're hearing from me is that I'm not that concerned about bin Laden. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

For the record, Am. Hawk, leaving the decision as to who to wiretap entirely in the hands of Bush and Rummy is not exactly "leaving it in the hands of counterterrorism experts" -- any more than leaving such a decision entirely in the hands of Nixon would have been (although Nixon was undeniably more intelligent than Bush and Rummy). But then, that notorious pinko George Will wrote an acerbic Post column last February ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html ) pointing out that the White House was lying through its teeth when it said that the Constitution gives the White House full power to make decisions as to whom to wiretap in wartime "without proper supervision" -- or at least monitoring -- by semi-independent observers to see if it is also wiretapping people for purely self-interested political reasons. Which really should be obvious even to an American Dodo, er, Hawk.

The sad thing is American Hawk is simply mimicing the President. President Bush is the first President in my 58 years to view himself not as the American President, but as the Republican President. Viewing 1/2 the American people as being the enemy has given him the freedom to insult at will. That was bad when his numbers where in the high 50s, but now that they are in the low 30s, instead of insulting only 40% of the population, he is insulting about 70%.

A permanent smirk is ok for a smart ass comedian, but it doesn't work well on an unpopular President.

And to RNC: the invention of computerized "data mining" does indeed require the development of new procedures to allow it to be used against real security dangers without giving the incumbent administration power to use it wholesale against its political opponents. None other than Adm. Poindexter (yes, that Adm. Poindexter) declared himself worried about this problem last year, and proposed a sensible-sounding solution ( http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/ ). When one of the two chief convicted criminals in Iran-Contra comes across as a civil libertarian by comparison with the current administration, you KNOW you've got trouble.

So?

They lie.

It's just what they do.

The counter-lie is that Republicans support the indefinite imprisonment and torture of American citizens.

It's not all about you. This thread is about Nancy Pelosi.

Then why are you mentioning Osama bin Laden? Don't make me Gitmo your ass.

As the Judiciary is dominated by Republican nominees I've never understood why the Democrats never asked the administration which one of their appointees did they expect to turn down their request for a warrant.

Viewing 1/2 the American people as being the enemy has given him the freedom to insult at will. That was bad when his numbers where in the high 50s, but now that they are in the low 30s, instead of insulting only 40% of the population, he is insulting about 70%.

What always brings this home is Bush's frequent scathing references to "Massachusetts liberals" or "San Francisco values." It's impossible to even imagine Clinton or another Democratic president using the same tactics, pouring scorn on "Houston profiteers" or "Alabama values." If a Democrat did it it would provoke a firestorm of outrage, and piteous mewling whines from the Southerners about how insulted and maligned they felt -- and yet when a Republican President, ostentibly representing the entire country, feels free to insult large swathes of that country, no one even notices.

Chuck,

It's not all about you. This thread is about Nancy Pelosi.

"Very insipid post Kevin." AmericanChickenHawk.

Hey chicken, speaking of insipid posts, why not just leave your "thoughts" off this forum?

The reason the Democrats opposed it is because Bush did it.

you are an idiot

Billy-- If you don't want to read things you'll disagree with, try democraticunderground.com or dailykos.com. They have very effective thought police there. This is a forum where ideas can actually be freely exchanged.

Thanks,
American Hawk

I asked a very simple question there too: "Nancy Pelosi has no problem with warrantless wiretaps of bin Ladin's calls to and from American citizens?"

No Chuck(les) you tried to employ your usual M.O. and build a splendid strawman. You know damned well that what Pelosi advocates is working withion the framework of the law, but that isn't what the foam-flecked fuckheads want to hear.

You are still the smae fucking jerk you have always been, and no matter how many handles you come back here under, we spot you for the fucking idiot you have always been in about two posts.

Didn't someone bribe your pathetic ass to just go away? What did you do, blow it all on porn and candy corn and now you need to extort another months rent?

Or, alternatively, be consistent: Submit each of your posts to a judge and have them approved before publishing them. No problem, right? I'm sure the judges will get right on it.

