The Senate Intelligence Committee was created in 1976 and, from the beginning, it has been unique in its structure and operation. Due to the urgency of ensuring that our country has nonpartisan and non-politicized oversight over the Government’s intelligence activities, the Intelligence Committee is structured so that -- unlike every other Senate Committee -- the majority is unable to dominate the Committee’s operation and agenda, and the minority has much greater powers than it does on any other Senate Committee.
With the March 7 vote looming on Sen. Rockefeller’s motion for the Committee to finally hold hearings to investigate the scope and nature of the Administration’s NSA warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens -- and with several Committee Republicans indicating their intent to vote for hearings -- Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened the Committee yesterday and warned it not to hold any hearings.
Frist specifically threatened that if the Committee holds NSA hearings, he will fundamentally change the 30-year-old structure and operation of the Senate Intelligence Committee so as to make it like every other Committee, i.e., controlled and dominated by Republicans to advance and rubber-stamp the White House’s agenda rather than exercise meaningful and nonpartisan oversight.
Yet again, Republicans are threatening to radically change long-standing rules for how our government operates all because they cannot manipulate the result they want. From redistricting games to changing the filibuster rules, when Republicans are incapable (even with their majorities) of manipulating the political result they want, they use their majority status to change how our government works in order to ensure the desired political outcome.
While Frist’s threat here is, in one sense, of a piece with those tactics, it is actually quite extraordinary and motivated by a particularly corrupt objective. The whole purpose of the Senate Intelligence Committee – the only reason why it exists – is to exercise oversight over controversial intelligence activities. Whatever else one might want to say about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, it is controversial on every front. There is no conceivable rationale for the Intelligence Committee not to hold hearings.
It would be an extraordinary abdication of the responsibility owed to Americans by the Intelligence Committee for it not to investigate the Administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program – a program which scores of prominent politicians and scholars from across the political spectrum have condemned as being legally dubious at best, and which polls show a majority of Americans oppose and believe is illegal.
This is what happened: After publicly pledging to hold NSA hearings, Committee Chair Pat Roberts refused to allow a scheduled vote to take place on February 16 because, according to reports, at least two and perhaps three Committee Republicans (Snowe, Hagel and DeWine) were prepared to vote for Sen. Rockefeller’s motion to hold hearings. As Newsweek reported before the scheduled February 16 vote:
[T]hree Republicans—Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Mike DeWine of Ohio—are expected to join with the Democrats on the committee to vote to demand more information about the secret eavesdropping program from the White House and intelligence agencies.
The vote was pushed off until March 7, and it now appears highly likely that Rockefeller’s motion has the support of a majority on the Committee. As a result, Bush Congressional allies are in high gear trying to do anything -- and the right word is "anything" -- to block these hearings.
On March 1, Harry Reid wrote a letter to Bill Frist, which was released by Reid’s office yesterday, demanding that Sen. Roberts allow a vote on Rockefeller's motion to hold NSA hearings and threatening to bring the matter to the full Senate if Roberts again blocks an up-or-down vote on the motion (h/t Metarhyme):
The Intelligence Committee’s meeting on March 7th presents an important credibility test for Senator Frist and Senator Roberts. If both are serious about their desire to let this committee perform its duties, Chairman Roberts will keep his word and permit the committee to conduct a vote on Senator Rockefeller’s reasonable proposal to review the Administration’s controversial domestic spying program. . . . .
Attorney General Gonzales’ letter to the Senate yesterday is the latest demonstration of how the Administration’s shifting rationale for this program has raised concerns that are causing members on both sides of the aisle to request a full and complete investigation.
I understand that the Chairman has reversed himself again, and has promised a vote for March 7th. This vote will be a critical test of whether this Republican-controlled Congress can conduct critical oversight of the Bush Administration, the intelligence community, and a Bush Administration surveillance program that has raised many legitimate concerns. While I appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to this vote occurring on March 7th, further procedural maneuvers to delay or prevent reasonable and thorough oversight by the Intelligence Committee on the Administration’s handling of pre-war intelligence or the NSA matter would be a troubling development that would require the attention of the full Senate.
In response, Sen. Frist yesterday wrote a truly amazing letter (.pdf) to Reid expressly threatening to radically re-structure the Senate Intelligence Committee if the Committee votes to hold NSA hearings:
I am increasingly concerned that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to its critically important oversight and threat assessment responsibilities due to stifling partisanship that is exhibited by repeated calls by Democrats on the Committee to conduct politically-motivated investigations. . . .
I would propose that we meet with Senators Roberts and Rockefeller as soon as possible. The Committee was established and structured to reflect the Senate’s desire for bipartisanship, and to the maximum extent possible, nonpartisan oversight of our nation’s intelligence activities. If attempts to use the committee’s charter for political purposes exist, we may have to simply acknowledge that nonpartisan oversight, while a worthy aspiration, is simply not possible. If we are unable to reach agreement, I believe we must consider other options to improve the Committee’s oversight capabilities, to include restructuring the Committee so that it is organized and operated like most Senate Committees.
These are truly desperate and extreme measures to block an investigation of the President’s conduct. Sen. First is literally threatening the Committee not to exercise oversight over the President’s warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
The Senate Intelligence Committee was created 30 years ago to perform exactly this oversight function – to investigate our government's intelligence activities. Here is how the Committee itself describes its purpose:
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Since the Committee’s inception, a consensus has existed among both parties that the unique rules of the Committee – which provide a much greater balance of power between the majority and minority in order to ensure that intelligence oversight is not politicized – is critical to the Committee’s ability to exercise meaningful oversight. That – meaningful oversight – is what Frist is threatening to abolish unless the Committee caves in to Frist’s thuggish demands that the President’s warrantless spying on Americans not be investigated.
Here is Pat Roberts himself, in a speech on the floor of the Senate on January 14, 2003, detailing the unique balance in Committee Rules between the parties and emphasizing the critical importance of this structure for the Committee's fulfillment of its oversight duties:
Rule 6 actually permits the vice chairman to authorize a committee investigation. Rule 7 actually permits the vice chairman to issue a subpoena. Rule 8 actually permits the vice chairman to authorize witness interrogation by committee staff.
Rule 11 requires staff members brief both majority and minority members, which means there are no secrets from the minority.
These authorities and privileges enjoyed by the vice chairman illustrate clearly the unique nature of this committee and the importance of these authorities in maintaining its nonpartisan nature.
The unique bipartisan nature of this committee is its greatest strength and is essential to the ability of the committee to develop a consensus product and to avoid all of the politics of our Nation's intelligence activities. . . .
The legislative record reflects that the Senators who really created the Intelligence Committee believed--this is so important--that the less partisan nature of the committee would serve to make the intelligence community more willing to keep the Congress fully and currently informed of highly sensitive intelligence activity. For a quarter of a century, this has permitted the committee to fulfill its primary responsibility:
Oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States Government. My 6 years on the committee tell me that is absolutely true.
Marvel at the desperate and truly radical means which Frist is invoking in order to block an investigation into the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. To threaten to abolish the 30-year-old consensus for how the Senate Intelligence Committee functions – all in order to protect the Bush Administration from scrutiny and oversight – is truly extraordinary, and is unquestionably the conduct of individuals who are seeking to prevent scrutiny in order to conceal wrongdoing. Such threats are particularly unfathomable in light of the fact that the motion for hearings will pass only if it has the support of Republicans on the Committee.
According to Committee Member Barbara Mikulski, the questions which the Committee’s hearings would explore include:
What was the rationale for the necessity of the secret order?
If the actions in the secret order were believed to be necessary, why was there no request to change the existing statutory law or for a new law?
What limitations, if any, on spying on U.S. citizens were included in the secret order?
What was done with any information collected on U.S. citizens pursuant to such secret order?