Why are these fools paid to infect this blog? The intellectual(sic) dishonesty in that statement is overwhelming.

matt There's a special, secret, expedited FISA court for these cases. And a provision so that tapping can proceed as long as warrants are applied for within 72 hours if there are delays when time sensitive taps are required. It would help the country if right wingers knew anything.

matt, the people at the NSA who operated this program have explained that the warrant process isn't practical, for several reasons:

1. Procuring a warrant is a big job of gathering necessary documentation.

2. The 72 hour clause doesn't relieve any of the documentation requirement.

3. A warrant isn't the right tool, anyhow. Warrants are issued for "probably cause" when investigating a crime. The NSA wiretaps are part of an investigagtion before an attack takes place.

So, requiring warrants would kill the program

Do I need to explain in detail how all of ex-liberal's post above is a tissue of lies and misrepresentations? Or, given our respective track records, should we just accept that it's a lie and move on?

I vote move on, unless a newbie asks. In fact, I move we just make it standing policy.

I'd go for option B.

Requiring that the White House ever get ANY type of warrant for ANY wiretap of ANYONE at ANY time would "kill the program" of listening in on genuine possible security threats? Really, Ex-Lib. Another notorious pinko -- Richard Posner -- has also suggested quite sensible and obvious ways to deal properly with the problem. And, to quote George Will again, there are other ways to deal with the new security problems we're faced with by somewhat loosening the pre-9/11 restrictions on wiretaps, without giving the White House total carte blanche to wiretap anyone it chooses for any reason -- and those new loosenings of the rules (such as suggested by Posner and Poindexter) would certainly have been approved by Congress as a response to 9-11.

So why does the White House instead insist on no independent monitoring at all of who it's wiretapping and why, hmm?

Pelosi should file a defamation lawsuit.

GC and Stefan - the former Head of the NSA and the AG described the burdensome nature of the warrant process. Wikipedia says

In a press conference on December 19 held by both Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, the Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence, General Hayden claimed, "This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States." He stated that even an emergency authorization under FISA required marshaling arguments and "looping paperwork around". Hayden also implied that decisions on whom to intercept under the wiretapping program were being made on the spot in real time by a shift supervisor and another person, but refused to discuss details of the specific requirements for speed.

Tell me, American Hawk—what is it about authoritarianism that specifically appeals to you? Most rational people regret the steps this society has taken toward Orwellian universal surveillance, and even among the subset of the rational who feel that the Islamist threat (so much direr than the USSR regnant!) justifies some temporary trespass upon our ancient liberties, there is considered room for disagreement as to whether the junta's measures are sufficient or excessive. You, mein Hawk, seem by contrast to lust for ever more monitoring, ever more surveillance, and of course (in other threads) ever more, ah, pain-based interrogation protocols.

Do you like gladiator movies, Hawk? Ever read Hoffer's The True Believer?

Carl,The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit.
Posted by: Chuck

then even an intellectual lightweight like yourself, chuck, would concede that the following statment about pelosi is inaccurate:

Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies.

... given what has been under discussion thus far. If not, then provide some evidence, specifically a quote from pelosi, to back up the assertion.

nothing so complicated, rand ... hawk, chuck, ex-lib all share the delusions of grandeur that only white guys, usually old ones, can muster at the prospect of killing thousands of arabs at will.

much of the rest is just window dressing.

some people need viagra ... this limp-dicked crowd requires some true war-porn snuff to get a rise.

I read Uncle Tom Sowell's hatchet job on Nancy Pelosi over on CBSNews.com earlier this evening and was struck by how dishonest and well, stupid, it was. Here is another line - "The time is long overdue to get serious about the caliber of people to whom power and responsibility are to be entrusted". Oh really, Tom? Like men who have lengthy criminal records, well-documented addictions to alcohol and narcotics and haven't really done any honest work in their life? Like Dubya?

These conservatives are truly amazing in their ability to say one thing, while knowing that they or someone they support, is doing exactly the opposite. They really seem to be immune to the phenomenon that psychologists refer to as "cognitive dissonance".

Then, Sowell mischaracterizes (as Kevin points out) the NSA eavesdropping plan. However, Kevin was not sharp enough on the retort. This eavesdropping doesn't involve targeting incoming calls to known al-Qaeda operatives in the United States - there isn't a liberal I know that would object to that. That sort of activity could also easily be accomodated under the existing FISA statute without any new enabling legislation. The NSA scheme involves taking every call record of any call that ran through a telecom switch in this country and running certain algorithms and "data mining" routines against them to (hopefully) identify possible suspicious calls. Big difference. The potential for misuse or abuse of such information is huge and is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

It's only by lying like this, that sacks of shit like Sowell can make it sound like Nancy Pelosi is some sort of deviant, when in fact she is more sane and rational than Sowell himself.

Nads: ... hawk, chuck, ex-lib all share the delusions of grandeur that only white guys, usually old ones, can muster at the prospect of killing thousands of arabs at will.

Uh, Nads, this whole thread is about liberals attacking a black guy, and conservatives defending him.

this thread is about another conservative hack who finds it in his interest to lie. of COURSE a dishonest little shitstain like yourself would defend him, black or no.

it doesn't affect your, or your party's, racism.

Uh, Nads, this whole thread is about liberals attacking a black guy, and conservatives defending him.

LMAO. The race of the NR guy is only important to racists such as you. I, for one, had no idea what his race is, nor do I care. It is his *ideas* we are objecting to.

it isn't as if the repubs have a lot of minorities in the public eye ... or voting for them, for that matter. what few they have I'm sure they know well.

it only requires remembering ... like what? ... five or so names?

Kevin: "Even National Review should be embarrassed to peddle it."

It's hard to feel any sense embarrassment when one is completely impervious to shame.

Chuck: The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit.

No it's not! God, you're an idiot!

How does one say "lying sacks of shit" in reference to teh GOP without demeaning feces, fertilzer, or other intangible byproducts of life?

Hmm, "lying sacks of inorganic shit with artificial turd essence."

I feel better. . .

As regards the war on terrorism and the terrorists’ war against the west,

Yes, about that war, it doesn't exist. It just fucking does not. The west has never been safer -- from terrorism, "islamist" or otherwise. But from hysterical American and British stupid cunts, the world is a dangerous place.

You know what, we have to step back. The conventional wisdom about any of these issues disappear every few ticks.

The great power of the Rovians is
that they have been perceiving (and acting upon) this for the last 20-some years.

Look at what they're doing now--declaring premature victory. If it works, as it has for the last years, it works and it is reality.

But if it doesn't, and I hope to God I hope we're about to see this, the reality they want disappears like a 2020 glacier.

"lying sacks of shit"

Well Tommy does have a PhD from the University of Chicago - Perhaps we should call him Dr Lying Sack of Shit.

Hmmm, undergrad at Harvard, Masters from Columbia and then his stint in the windy city.

So much education and he is still a lying sack of shit.

Like the time women were brought to the US from Southeast Asia and kept prisoners in South El Monte, CA. They were kept in a building surrounded by concertina wire and forced to work long hours sewing with no pay. Finally, one was able to get word outside and they were rescued.
Sowell appeared on a panel for NPR within days of this. When this was discussed, everyone was horrified except Sowell. He thought their "rights" had been infringed. He said that perhaps you would not wish to work as they did, but this was better than their lives had been back in Asia.

Probably felt the same about his anscestors. "Hey, I've got it made at the Hoover Institute. So what if you were brought out of Africa in chains, Great-Great Granddaddy, I got mine."

American Hawk:

Yes, because judges are experts in terrorism and international intelligence gathering. We'll listen in on Bin Ladin's phonecalls, just so long as we can convince a robed geriatric with a million other cases that Bin Ladin's rights will be respected.

Like a lot of uneducamated American, American Hawk, is unaware of FISA courts who specialize in handling cases like this.

Very insipid post Kevin. Let's leave counter-terrorism in the hands of counter-terrorists.

Good idea, American Hawk. See reference to
FISA above...

Or, alternatively, be consistent: Submit each of your posts to a judge and have them approved before publishing them. No problem, right? I'm sure the judges will get right on it.

And that would make sense if those posts were
really disguised terrorists about to attack
this country.

Posted by: American Hawk

American Squawk?

The good news is that the wingnuts are already beating up on Nancy Pelosi. That means that they know the US House will be slipping from their greasy grasp very soon....

Chuck: The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation lawsuit.

W Kiernan: No it's not! God, you're an idiot!

Sorry, but in the US, the truth is indeed an absolute defense in libel/slander cases.

Of course, what Sowell wrote is not the truth. Now we just have to show malice.

yeah ... frankly, I find it odd that the ignorant shitheads who vote repub would put their trust in deserters and cowards rather than in ... say ... a judge who happens to have studied con law.