Are there any other secret orders relating to spying on U.S. citizens?
Especially in light of the retractions via "clarification" by Alberto Gonzales of significant portions of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and in light of the increasingly compelling evidence that there are other warrantless eavesdropping programs aimed at Americans, what possible rationale could exist for the Intelligence Committee not to have hearings on these questions? How can there be any action taken by the Senate with regard to NSA issues unless it knows the answers to these basic questions? And how can Americans possibly assess the propriety of our Government’s eavesdropping activities if we do not even know what the scope and purpose of these programs are?
And shouldn’t our country’s journalists be reporting on Frist’s extraordinary threats, and shouldn’t they be finding out why Bill Frist would go to such extreme lengths in order to block this investigation? For an Administration with nothing to hide on this NSA scandal, these certainly are rather extreme efforts being exerted to block an investigation.
UPDATE: The ineptitude, sloth and confusion of our national journalists is sometimes so extreme that it's actually hard to believe. Here is an AP article, published by CBS News (h/t David Shaughnessy), which reports on the exchange of letters between Reid and Frist but never even mentions, let alone highlights, the only newsworthy aspect of the exchange -- that Frist threatened to re-structure the Intelligence Committee to block the NSA hearings.
Instead, the AP and CBS simply copy the claim in Frist's letter, base the headline on it, and then blindly recite it as the lede. Thus, the headline of the article is "GOP: Politics Blocking Survey of Spy Units." And the first paragraph of the article simply copies Frist's point and "reports" as follows: "Stifling partisanship is preventing the Senate Intelligence Committee from overseeing the nation's spy agencies, the Senate's Republican leadership says."
Frist's purported concern over the way in which "politics" is preventing the Committee from engaging in meaningful oversight is nothing short of hilarious. There is no oversight from the Intelligence Committee because Pat Roberts uses it to rubber-stamp everything the Administration does. And Frist is trying to block meaningful oversight by preventing NSA hearings designed to investigate the eavesdropping program -- hearings that have bipartisan support on the Committee. That's just obvious (but not mentioned in the article).
Frist's claim that he wants to block the NSA hearings in order to ensure that the Committee can engage in meaningful oversight is as Orwellian an example of up-is-downism as you will find. But you certainly wouldn't know that from the AP article or from CBS News, which "neutrally" mold the article's headline and first paragraph to fit Frist's facially deceitful claim, and then worse, never even mention the only newsworthy part of the whole episode.
UPDATE II: Several people have raised the question of what mechanism Frist would have to use in order to "re-structure" the Committee. Presumably, the full Senate has the power to change the Rules of the Committee, since it enacted those Rules in the first place.
But an additional option is simply to change the composition of the Committee by removing the dissident GOP members (Snowe and Hagel) and replacing them with more cooperative Senators who will helpfully vote against an investigation. From what I can discern from the rather cryptic Rules (.pdf) for Senate Committee Assignments (see page CRS-7 for "non-A Committees," which includes Intelligence), membership assignments are at the discretion of the Majority Leader.
Lest anyone believe that removing Committee members is too extreme a step to take, let us recall this little sordid episode:
House Republican leaders tightened their control over the ethics committee yesterday by ousting its independent-minded chairman, appointing a replacement who is close to them and adding two new members who donated to the legal defense fund of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), who clashed with DeLay so often that they barely spoke and was considered wayward by other leaders, was replaced yesterday with Rep. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.). Hastings has carried out other sensitive leadership assignments and is known as a favorite of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who made the decision.
Hefley said in an interview yesterday that he believes he was removed because he was too independent. He said there is "a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did."
Bush allies are in desperation mode for covering-up their eavesdropping conduct. No reasonable person could doubt that something like this would be beyond what Frist is considering when he says he "must consider other options to improve the Committee’s oversight capabilities, to include restructuring the Committee."
This is huge news. Can you contact some reporters about this? This looks really bad. And Frist is willing to jeopardize our intelligence oversight in order to protect the President!! Isn't this like the Saturday Night Massacre?
ReplyDeleteFrist is a joke. What does it matter which party calls for investigation and further analysis of the NSA program(s)? That's right, it doesn't. Resorting to claims that this investigation is being called for due to "partisan politics" is childish and meritless.
ReplyDeleteIf the program is on the up and up, then the investigation will find no problems, and the issue can go away.
If the program isn't on the up and up, Frist's actions will help enable an illegal program to continue violating the law, and people's rights. But at least he will have been against investigating the program for non partisan reasons, you know, like "the Democrats are calling for investigation, and we must not bow to anything the minority requests!"
After all this is America, where the majority gets to impose it's will on everyone, screw the rights of the minority, or anyone else for that matter. Bullies get to impose their will on everyone, and everyone better like it or else.
People like Frist should keep this qoute in mind when doing things like this -
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
It suggests that the backroom efforts to enact the Nixon Law and sweep the NSA matter under the rug are not going well. Frist's pathetic effort to re-cast presidential lawbreaking as a partisan issues is merely a stunt to provide cover for an underhanded, partisan sleight-of-hand effort to make the Bush Administration's crimes disappear.
ReplyDeleteI agree. They are getting desperate. It is clear that there will be no deal by March 7 and Hagel and Snowe are going to vote for hearings. These are the acts of a desperate cover-up. This is their last chance to block these hearings.
Why do they want to block these hearings so badly? Inevitably, these hearings will answer the $64,000 operational questions -- (a) have there been other warrantless eavesdropping programs besides the one we know about aimed at Americans?; and (b) how were the eavesdropping powers used under the program we do know about - properly, abusively, how?
One would think the WH would be eager for those questions to be answered so that this whole thing can finally be put to rest. But they sure are doing everything they can -- including threatening Republican Senators and issuing some pretty extreme threats -- in order to make sure we don't find out the answers to those questions.
I wonder why that might be? Are there any journalists somewhere - anywhere at all - who also wonder?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, thank you very much for your thoughtful commentary. But honestly, is this threat of Frist's yet another sign that our government has passed a tipping point?
ReplyDeleteIn between Bush's massive debts,
infiltration of every branch & level of government by Bush-worshipping ideologues and of course the "mighty Wurlitzer" of right-wing media, do you honestly think it is possible to put this constitutional democratic republic back together again? Back to being a nation of laws, not of men? Or will any up & coming democratic reformer simply be ripped to pieces by the right-wing spin machine as were Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean &, of course, others?
I get the sense after reading a number of your posts that you seem to have some hope that the rule of law can be restored. Yet I watched very closely the events of 1992-2000 and feel strongly that a reason the right despised President Clinton so strongly was that he dared to clean up some of the mess left by Presidents Reagan & Bush 1. And this anger has continued, even though a number of people on the right made considerable amounts of money during those years.
Once again the Esteemed Senate Majority Leader steps in save the workings of govenment from being undermined by partisan politics. Those Democrat Liberals and their fellow-traveling "Republican" pals need a lesson in how our constitutional form of government really works.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. Lemmee see here, there is only one committee where a minority party has equal power even though they did not command the votes to earn it. And this is [just coincidentally] the committee in which the minority party is after kicking off a political witch hunt to provide ammo to impeach the President of the opposite party (need I take the time to quote Mr. Greenwald from his past rhetoric here? I thought not.) And now Mr. Greenwald says that that nasty old Republican has POLITICAL motives for stopping the (claimed mis) use of this committee? [Yes, yes, I know, this effort is strictly about the rule of law, etc. , despite Mr. Greenwald’s earlier crass politically-motivated impeachment rhetoric.]
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE Frist is politically motivated. One fights fire with fire. However, there is a real issue here, hence the sabre-rattling. We are seeing the same scenario played out here that we saw in the filibuster issue on judicial appointments. Did you expect the Republicans to lie down in the face of such an attack as Mr. Greenwald so disgustedly accuses the Democrats of doing on their issues? Whether one likes the framing or not, there is a real issue here concerning the (mis) use of this committee for political purposes. This is not, as the filibuster issue in the same exact way was not, a black and white issue, even though the Democrats [and I expect, Mr. Greenwald] will present it as such. The Republic is safe; let it go to the full Senate if it is blocked in the committee and that is not the right thing to do. That is more representative than a committee and will make it a bigger story with more publicity which will enlarge the odds that the right thing will be done.
If only the 'up or down vote' drumbeat could get started.... the press likes little snippets like that because they fit so nicely on those bottom of the screen tickers, and the masses know, kind of, what that means - seems like you could get a quick buzz going.... if only, en masse, the Dems started the drumbeat this time, demanding an up or down vote, day after day....
ReplyDeleteLemmee see here, there is only one committee where a minority party has equal power even though they did not command the votes to earn it.
ReplyDeleteRockefeller's motion can't be passed without the support of at least two Republicans. Obviously, he has that.
And does it really need to be explained to you why it's the INTELLIGENCE Committee that has to hold hearings into our intelligence programs? Who do you think would do it - the Agriculture Committee?
This is a truly disturbing development, I wish I could be confident that our country’s journalists would be reporting “Frist’s extraordinary threats” but I’m not. Will this unprecedented rule change even be mentioned on the Sunday morning talk shows? I’m not holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteWhat this means is the end of (to use Robert’s words) the unique bipartisan nature of this committee because, for Frist, “non-partisan oversight, while a worthy aspiration, is simply not possible.”
This is, in effect, a declaration of war on the very concept of “bipartisanship” which – under Bush – is no longer possible or even desirable. It is, nothing less than the adoption of the end justifies the means philosophy by Frist Republicans.
It has been pointed out here repeatedly the “Nixonian” nature of all of these developments, such as “if the President does it, it’s not illegal” but there is something new and ominous that is unique to Bush and this scandal, and is revealed by Frist’s radical rule change:
The total confidence in permanent power by the radical fringe of the Republican Party
This is way beyond what was envisioned by Nixon’s henchmen, but now under Cheney, they firmly believe that they’ve achieved that.
Why? What do they know? Is it Diebold? Or does it go beyond that.
Bipartisanship has been possible ever since Nixon left office, why is it no longer possible? That is the question journalists and others should be shouting at the top of their lungs.
Great crimes require extraordinary coverups and additional crimes to mantain the illusion that all is well.
ReplyDeleteWhen they stole the 2000, relying on the SCOTUS to finalize the deed, they knew they were going to have to play "hardball."
We should know it too.
Appreciate your posts -- I also think that in some conversations, it is necessary to be more "diplomatic" and be careful what you say.
I also believe that we cannot totally ignore what is happening either. Clearly - the republican "culture of corruption," disregard for "rules," their inability to allow differences of opinions both within and outside their party, and the destruction of free, open, and verifiable elections is something we cannot accept and hope for change.
Thinking chimpy and gang steal elections and start wars of conquest based on lies in order to live by the constitution and American democracy.....
Well, that's insanity...
one other important thing they grimly fear is november.
ReplyDeletetime is running out on their ability to attempt moves like this.
Rick Olson said: "Who do you think would do it - the Agriculture Committee?" Given the type and quantity of the rhetoric that will be exchanged before this is settled, that might be a more appropriate committee.
ReplyDeleteAgriculture Committee?
ReplyDeleteWell at least if the Ag Committee oversaw the investigation, Frist would have access to an unlimited amount of animal shit to bury this thing. Not exactly a "whitewash"...
But probably still pretty effective.
wish I could be confident that our country’s journalists would be reporting “Frist’s extraordinary threats”
ReplyDeleteNah - look out for some "missing white woman" stories and articles that chimpy has been proclaimed the god of india...
Glenn - thanks for pointing out this lastest attempt to cover up the President's illegal shenanigans. Like you I wonder how much press this will actually get. If it does get picked up by the media, how much are you willing to bet it will be made to sound as if this 'restructuring' is actully a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Sen. Frist would feel if in the near future, President Bush decided that somemore 'restructuring' was required in "his" government. Namely the disbanding of Congress.
GOP Philosophy: When you can't win under the current rules of the game, change the rules.
...look out for some "missing white woman" stories...
ReplyDeleteYou remind be of an overeager third-grader frantically waiving his hand to get the attention of his teacher.
If the NSA dispute was really a "scandal," a la Bill Clinton's intern shenanigans, or Richard Nixon's abuse of power, the public would be paying attention. What they see instead is another boring episode of a seemingly endless soap opera - a Groundhog Day type of soap opera- in which bitter partisan politics is all the fare you get. How many times do you think the public can take watching the minority party once again attempt to criminalize the policies of its opponent?
The Democrats have been doing this since the 2000 election, and the public is sick of it. After six years of yelling SCANDAL at top of their lungs every time you lose a policy vote, are you surprised that the public has tuning out?
Glenn hates George Bush will an inordinate passion. He really hopes this is the motherload, a magic nirvana wherein George Bush is disgraced and fallen.
Unfortunately for Glenn, the public doesn't hate George Bush. His popularity is low, sure, but so was Harry Truman's through much of his presidency. The public is concerned about the Iraq war. But the public is not interested in another of the all-to-familiar Beltway dramatics of LIE and SCANDAL and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
It's no wonder they tune in so enthusiastically to hear yet another story about some missing or dead white woman.
So as you stand in the back of the room waving your hands and thinking ME ME ME, please understand that you're being ignored not due to some silly conspiracy, or because the public is stupid. The reason you're being ignored is because the public is simply sick of hate-driven attacks on the president.
There is no conceivable rationale for the Intelligence Committee not to hold hearings.
ReplyDeleteDammit, man, what are mid-term elections, and a turnover of the Senate, chopped liver?
Desperate times call for desperate actions.
What's really absurd is that Frist is threatening this when every "hearing" I've heard during the Bush presidency is no more substantial than mouthwash.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders whether those pearl-clutchers attacking the special position accorded the minority on this committee -- a position which is thirty years old -- as an anti-majoritarian abomination were equally incensed when there was a Republican minority in the Senate?
ReplyDeleteBut one does not wonder for very long...
This will be in the history books. Either as a footnote about a threat thankfully averted. Or as a very major step on the way to totalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteHow quickly can a restructuring of the IntelCommittee be accomplished?
So Frist is saying that the side that wants hearings, which includes Republicans and Democrats, is being political, while the side that wants to suppress them, which is purely Republican, is nonpartisan? How is he able to keep a straight face?
ReplyDeleteNotice gedaliya does not address any of the basic facts, as they are inconvenient...
ReplyDeletea) The President authorized spying without any outside oversight
b) His argument for this power "has evolved over time," indicating they did the thing without being certain they had a legal rationale for it
c) Now that the oversight the constitution is designed to ensure is about to happen, the presidential puppets are panicking
d) If this were simply a partisan scandal, Repubs would not be supporting this oversight. Fortunately, there are still some honest Republicans left over from when I was one (before I became an Independent)
e) Thinking people understand this is important.
Clinton's dithering and lying never concerned the public the way this does. Again, "truthiness" advocates say it did, but polling data indicate otherwise.
I am the public. I am outraged. I was angry with Bill Clinton for lying to us. I am more angry that the Bushies have a) spied illegally (this is obvious), and b) lied repeatedly to try to prevent the oversight the Consitution requires.
However, with facts as inconvenient as these, best to attack the opposition and ignore the facts.
Nice job, gedaliya. Maybe you should get a job in the administration. You clearly know the playbook.