Like a lot of uneducamated American, American Hawk, is unaware of FISA courts who specialize in handling cases like this.

minor edit: american hawk isn't an american ... he's a foreigner with a hard-on for american exceptionalism ... and likely a small penis.

The liars neglect to note that no one in America is opposed to listening to terrorists. The opposition is to listening to innocent Americans without a warrant, because that is a clamp down on privacy and free speech as tight as North Korean hands turning a vice grip on an American's testicles.

The liars also neglect to mention that the reason for opposition to torture is because humans error. Human error will result in innocent people being tortured. As a proud American I have no respect for anyone who believes that it is appropriate to torture the innocent in order to capture the guilty. To hold such a belief is to be a coward of the worst type, and I refuse to accept that all Americans have become cowards, though it is obvious that some already have.

american hawk isn't an american ...

Is that true? His diction is 100% American Bartstool Philosopher. You mean he's totally faking it? Is that true AH?

How does one say "lying sacks of shit apologists for lying sacks of shit" without saying Charlie? Try it--it is impossible. Sometimes it comes out funny, like "Amreican Hawk" in a high pitch helium-laced whine. But man. Funnnnny.

I'm headed to bed, but there is a common misperception here that I'm not American. I immigrated legally, naturalized, and am now only a citizen of the United States. On conservative boards, this makes me 'American'. Curiously, liberals seem to have trouble with the concept that not every American was born here.

Curiously, liberals seem to have trouble with the concept that not every American was born here.

Welcome to America, Macaca.

Enozinho: Man, that was pure. I give you a 10 for the speed, clarity and punishing irony.

Hat's off.

Chuck: "Bruce, Did FDR allow 'independent monitoring' of intercepted Japanese codes during WWII?"

Nope, Chuck, for the -- how can I put this tactfully? -- obvious reason that he wasn't getting those codes by wholesale warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. (And lest we forget, FISA was created as a direct response to the revelation that both Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover HAD been using the Cold War as an excuse to wiretap their own political enemies wholesale.)

So, Chuck and Am. Hawk and RNC: if you want to gripe about this, I suggest you take it up instead with those infamous liberals and pacifists Will, Posner and Poindexter -- all of whom have proposed highly workable compromises which would still allow us to carry out virtually unrestricted wiretaps of anyone in this country who actually DOES have any chance whatosever of being considered a possible security risk by anyone not in a padded cell. (What we're really seeing here, of course, is just how extreme-right Bush's small flock of remaining supporters really are.)

The only justification for legalizing NSA warrantless wiretaps is because the administration has already broken the law, and they are trying to cover their law-breaking butts.

The FISA law as it was written works just fine unless one's goal is to monitor the calls of innocent Americans to dig up whatever dirt they can find and blackmail them with it.

Is that true? His diction is 100% American Bartstool Philosopher. You mean he's totally faking it? Is that true AH?
Posted by: enozinho

yeah ... but his fetish for strong authoritarianism smacks of a native trying to please his colonial master.

Curiously, liberals seem to have trouble with the concept that not every American was born here.
Posted by: American Hawk

more accurately, I find your political positions to be disturbingly un-american. ... besides ... you still spell words like "color" as "colour" ... which suggests you haven't completely sold out.

I'm going to guess, American Hawk: you were formerly a double-headed eagle.

That explains a lot. I'm friends with a few former Sovs: the early totalitarian conditioning never quite washes out.

Kevin wrote:

"As regards the war on terrorism and the terrorists’ war against the west, Nancy Pelosi has opposed having international phone calls to and from terrorists monitored by American intelligence agencies.

This is, flatly, a lie. Pelosi, like many Democrats, opposes NSA surveillance of American residents without a warrant. That is all she opposes. Period."

Known and suspected embers of anti-American terrorist organizations like al Qaida, based overseas should be monitored 24/7, to the extent that it is technically possible ( which is less often than most people believe). Having some guy call the target in Waziristan from Brooklyn is no reason to back off the surveillance but to pay heightened attention.

"Residents" are not citizens of the United States -this does not even mean people with green cards but is a weasel word meaning anyone physically within the the United States, regardless of how they arrived here.