The completely comprehensive spread of Republican projection is astounding. As they defy all reason, mercy, and justice, utterly disregard the interests of their nation, and cling to their obsessive idolterous partisan mania as if butchering enough innocents and grimly shoving them into the furnace would save them from the justice that God no doubt has in store for them, they cry out that anyone not joining their suicidal race to hell must be motivated by irrational hatred!
ReplyDeleteObviously, gedaliya lives in Mary Matalin's "Parallel Universe".
ReplyDeleteWhether you personally believe the actions of the Bush adminstation rise to the level of scandals or not, at least with President clinton, there were (some will say highly partisan) investigations and the President was questioned, under oath.
Why shouldn't the current administration be held to that same standard?
I agree that Frist’s actions are a sign of desperation, but as we all know, cornered animals can be extremely dangerous, and that is what we’re dealing with here. No rules, no traditions, no laws matter anymore – this is about Republican party power and their Machiavellian machinations to maintain it at all costs.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the total confidence they have in their perpetuating their permanent power is in part delusional - these radicals are at war with reality, they believed they could create their own reality, but those fantasies are coming apart, and disintegrating before their very eyes, and they can’t admit it.
Look at how they are dealing with the polls on Iraq – denial. Yesterday, CNN reported that 73% of Americans believe that Iraq is headed toward a civil war. Yet, the radicals dismiss the possibility of civil war as a “media creation” and that things are actually progressing in Iraq – nothing to see here, folks, let’s move along.
Notice the new propaganda ads they’re running in Minnesota, which contain images of Bush with troops and purple fingers, once again hinting that Iraq was behind 9/11, and that’s why we’re there.
But these ads are not meant to change anyone’s minds that have already turned against the war – they’ve seen those images a million times. These ads are simply about shoring up the base.The Bush-cult base is dwindling, that’s why they’re so desperate.
They need to hide Bush’s illegal activities at all costs, he simply cannot afford another scandal at this time, and they will do anything to prevent an investigation. Anything.
That’s why we need to ask if Bush himself and his cronies actually believe their own rhetoric about those opposing him “aiding and abetting the enemy” – we’ve largely dismissed this as Rovian rhetoric designed to polarize the electorate.
So far, they haven’t really acted on it, (although investigations into whistleblowers are cause for concern), just made threats to the media and others. If things get much worse, that may change too, and we should not be completely surprised if they do. It’s going to get a lot uglier before this is over.
Zack wonders about "The total confidence in permanent power by the radical fringe of the Republican Party."
ReplyDeleteGedaliya channels his perception of the public:
"Unfortunately for Glenn, the public doesn't hate George Bush. His popularity is low, sure, but so was Harry Truman's through much of his presidency. The public is concerned about the Iraq war. But the public is not interested in another of the all-to-familiar Beltway dramatics of LIE and SCANDAL and BLAH BLAH BLAH.
It's no wonder they tune in so enthusiastically to hear yet another story about some missing or dead white woman."
This insolar administration and its apologists are absolutely convinced that the public hates 'partisan politics'so much, they can be forced to tune out by simply ratcheting up the volume.
You've gotta admit, they might have something there...
Congressional investigation of facially illegal conduct by the president is not partisanship; it is Congress' job. Preventing that investigation is partisanship.
ReplyDeletePsssst. No One is Paying Attention.
Bush lies about everything...
Yeah, right. It is certain that you believe this, but you seem oblivious the the fact that the public does not, and as I said in my original post, you don't seem to realize that the public is sick of hearing it.
Bush is an utterly incompetent president...
No, he's not. This is yet another reason why the public tunes out when the hate-Bush left talks.
That makes him worse than Clinton, who was an inveterate liar but otherwise up to the job.
Yeah, sure. Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury. That is real lawbreaking, and he was impeached for it. Yet, in your mind, "Bush is worse." Geez man, do you really think you'll convince the masses of your rectitude and trustworthiness with that attitude?
Psssst. No One is Paying Attention.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason to ignore Gedaylia is that he's mentally ill. And I mean that in a clinical, not an insulting, sense.
In almost every post he writes, he purports to speak on behalf of "Americans" and to attribute his own views to "Americans." He never cites a single link or poll or fact to support the claim. It's just a fantasy world he lives in where his views are the views of "Americans." That is pretty disturbing in itself.
But far worse is that every poll shows that only a minority of Americans support Bush. A solid majority oppose his policies, distrust him, believe he is dishonest and inept, and have abandoned everyone of his views.
That means that Gedalyia doesn't just live in a sick fantasy world where he invents facts and pretends - like a 5 year old - that he's the spokesman for the public. He does it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that his statements are false.
If that type of delusion isn't a mental illness, what is? He really needs treatment and pity, not our contempt.
Gedaliya, you seem to be confusing "Richard Nixon's abuse of power" (glad to see you draw the line somewhere) with a Broadway opening. The abuse extended over years and so did the revelation. It took persistent, focused investigation to unearth the abuse in all its facets, and administration shills fought it the whole way -- using increasingly shrill non-arguments such as yours.
ReplyDeleteSo what was your point again?
Oh, and it's "motherlode." I think Reader's Digest still runs that "Word Power" thing -- you should check it out.
Glenn Greenwald writes:
ReplyDeleteBut you certainly wouldn't know that from the AP article or from CBS News, which "neutrally" mold the article's headline and first paragraph to fit Frist's facially deceitful claim, and then worse, never even mention the only newsworthy part of the whole episode.
Even the most liberal of the MSM titans treats this controversy as yet another tiresome partisan squabble. Perhaps your stupefication over the lack of coverage this supposed "scandal" generates is better explained by your own misperceptions regarding its importance rather than some imagined perfidy or malfeasance on the part of the Main Stream Press.
If you can believe it, gedaliya said
ReplyDelete"Even the most liberal of the MSM titans treats this controversy as yet another tiresome partisan squabble. Perhaps your stupefication over the lack of coverage this supposed "scandal" generates is better explained by your own misperceptions regarding its importance rather than some imagined perfidy or malfeasance on the part of the Main Stream Press."
a) Sounds just like how Watergate started. The MSM initially missed why it was important. They got it eventually. (Interestingly, there was never a time a majority of Americans thought Monicagate was "important," yet the media covered it daily. Funny...)
b) Please continue to ignore facts. It helps show the MO of Bush cultists. You are not credible, except to other people willing to ignore facts.
I miss the Republican party I grew up with. These fact-ignoring, faux patriots are hard to take seriously.
Gee, gedaliya, if you're so confident that the public isn't paying attention, and that Bush is secretly popular, then why bother to post either argument here? Isn't that sort of, self-critically, a waste of your own time? On the other hand, if you've got no faith in either argument and are trying to stifle bipartisan Senatorial hearings into what you apparently agree is violation of statute, then you're posting makes some sense.
ReplyDeleteBrian CB
Frist is an idiot, or he knows something we don't.
ReplyDeleteBush is a dead issue, politically. He's deeply unpopular - only his bedwetter thralls still approve of him - and bids fair to have negative coat tails in 2006. The only politically important question is whether he can avoid being impeached. Any revelations that come out of Senate hearings will have no effect on impeachment, because Bush has a failsafe firewall in the House. Nothing less than a Democratic majority will get impeachment hearings started.
Frist's action also further serves to make the Senate an empty body, nothing more than a rubber stamp of the Executive. Why would Senators agree to that?
What does Frist - and, of course, the GOP - gain from this gimcrackery?
This is where the second possiblity comes in. Maybe Bush won't relinquish power in 2009. Maybe the putsch will go to its logical conclusion: the complete destruction of our institutional political norms, with an unelected, illegal, and lawless regime permanently taking power.