This is a remarkably stupid standard to select as it adds nothing to protecting Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens while doing a lot to impede legitimate, specific, counterintelligence efforts directed at foreigners who may have lied on their VISA application or stayed after it expired. Or just snuck in over one of our very long borders.

Counterintelligence efforts that, by the way, make a hell of a lot more sense than racially profiling random guys at airports who " look Muslim".

so why are you being an apologist for sowell's lie? nothing you've written, blather though it may be, changes makes sowell's statement true.

wingnuts have been lying to an ignorant public for so long, they've gotten used to not being challenged for their bullshit.

American Hawk - this is what the President swore to:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Do you think he's doing a good job of preserving and protecting the Constitution? Honestly.

I'm sitting here watching a CNN special and one particular Mideastern, who says he was torture in Bush's secret prisons, and says the he watch two man beaten to death in that secret prisons where he himself was beaten severely and often.

Bush insist that he doesn't torture even as Cheney says that waterboarding is a no brainer.

If its true, that the Bush/Cheney administration have been killing people inside of those secret prisons, then why shouldn't Bush and Cheney be impeached? In fact imprisoned? And the Republicans, responsible for oversite, just let all this happen on their watch.

"wingnuts have been lying to an ignorant public for so long, they've gotten used to not being challenged for their bullshit"

That Sowell lied about Pelosi's position does not make Pelosi's position itself sensible. Or even politically smart.

Nads - more time spent on logic -or perhaps basic reading skills - might make you a bit less of a parrot.

Kevin, give into your anger... strike the National Review down now and your conversion to the dark side will be complete!

Chuck,

Please explain how we are at war. Who do we have to defeat to win? How is al Qaeda stronger than the USSR was? Does this also imply Britain was at war during the height of IRA activity? Is Japan at war against fringe elements of the Aum Shinrikyuu cult after it went underground? Is France at war against its immigrant population? Is Spain at war against ETA?

And why is this issue more important than, say, preventing a regional arms race in East Asia? Don't you think a (actual) war which involved China or North Korea against the Japan-US strategic alliance would be much more catastrophic? You know, since the area drives the world economy, and may soon be teeming with nuclear weapons?

Nancy Pelosi is essentially articulating the position that the United States took during the Cold War.

Wait, I guess you're right. We lost that war, so we should abandon due process.

Cheryl
The way I see it, Republican kowtowing to executive bullshit means a Democratic majority in Congress is a minimum requirement for impeachment. Every Republican is so intimidated by the party that Congressional oversight is a fantasy. That's what this election may affect. Unhappily, the way things have been going the part while, nothing is a slam dunk.

talk about misplaced anger by Mr. Sowell, he really is a black redneck. (See his suggested reading list where he recommends his own book: http://www.tsowell.com/SuggestedRead.htm) And what's up with that last graf about Bush/Cheney traveling on the same plane? What's scariest about this article is that it reminds us that this country has survived 12 long years with Dennis Hastert a "heartbeat" away from the presidency. Yikes! But that's how vibrant our democracy is. It will survive Hastert, Cheney and Bush. Fear of a Democratic Congress? Please...

DON'T CLICK THE LINK. NEVER CLICK THE LINK.

Not if you don't want to be utterly dismayed at an embarrassingly low level of discourse coming from someone who is a syndicated columnist with a huge audience, that is.

Sowell's writing in this piece falls somewhere in between the unexamined bombast of the American Hawk parody and ex-liberal's wide-eyed gullibility -- with just a dash of Al's intransigent grouchiness thrown in for good measure.

Take the opening line for example:

Perhaps nothing so captures the superficial, frivolous, and irresponsible spirit of our times like the sudden boomlet for Barack Obama as a candidate for president of the United States.

Really? Nothing captures all that is frivolous, irresponsible and superficial about our time like Barack Obama putative presidential run? Nothing?

Not even the president putting on an act by donning a cowboy hat and clearing brush for a month at his empty pig farm, all the while brushing off repeated warnings of an imminent terror attack on American soil?

Not even spending his time hamming it up with a guitar at John McCain's birthday party to show just what an affable guy he is while a great American city is lost to a storm and thousands of people are trapped in their homes, desperately in need of water and medical attention but not receiving it because federal agencies are paralyzed by the a lack of guidance from a chief executive who took neither the storm warnings nor the agency's mission seriously?

Not even the president of the United States, in a moment ripe with potential, insulting the American people and the dignity of the office of president by telling an interviewer that catching a fucking trout was the proudest moment of his presidency?

Well, I suppose when the worst attack on American soil has happened while you were asleep at the switch and now you're sitting astride two failing foreign wars, maybe catching a fish really is the least inept and embarrassing thing you've done in five years.

Anyway, if Barack Obama's presidential bid is the touchstone of frivolity in a world where:

the President of the United States is an intellectually incurious professional frat boy who's distinguished himself only by quitting or failing at just about everything he's tried, and who;

can't string enough neurons together (never mind sentences) to be trusted to answer substantive questions at a press conference without spouting nonsense that then needs weeks of translation and explanation by the White House, and who;

despite all this was installed as president just because he has a brand name that appealed to a coalition of the willing-to-put-ideology-and-petty-political-paybacks-over-blowjobs-above-everything --

-- then I say we all throw on our cowboy hats, feverishly clear brush while avoiding the crises that arise from inattention to our duties and responsibilities, and hope like hell for more superficiality along the lines of a bid for president by someone with the caliber of a Barack Obama.

Because let's face it: we simply can't afford to lose more American cities, lives, or wars to the sober and high-minded seriousness of the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rubber stamp Republican chorus -- er, I mean "Congress."

Kevin,

Actually the people who should be shamed are the board of Stanford. This asshole is a fellow. Clearly merit wasn't the reason for that appointment.

Do the Republicans have any plan to get anything accomplished if the Democrats win the house next week? Are we in for 2 years of hateful invective from the GOP?

When the President of the Unitee States is willing to stand up and say "the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," it'a kind of unreasonable to expect his minions to be any less demogogic.

patience, FYI Sowell is a fellow of the Hoover Institution. Hoover is located on the Stanford campus, but it's not a part of Stanford.

Sowell is arguably the leading black intellectual in America. If you look him up in Amazon, you will find a long list of books. He is a leading researcher in a number of fields.

He is considered one of the top conservative writers and thinkers. You may believe all conservatives are assholes. However, if you can set aside that prejudice, you will learn that Sowell is a most esteemed individualm quite worthy of being a fellow at any institution.

Sowell is arguably the leading black intellectual in America. If you look him up in Amazon, you will find a long list of books. He is a leading researcher in a number of fields.
Posted by: ex-liberal

This would be a true statement only if illiterate whites get to choose the black intellectuals.

That Sowell lied about Pelosi's position does not make Pelosi's position itself sensible. Or even politically smart.
Posted by: zenpundit

Which position is insensible, jackass ... your perception of pelosi's position, sowell's misrepresentation of her position, or her actual position?

I'm sorry, and you can call me a persnickety academic, hell I've been called worse before breakfast most days, but there is no such thing as a "leading researcher in a number of fields". If one is a serious researcher, they pick one. Elsewise, they are merely a gadfly.

Keep up the good fight, Nads. I'm sending you my snark-karma.

Sowell is arguably the leading black intellectual in America.

To show that there can be truth in the biggest lie, I will admit that Sowell is in America any given hour and that idiots might want to argue that he's an intellectual, a leader and a black anything except a traitor.

american chicken hawk... when you actually have an idea, and are able to hold a debate (rather than simply stating crap and failing to support it with facts) then you are welcome to join the conversation.

I'm headed to bed, but there is a common misperception here that I'm not American. I immigrated legally, naturalized, and am now only a citizen of the United States. On conservative boards, this makes me 'American'. Curiously, liberals seem to have trouble with the concept that not every American was born here.

Jessus F-ing Keriist! As if we don't already have enough half-wit native-born no-nothing wingnuts, we have to go and import them too?

Ok, let's get down to brass tacks here -- maybe it's about time we passed immigration quotas on fascists.

'If its true, that the Bush/Cheney administration have been killing people inside of those secret prisons, then why shouldn't Bush and Cheney be impeached? In fact imprisoned? And the Republicans, responsible for oversite, just let all this happen on their watch.'
--Cheryl

Indeed, Cheryl. Why shouldn't they be impeached and imprisoned? There is no exemption for suspected terrorists in the Constitution as regards the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". These arrogant, sadistic pricks think they can edit the Constitution to suit their whims. They need to be punished for this arrogance.