In that light, Frist's move makes sense. He's doing his apparatchik duty in undermining the Senate as anything more than an enabling arm of the Executive. It's just another brick in the wall of establishing strongman rule in America.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason to ignore Gedaylia is that he's mentally ill. And I mean that in a clinical, not an insulting, sense.
No, the main reason to do that is that s/he derails the threads. Whatever reasons cause him/her to feel his/her Bush triumphalism is justified by reality, really do not matter. His/her views on public opinion, the media, what constitutes a scandal...there is little to no substance in anything s/he posts, and s/he links very seldom to any support for his/her claims. When s/he does link, it is usually only in worshipful tones to flagrantly partisan, obscure neocon sources that s/he asserts to be "important," and/or reflective of some brilliant GOP strategy that, say, Byron York (All Praise Be Unto Him) is ostensibly party to and promoting.
This is all strange stuff, but it detracts from the discussion and activism here when we engage it. As commenters and then Glenn pointed out, one can collapse comments and skip right past the names of those who do not contribute productively to the conversation. (And I do not include all critics of Glenn's positions in that category -- I've been one myself, after all; notherbob2, for instance, sometimes engages in genuine inquiry and argument, links to intersting stuff at sites like QandO, and I do not believe him to be a troll.)
So, to renew a request I and others have made many times now, please, please refrain from engaging those who are not advancing the conversation and activist efforts that this site is about.
Gladayisit?
ReplyDeleteYou have "standing" to speak for us Americans? Everytime you blog you show your opinion with few facts to explain your omniscience. It's a pure pleasure to read my fellow readers rip you up. How dare you compare George III with Harry Truman?
1. Truman made his career exposing war profiteers such as Halliburton.
2. Truman made difficult decisions such as canning McArthur on flawed Korean War strategy.Bush gives awards to the incompetant fools.
3. He saw the McCarthyism of the 1950's for what it was... a bunch of gasbags afraid of their own shadows...xenophobia.
I do agree that he was right about the MSM. According to that reality Dewey won in 1948.
This Gedaliya is a real shill isn't he? Is he perhaps paid by the White House?
ReplyDeleteHow can anybody with a rational mind not see they enormous hypocrisy practiced by the right wing? Investigate Clinton for years at the expenditure of millions of tax payer dollars yet no investigation for a war based upon lies, violation of wiretapping laws,. If they have such a clean bill of health, why are they so frightened of an investigation? Besides with a congress of rubber stamps what do they worry about anyway?
It's obvious-despite their twisted rationales of black is white, night is day, Bush can think-they are deathly afraid of being exposed for the greedy hypocritical criminals that they are.
I also think they are afraid of the American public waking up from their docile sonambulence. Were that to happen, the shit might hit the fan. This, I believe, is the real reason they oppose a draft. They are fine when it's the children of the poor dying for idiocy, but God forbid their children have to fight in mistakes they promote.
I know there's no rationale or reasoning with these Bush cult members but goddamn their hypocrisy makes me want to puke. Looking forward to Nov. and hoping the American public kicks their fat corrupted asses out of Congress.
Anybody think de-programming might work?
Dear Mr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, ROCK ON!!!
Second of all, if you or others who might want more backup from the geeky side, i.e. from someone who has done data mining, I've put a discussion of why any excuses based on technological complexity are baseless here.
A long post, but I've been inspired by your (and ReddHedd's and Jane's) putting your legal acumen in the service of we others who are concerned, and wanted to follow suit.
Pardon any fresh paint or dust or dangling participles.
Best regards,
ninufar aka Lyrebird in NYS
Glenn - you are a machine, a weapon, a warrior. Seriously - Congratulations!
ReplyDeleteI predict this scoop of yours is going to be bigger than your DeWine stuff. I don't know if you'll get as much credit, but this will seep in and be a bigger event than your DeWine discoveries.
If the media did 10% of the job you do and a few other relentless bloggers, things would be much, much different.
Two thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) This action indicates what most of us have known since the scandal broke. It is really bad. What we know is only the tip of the iceberg. The desperate measures and the level of obfuscation and arm-twisting by the Adminsitration and senior Republican Congressman indicates that there is serious political risk to them.
2) Frist's claim of partisanship is amazing in a climate where the opposition Dems are so damned ineffective. Half can't even decide how they feel about this issue which is so clearly a power grab (Jane Harmon is a good example - paraphrasing: "I think the President should have this power, so we need to work towards changing the law").
I truly fear that somehow this country has fallen into the hands of a group that would like to solidify power in a way that could destroy our Constitution and they are being aided by a Republican Congressional majority that lacks the imagination to understand what is happening or is in on it and a Democratic minority which is so pathetic that they are almost complicit (with a few notable exceptions - thank you, Feingold, for your stand on some of these issues).
We have two elections left to make our stand. Simply put some responsible Democratic leadership must emerge with control of at least on branch of government after the 2006 and 2008 elections or this country will forever be changed for the worse.
Getting the discussion back to the issue at hand:
ReplyDeleteA. have exact details of this 're-structuring' been released?
B. if so, what are the long-term ramifications to Congress and other committee structures?
C. do we have ANY historical precedent for something like this to draw guidance from?
Glenn, if you're still here, who votes on the rules change, the whole Senate or just the committee? From the document you linked to at the top of your post, I thought it said the committee voted on rules changes.
ReplyDeleteBut I ain't a lawyer, just a blogger.
Glenn- Andrew Sullivan picked up just now on your post and linked to it, pasted below. I think your story will get a lot of traction:
ReplyDelete_____________
Frist Unleashed
04 Mar 2006 12:21 pm
One aspect of today's Republicanism: an intermittent contempt for rules, safeguards, procedures and means. Anything for political advantage. Exhibit A: the man who declared Terri Schiavo all but fine and dandy from an edited video. Bill Frist must be one of the most mediocre men ever to have held the position he does. But he just sank another notch.
Permalink :: E-Mail This
gedaliya said... Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury. That is real lawbreaking, and he was impeached for it.
ReplyDeleteYes, and noone can seem to get this President to testify under oath about anything! Again, shouldn't this administration be held to the same standards as the last?
You cannot deny that the major polls show that enough people have some concerns about what this administration has been doing (on many fronts) to warrant investigation. As in the Clinton years, this was the only way to clear matters up.
When it gets to the point where the only hope the GOP has is to make sure nobody finds out what the Bush administration has done, their cause is in trouble. We are indeed where we were in the early stages of Watergate, where the administration and their flunkies went into overdrive to keep the investigation from growing.
ReplyDeleteIn a bureaucracy as large as the US govt, it's next to impossible
The gedaliyas of the world could tsk tsk the anger of people over a silly break-in at a hotel, but all their wishful thinking couldn't hold back the tide of anger that arose from the slow trickling of evidence that eventually built into a flood.
If Gedaliya really believed what s/he says, s/he wouldn't feel so compelled to work so hard trying to make it so. Claiming the public is sick and tired of all the "Bush-hating" is just projection. Gedaliya is sick and tired of it, so s/he proclaims it fact that the public is sick and tired of it. In this s/he's just wrong. As more and more people get angry over the illegal activities of this gang of nitwits, the ones who can't stomach the "Bush-hating" will suffer terribly.
There's no point in arguing with bartaliya. I'm content to await the outcome.
But I predict a rough ride for bartaliya.
Glenn: After further reflection, I am joining those asking that you consider either deleting Gedaliya's comments, and/or limiting him/her to one comment a day. I know you are passionately committed to free speech, and I think my own comments here have demonstrated that I am in total accord with you on that, whether those who disagree come from left, right or any other direction.
ReplyDeleteBut this blog is your private property, and it has the dual purpose of: (a) advancing a serious political discussion among people of many ideologies regarding the state of the country the Bush GOP has brought us to, and (b) promoting activism that has had and will continue to have real world impact. Given all that, it would, in my view, be a harm to the discussion and the activism project to permit ongoing disruption and derailment of the comments here. (And I mean to address Gedaliya and only Gedaliya -- some who disagree with you do so in good faith and I value their contributions, and in no way seek to stifle all disagreement with you.) As much as I am a free speech fanatic, I do not permit certain viewpoints to be promoted in my home -- much less disruption of my conversation with others -- because it is my home, and no one has the right to say what they will on my property.
People who are banned, their comments limited or deleted, can start their own blogs. They can establish the glenngreenwalddebunked.com blog if they so desire, and exercise free speech 24/7. But you are under no obligation to host their disruption at your own site, and I hope you will consider no longer doing so.
This is a Karl Rove inspired move. Rove is on record as stating that the FISA wiretapping could bring down the republicans so he would do anything to prevent these hearings.
ReplyDeleteWhat is astonishing is how much Frist is willing to carry Bush's water. Can Frist actually believe he has a snowball's chance in being President? It seems like we have entered the phase of "cult of personality" so that where our system of government gets in the way, Republicans are willing to undermine the "rules" i.e. the constitution, bill of rights, etc. etc., simply to push their agenda. And what is their agenda? partisan politics and crony capitalism, the rest of us are just inconveniently in the way. If this isn't Nixoniasm, nothing is.
Time to tell Willy Frist to "bring it on!" With the majority odf the American people becoming increasingly aroused by clueless Republicans, let Frist make warrantless wiretapping a campaign issue for 2006 - polls just yesterday said 60% of people said wiretap if you want, BUT get a warrant first!
ReplyDeleteCan anyone here name one single law, just one, that applies to anyone in the Bush Administration?
ReplyDeleteIn late '04 or early '05, Republicans also kicked Chris Smith of NJ off the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, of which he was Chair as well as a longstanding member, because he was actually concerned about veterans' affairs and didn't just rubberstamp all the administration's cuts to benefits and inadequate appropriations for equipment, etc. You can't make this stuff up.
ReplyDeletemaryanne asks: What is astonishing is how much Frist is willing to carry Bush's water. Can Frist actually believe he has a snowball's chance in being President?
ReplyDeleteYes, he does believe that. He wants to run in '08 or beyond, and in any event knows that hopes for any future cabinet positions or other positions of power reside in the populist Bush wing of the GOP remaining in charge. He is one of them to his core, and his fortunes rise and fall with theirs.
Any investigation that would reveal gross wrongdoing on the part of the Bush Administration would be deadly to Bill Frist's political career and ambitions. Hence, his threats to destroy the Intelligence Committee by "re-structuring" its bi-partisan composition.
Okay, unless I'm misreading Glenn here, Frist has one of two options:
ReplyDelete1. formal re-organization of the Committee, its portfolio, and the scope of its oversight (an iffy proposition given the existing rules), or
2. remove Snowe and Hagel, replacing them with more 'reliable' members (can we say "Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford", anyone?).
First, does Frist actually have the legal ability to impose these changes?
Second, how likely is the rest of the Senate Republicans to go along with this?
Sounds just like how Watergate started. The MSM initially missed why it was important. They got it eventually. (Interestingly, there was never a time a majority of Americans thought Monicagate was "important," yet the media covered it daily. Funny...)
ReplyDeleteIf it turns out the the Bush administration is using the NSA to spy on his domestic political opponents (Nixon used the FBI and CIA to do so), and is using his Justice Department to fund a coverup operation (another failed Nixon ploy), then yes, we'll have another Watergate scandal, and the cherished dreams of the hate-Bush left will finally come to fruition.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, however.
On another subject, I do urge those who cannot stomach my posts to avoid them. As has been detailed here numerous times, there are a number of ways to accomplish this, and nothing is preventing you from ignoring me completely.
For the others, well, thanks for all the supportive emails. I do appreciate them.
Given all that, it would, in my view, be a harm to the discussion and the activism project to permit ongoing disruption and derailment of the comments here. (And I mean to address Gedaliya and only Gedaliya -- some who disagree with you do so in good faith and I value their contributions, and in no way seek to stifle all disagreement with you.)
ReplyDeleteI agree, very reluctantly. I said from the beginning that I would never delete comments here due to viewpoint, only due to deliberate disruption.
I think Gedaliya's comments have reached and then transgressed the limits of disruption. His comments are virtually never about the post, but intsead are nothing other than the same 2 or 3 empty talking points over and over, and do nothing but disrupt the discussion here. Other pro-Bush commenters come here to discuss, not recite empty cliches.
So I am asking Gedaliya to limit his comments here to one per post. He can feel free to say whatever he wants in that one post, but that will be the limit. I do this reluctantly but this blog has a purpose and Gedaliya is, I believe quite deliberately, disrupting it.
"AGGRESSIVE SOCIOPATHS derive strong gratification from harming others. They like to hurt, frighten, tyrannize, bully, and manipulate. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about what they are up to. They polish their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation others might feel. They seek out positions of power, such as parent, teacher, bureaucrat, supervisor, or police officer. Their style is one of passive aggression as they systematically go about sabotaging the ideas of others to get their ideas in place. In their spare time, they like to hunt or occasionally do sadistic things like find stray dogs and cut them up. They are usually effective at getting their way, and are especially vindictive if resisted or crossed. They don't follow the social norm of reciprocity like others do."
ReplyDeleteThe above is a description of one of the several types of sociopathic personality disorders. These individuals are not restrained by conscience nor do they experience remorse.
The fact that Bill Frist is so blithely willing to take 200+ years of our Constitutional form of democracy and smash it to death does not surprise me.
As a student, Frist visited various animal shelters in his area and adopted a large number of kittens and cats under the pretext of wanting to give them homes and keep them as pets. Those were the conditions of adoption. But he was lying to the shelters and the adoption papers he signed were a sham. The last thing Bill Frist was looking for was a pet.
Instead, he took the cats home, kept the "cute, furry little things" for a few weeks to socialize them, then tortured and killed them and used them for his own sadistic "experiments."
How did this extraordinarily damaging information get out? Retaliation by a political enemy? A slur job by someone who hates him?
How?
You'd think a man with as much power as Bill Frist, who sits near the top of the Tower of Corruption, whose corrupt and illegal private dealings, of which those currently being investigated no doubt represent only a small minority, would have been able to blackmail, bully or otherwise silence any person who threatened to reveal such damaging information.
The extraordinary reality is that we know these facts only because they come from this depraved, moral monster's own mouth.
As indicative of sociopaths who often lack the ability to distinguish right from wrong and thus fail to predict how normal people would view their pathological behavior, Frist actually brags about these "youthful indiscretions" in his own book.
Sure, he says unconvincingly in a single sentence, he is not proud now of what he did. But he excuses himself in the next breath by saying he was "obsessed" at the time and had gone "a little crazy."
It would appear his editor, working up some courage, advised him to put in that disclaimer, as in the very next breath Frist talks about how "thrilling" he found it to kill cats and dogs and use them for his unsanctioned and unsupervised "experiments."
This type of human garbage is what the Republican Party elects to its highest positions these days.
Criminal psychologists have long observed that the only effective way to prevent true sociopaths from continuing their asocial behavior is to separate them from society and lock them away in mental institutions.
It is convenient that as this Mengelian Angel of Death now steps forward seeking to euthanize both the Constitution and our democracatic institutions, he is also a politician who has flagrantly broken the law and can be separated from society and prevented from doing any more immediate damage by putting him in jail where he belongs. Short of that, it appears nothing will stop him.
The transformation of a democracy into a dictatorship is never a pretty thing, but during the profoundly tragic process, Bill Frist looms large as one of the few ugliest sights along the way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteI agree about gedaliya. More than fair...he gets his one say. We can all ignore it if we want and move on to the substantive disucssion and information exchange that has made this site so valuable to me and others.