Dear Chucky
John Kerry was referring to the alcohol and narcotic induced brain damaged son of the espionage slimeball ex-41 who if you didnt know is a person of interest in the bloody murder conspiracy of United States 35th president and all around beloved fellow human being John Kennedy. To imply he meant the troops serving in Iraq is an obvious opportunic attempt to jump the shark and relate to the dumbed down ignorance of dittoheaded echo chamber dwellers who now scour for an unreasonable means of maintaining their true believer status I think you must be one of the ten year olds Goober Dubbleyoo Bush was referring to when he said he'd take care of and protect them.

Ghost of Tom Joad:

When has TNR ever been anything other than toilet paper? They peddle dishonesty. Doesn't Murdoch own it? It's Faux News on glossy paper.

Careful. "TNR" usually refers to "The New Republic", as in TNR.com. This was in [the] "National Review", which is often abbreviated "NRO" (but whose URL is "www.nationalreview.com"). "National Review" is the hardcore Bushevik one (IIRC, Bill Kristol's responsible for it). "The New Republic" is still nominally "liberal" (although there's some that say that it has a fair number of eedjits and wankers working for it nowadays).

Don't sweat it; I've gotten confused myself, and have to stop to think which is which because of the name/acronym similarity.

Cheers,

Chuck:

So, what I'm hearing you say is that Nancy Pelosi has no problem with warrantless wiretaps of bin Ladin's calls to and from American citizens?

The FISA law never required warrants (or, more accurately, FISA court orders) for surveillances of non-"U.S. persons" (defined as someone other than U.S. citizens or permanent residents) outside the U.S. The key distinction is who is the "target". If you're in the U.S., your call can be listened to, as long as the "target" of the surveillance is a permissible "target" (such as Osama). This is just like your calls to a mob boss subject to a Title III (domestic) wiretap being taped if you happen to call them. For obvious reasons, the gummint doesn't need a warrant or authority for both parties to a call to be able to tap; it's only the "target" for which you need a warrant, and all calls by the "target" to whoever (accomplice or hairdresser) can be tapped legally.

In sum, as long as they're tapping bin Laden, they could tap away to their heart's content without a warrant even under the old FISA, as lng as the "target" was bin Laden, and that includes his calls to you, me, his half-brother that was having breakfast with George H.W. Bush on 9/11, or whoever....

Cheers,

AH: We'll listen in on Bin Ladin's phonecalls

chew on this..

a little past the 5th anniversary of the okla. city bombing..

timothy mcviegh was executed.

its been now a little past 5-years since 9-11....

and bin laden is still making phone calls..

What AfterCandy said....

You go, girl (or is it boy?)!!!

"He is considered one of the top conservative writers and thinkers. You may believe all conservatives are assholes. However, if you can set aside that prejudice, you will learn that Sowell is a most esteemed individualm quite worthy of being a fellow at any institution."

Sowell's a great academic - he wrote the best, most pithy book on Marxism that I've read. However, as an op-ed writer, his pieces don't match the intellectual honesty of his early books. This op-ed is an example of that.

American Hawk,
I agree- we should leave counter-terrorism in the hands of the experts- instead of in Bush's hands. Under Bush, our biggest effort at counter-terrorism was to invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. Now, by almost any standard, there are many more terrorists who seek to kill Americans around the world than there were before we invaded Iraq.

Also, you do realize that there is a special court that deals with these issues of national security, right? These judges are not the geriatric fools you think they are.

The trouble with requiring FISA court warrants is that the warrant system hasn't kept up with technology.

If NSA is actually mining all overseas calls, they will be targeting any calls with specific characteristics, such as key words, out of millions of innocuous calls, as well as hunting for specific callers. It's almost certain that no known Al Qaeda operative is making calls to the US, much less from a permanent number. Given that phones and phone numbers can be changed far more quickly than warrants can be obtained, it is unlikely that either party is going to press too hard to stop the program.

Here's a thought. Would it be acceptable to the civil libertarians if the FISA court okayed the characteristics used by the NSA in the mining process?