I think we have a very high level of discussion here and it has been frustrating watching each discussion devolve into debunking the Bush talking points on realted and unrelated matters.
Stifling speech is always an extreme measure and shoudl be used judiciously, but censorship is valid when a group is attempting to ahcieve something rather than just discuss it.
Hypatia, I am of two minds on troll discipline. I've seen a bunch of threads hijacked and wander off into troll-response while the substance of the discussion dwindles like the Colorado River trying to reach open water. And it frustrates me.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand : in the bubbles into which I wander most of the time in real life, I am more likely to hear the arguments of the right, and among them most likely the ad hominem or dismissive. If I see them first in places like this, I have a better chance of thinking about them and framing a response. (I'm not all that quick on my feet.)
So while we're promoting activism, let's not forget those of us who get to play defensea good bit of the time.
I feel like I'm pounding my head against a the desk here.
ReplyDeleteCan we please get back to to Frist's threat here and leave Gedaliya to spout whatever they want?
Let me restate my questions and hopefully get some serious discussion going (beyond the fact Frist is tool, a idiot, or both):
1. how can he go about this re-organization?
2. how likely are the rest of the Senate Republicans to go along with this?
3. anyone care to read the tea leaves and suggest what this foretells for the rest of the Congressonal committees?
1. how can he go about this re-organization?
ReplyDeleteI added an update about this. I am almost certain based on my reading of the Rules that he has sole discretion for assignments to certain Committees (which includes Intelligence). I also believe that a majority of the full Senate could change the Committee rules. A majority on the Committee itself definitely can.
Ultimately, it doesn't much matter. If the rules in place don't allow them to change the Committee, they will change the rules so that they can.
They've shown in the past that they're not exactly sticklers for these sorts of details when it comes to achieving a political result which they think is important.
2. how likely are the rest of the Senate Republicans to go along with this?
That depends. But I haven't exactly seen huge tidal waves of independence and integrity from Republican Senators over the last 5 years, have you?
Then again, Frist's outburst could only mean that either Snowe and/or Hagel are definitely going to vote for the investigation. So maybe there is a sea change there.
(don't have much to say on (3)).
Glenn Thanks for this post and Q/A. I'll be getting letters to the editor out shortly because we need to make sure newpapers know we want coverage on this.
ReplyDeleteThe sordid little episode that happened last year, when a member of the ethics committee was replaced for being too ethical - that happened pretty much under the radar, didn't it? I remember only learning about in the context of DeLay's shenanigans.
So I'm just asking your opinion, if you feel like giving it, do you think Frist could dump Hagel and Snowe in the current climate, given that the Senate and the wiretapping both have a higher profile than the House and the ethics committee?
Thanks so much for your post and for revealing the latest Republican shenanigans. I live in TN and have already sent an email to Senator Frist expressing my extreme displeasure (lotta good it will do). The funny thing is I'm a liberal republican (yes, there are republicans who aren't right-wingers), but this is the final straw in the long list of Republican power grabs and incompetence. I'm going to work in 2006 and 2008 to get democrats elected and try to restore some ethics, balance, and responsibility to our government.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this comment at Kos (which was e-mailed to me by Georgia because I think she believes it's reliable), Snowe's office is telling people who call that she supports Rockefeller's motion to hold hearings.
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, they wouldn't need Hagel or DeWine. The vote would be 8-7 in favor.
MISSING WORDS in your excerpt of Frist's letter: "I am increasingly concerned that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to [carry out]its critically important oversight..."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great work!
First, thank you for responding Glenn. I had read your updates but wanted to see if you had any additional insights.
ReplyDeleteNext, I agree the Republican caucus hasn't shown much independence in thought or action the last decade. Thank you for that, Newt! One can only hope this caucus 'dies' under the same conditions that gave it birth.
That said, if we do see Frist go ahead with this disgrace, it will only serve to underline how far gone his party really is. There has been no notable or worthwhile outcry from the caucus for all the other 'replacements' over the years (ghosts of 'Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford' - a la George Orwell) so maybe they figure their only hope is to close ranks, no matter how corrupt or illicit they're acting.
Any response before I try continuing anyone?
hypatia, (and others) I understand and in many ways agree with your frustration with having to bear with gedalyia's intrusion into what is usually a very high level of discussion, in fact, extraordinarily high compared to most blogs. (Although I have seldom posted a comment, I read all of Glenn's posts and all of the comments. As an attorney myself, I find Glenn's analyses of the issues and the subsequent discussions to be the best around. Someday, when I have something I really need to say, I'll join in.) But I disagree with your suggestion to Glenn to ban or restrict gedalyia's or anyone else's comments. First, and most important, as you mention in your own comment, banning or restricting comments would be contrary to Glenn's strong commitment to free speech. It would in the end be counterproductive in that it would tend to undermine the enormous credibility that Glenn has built up in an amazingly short time. (The other Glenn and his buds would have a field day with it.) Second, in an extremely annoying way, gedalyia and his ilk serve a purpose here by constantly reminding us of the arguments that are and will continue to be thrown back at Glenn and alll of us who are on his side. In not allowing us to forget even the most idiotic, tangental, or flimsy points made by the Republicans, gedalyia helps keep us from becoming complacent. So, how to reduce the annoyance level and not waste time getting into pointless pissing matches with cretins? My advice is to either just not read anything posted by the known trolls, fools, cretins, and assholes if they bother you to much, or, if you do read them, certainly don't waste your time and energy getting sucked into directly responding to them. I know it's tough; sometimes I have fallen into the trap myself (once, I even got into a ridiculous and lengthy fight with a known troll at one of the Microsoft help forums, of all places; he was just so irritating and stupid, I couldn't stop myself) but it's the only solution, I think.
ReplyDeleteHere's a cartoonist who understands how our government operates.
ReplyDeleteIf restricted to one comment per post, I will decline to participate in this blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks to those who've offered support. The owner of the blog has the right to restrict its use to whomever he wants. If he doesn't want me here, I'll won't burden him with the task of deleting what I write.
- Gedaliya
Glenn, I posted my earlier comment before I saw that you had already decided to restrict gedalyia. Much as I love and respect you, I disagree with and, in fact, am somewhat surprised by, your decision for the reasons previously stated. But, it's your blog, so there you are.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem at all with the intelligence committees requesting information on any and all intelligence gathering programs in closed session so that the details of these programs are not revealed to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, is that what the Dems are really asking for and what the GOP is resisting?
Lets take a look at what is being requested by the Dems...
According to Committee Member Barbara Mikulski, the questions which the Committee’s hearings would explore include:
What was the rationale for the necessity of the secret order?
Justice has already given Congress and the public the reasons for the program and the legal basis for the President's executive order.
What this is really meant to do is request the internal deliberations of the executive to identify dissenting lawyers or bureaucrats so they can trot them out for public hearings to embarrass the WH.
Congress has absolutely no right to the internal legal advice given to the President under executive and attorney/client privilege. If the Dems have a legal problem with the program, let them offer bills to defund the program or impeach the President.
If the actions in the secret order were believed to be necessary, why was there no request to change the existing statutory law or for a new law?
This is irrelevant to whether the Program is illegal or not. You could pose the same question to the members of Congress who have been briefed about the program for four years without any indication that they felt the need to enact new legislation. This is more political posturing which has nothing at all to do with Congress' oversight function.
What limitations, if any, on spying on U.S. citizens were included in the secret order?
The oversight committee can ask for a copy of the order and read it themselves. Very likely, this has already been provided. If they have questions about the guidelines under which the program works, then they can ask for that in closed session. Very likely this was also provided in the latest round of briefings to the full committees. You can't intelligently discuss program guidelines in public without disclosing even more of the program(s) to the enemy.
What was done with any information collected on U.S. citizens pursuant to such secret order?
Good question to ask in closed session. There are a slew of existing statutory regs for this in place.
Are there any other secret orders relating to spying on U.S. citizens?
Ditto above.
What the Dems are after is political theater for the 2006 elections and nothing remotely related to real oversight.
Can some one tell me how to "collapse comments"? It doesn't seem to be an option to me. Do I need to be registered with blogger or something?
ReplyDeleteI also find gedaliya annoying, which is clearly his/her point. Please, just let it go and not let it hijack the thread.
Great work Glenn.
Wayne Moore
Is the New York Times touching this story at all? Are they even aware of it?
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't Hillary Clinton speak out vigorously against this latest outrage? Is she merely an "up and coming" democratic reformer, or part of the "right wing spin machine?"
ReplyDeleteHardly. Hillary has as much visibility as anyone other than Bush at this stage. WTF good are opposition parties if they fail to oppose?
Hillary should be held accountable if she doesn't come out charging about this latest attempt by Frist to subvert justice. If her Prozaked into stuporville mind is not up to the task, she should hire Glenn to write her speeches on this matter.
Another one of her stock "I am shocked, shocked" little speeches as she looks the other way and keeps raking in the dollars is not going to pass muster here.
Much as I love and respect you, I disagree with and, in fact, am somewhat surprised by, your decision for the reasons previously stated. But, it's your blog, so there you are.
ReplyDeleteI did it reluctantly and ambivalently. I've received a lot of e-mail asking me to do much more to preserve the quality of the comments discussion. It has nothing to do with his viewpoint but with the intent to disrupt (numerous other pro-Bush bloggers are free to post away).
I will write a post about this topic over the next day or so for anyone who wants to talk about it. I think this Frist story is extremely important and could have a huge impact and I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked by this other topic, but I understand that people feel strongly about it.
What the Dems are after is political theater for the 2006 elections and nothing remotely related to real oversight.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the pro-hearings Republicans on the Committee after?
What are all the conservatives after who have demanded investigation here?
According to Georgia at Kos, several other commenters - including ones she knows are exceptionally reliable - were told by Sen. Snowe's office that she will vote for Sen. Rockefeller's motion.
ReplyDeleteThat means they have the votes on the Intelligence Committee to hold hearings - no wonder Frist is doing what he's doing.
Wayne, I don't know why you can't collapse somments. I'm not a member of blogger and all I have to do is click on "Collapse comments" at the top of the page and everything falls into a nice neat little list.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I think for this blog only, where there are (mostly) real people with real thoughts, I should use at lest part of my real name.
Kris C.
Oops, forgot to proofread, how embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteKris C.
I really wonder if, were we to find tomorrow that Bush enjoys kicking small children and mugging old ladies, there would be an investigation or a re-writing of the legal code to make these actions legal. Probably on the grounds that old ladies could be carrying WMD in their handbags. It is concerning that the GOP has decided that they have nothing to fear from a minority party. I don't see the signs of a massive governmental restructuring (simply because so much of the base has quasi-religious faith in the Constitution), but one wonders what other tricks they have up their sleeves. I also find it interesting that they are perfectly willing to change rules whenever they feel like but demand that the Constitution never change meaning.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy said...
ReplyDeleteBartaliya ups the ante . . . What will Glenn the Gunslinger do? Hold 'em, fold 'em, or shoot him dead?
Glenn will do what he usually does - avoid responding to dissenting views. He is using this blog as a political organizing tool.
If Frist does decide, to change the rules in the middle of the game, my question is, will the Democrats be prepared to do a full court press blitz, to call them on their deceitful tactics? Or will they acquiesce to the majority as usual?
ReplyDeleteakadad:
ReplyDeleteYou have to ask?
michaelgalien, thanks for being so nice. I can't answer these particular questions right now, but if I can answer any in the future, I certainly will.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am of part-Dutch ancestry (Danish and Irish also.) I have never been to your country, but my uncle, who is a painter, spends several months there every other year. Someday, I hope to have my chance to visit.
Kris C.
To the cat that has just eaten a mouse and is sitting outside a mousehole with the second mouse inside, things look very good. To the mouse inside, things look very bad. Of course, if the recently eaten mouse was the last female mouse in the house, the perception of goodness is a very short term phenomenon for the cat.
ReplyDeleteThis is what you can see on this blog. There are two sides here. The good news of one side is bad news to the other. Surely, no cats can expect the mice to cheer them on? And vice versa. We will all fight for our side. So, it seems pointless to me for Gedaliya to imagine that we will "go away", just because "they are winning".
The real question is whose sides are we on? And is the success of one side or the other good for our society - over the long haul?
Clearly, it is not good for our society to invest unlimited powers in a partisan executive to spy on citizens. Who can argue for the good of this? I would suspect the motives of anyone that advocated this.
The question is here for us - are we mice against a cat? Or do we have more power than that? How can we fight back most effectively? Gedaliya does raise a concern that phrasing our case in terms of Bush-hating rhetoric diminishes its effectiveness. The struggle I see is between corporatists and populists. And the corporatists have far more resources at hand (money, influence, expertise) than individual citizens. However, en masse, citizens have far, far more power. Blogging is a way to build this concentration. Fund raising - a la Dean - is another. I think the corporatists are the cat - and a cat that is all too willing to eat all the mice. It's up to us mice to outwit the cat. Really not much point in complaining that the cat is not a mouse.
I'm with Krog on this. If Frist makes good on his threat, the Dems need to shut down the Sentate. We aren't going to go gentle into this goodnight. They need to get on every MSM news program ( I don't care what it takes to do it, either) and tell the world in no uncertain terms what Frist and Roberts are doing and just what is at stake here. This calls for some major shit-disturbing. This is NOT business as usual and people need to understand that. They probably need to get Robert Byrd involved.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, please join me in writing and every MSM outlet you can contact.
it almost seems as if journalists from the major newspapers do not read it, because if they would, they would be reporting about this spying scandal much more agressively. Did you ever contact the NY Times, Washington Post andsoforth Glenn?
ReplyDeleteI still have good access to some of the reporters I worked with on the DeWine stuff, and I've talked to a few of them today. There are also media people working on trying to get this story placed the right way. Tons of media people read blogs. This post was widely linked so it will be seen.
But journalists and their editors have a very misplaced sense about what constitutes news, and a lot of things have to break the right way for a story to have real impact.
But I think this story will be picked up. It has to be. Its significance is so obvious (then again, it wasn't obvious to the AP reporter who wrote a whole story on the Frist letter without noticing what it actually said). So, who knows?
Honestly, I find it a bit sobering that the Senate Majority Leader can threaten to re-structure the Intelligence Committee in order to shut down an investigation by the Senate into allegations that the President broke the law, and there's not a peep from the establishment media.
Glenn will do what he usually does - avoid responding to dissenting views.
ReplyDeleteAs I've told you before, Bart, I addressed every single legal argument - and non-legal argument -on the issue of whether Bush broke the law, usually numerous times and at great length, prior to your particpation here. I've asked you to review the compendium and if you think there's an argument I haven't addressed, to bring it to my attention. You never did.
With no disrespect intended, the arguments you make aren't new. They are the standard arguments floating around. I've engaged them all countless times. The fact that I don't do it every day doesn't mean that I "avoid responding to dissenting views."
If you ranked bloggers in order based on how much time they spend responding to dissenting views, I'm quite sure I'd be in the top half of that list, at least.
Notice gedaliya does not address any of the basic facts, as they are inconvenient...
ReplyDeleteWhy are you even reading that tripe?
Maybe your a "newbee" here or maybe