Another great Sowell Op-Ed was after the major hurricane hit South Florida in the early 90s. Immediately following the event, hotels and motels in South Florida raised their daily and weekly rates into the hundreds of dollars. Again, while many railed against this gouging, Sowell defended the rates because they kept out the riff-raff who, in his view, would have camped out. Only the truly "needy" with big bucks allowed.

Nads wrote:

"Which position is insensible, jackass ... your perception of pelosi's position, sowell's misrepresentation of her position, or her actual position?"

Sowell's misrepresentation of Pelosi's position is unfair. Pelosi's position on warrantless wiretapping makes little sense on the merits. My perception of Pelosi's position would seem to be substantively correct as it is actually directed at Pelosi's position.

By the way, gratuitous insults do not amount to an actual argument -though it represents a fair warning of the intellectual level that can be expected to follow.

cleek, Did you oppose Clinton's use of the Echelon program?

in fact, i did. i don't like the idea of "secret courts" accountable to nobody.

apparently Bush dislikes the idea, too - but in the other direction.

Urinated State of America Sowell's a great academic - he wrote the best, most pithy book on Marxism that I've read. However, as an op-ed writer, his pieces don't match the intellectual honesty of his early books. This op-ed is an example of that.

You have a point, USA. When Sowell uses his column to campaign for Republicans, he's not particularly effective. Campaigning requires a whole different skill set than his academic research. Thoughtfulness, economic expertise, research skills, imaginative new ways of viewing data, and clarity of writing are great skills to have, but they don't do much for exciting the troops. When he tries to emulate some rabble-rousing politician, he just doesn't know how to do that shtick.

"When he tries to emulate some rabble-rousing politician, he just doesn't know how to do that shtick."

Correction:

"When he tries to emulate some rabble-rousing politician, he shows us he is willing to be intellectually dishonest for profit."

Malcalypse: "When [Sowell] tries to emulate some rabble-rousing politician, he shows us he is willing to be intellectually dishonest for profit."

Actually, he's motivated by conviction. He gets the same fee whether his column is political or analytic.

Sowell sincerely believes that a Democratic victory would lead to a reduction of effort against Islamic terror, which, he believes, would be bad for the US and for the world.

It's noteworthy that few if any Dems have positioned themselves to the right of GWB on the WoT. If some Dems called for specific additional military steps, it would immunize the party from the charge that they want to lose the war. Yet I cannot think of any Dem who is specifically calling for increased troop levels in Africa, use of more powerful weapons, use of other high-tech intelligence techniques, etc.

JFK did position himself to the right when running against Nixon in 1960 by railing about an alleged missile gap. The missile gap turned out to be non-existant, but Kennedy was elected.

Thomas Sowell hates America.

It's always interesting to see how many posters here are willing to abandon the Constitution and the rule of law. The urge that some here have to place all power in the hands of President Bush is stunning.

I cannot wait to see their comments when this same power is in the delicate hands of President H. Clinton.

I thought the Foley scandal was McCarthyish mendacity of the worst kind? How dare the Senate allow pedophiles to have wild sex parties on the Hill!

They're coming for you Zak! Bolt the door! Arm yourself! The Jackboots are right outside.

ex-liberal: If some Dems called for specific additional military steps...

You misunderstand the nature of terrorism, as well as the degree of danger it presents to us.

Terrorism is a tactic. It can be used during a war (no need for examples), by an individual (i.e. McVeigh), or by an organization (i.e., the mob or Al-Qaeda). While military-style operation may well be required against a terrorist group, or even an individual, success is far more likely to come from police-like actitivites: investigation, intelligence, following the money, etc.

Moreover, we cloud our judgement when we overestimate the danger we face. There are few times in history when we have been safer. It is ludicrous to compare our danger now to the danger the world endured for 4 decades with two mighty powers poised behind their ICBMS, hostage to overreaction, madness, even just a mistake. More dangerous than WWII? Than the Civil War, when our experiment in freedom nearly ran aground in rivers of blood? Than the Revolution, which had it failed, would have resulted in its leaders being hung or living their lives out in exile?

"It's noteworthy that few if any Dems have positioned themselves to the right of GWB on the WoT. If some Dems called for specific additional military steps,"

Why would the steps have to be military? There's more in our toolbox than just hammers. In fact the most effective tools probably are not hammers. Oh, I know: they don't have the same manly feel when we use them.

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫໠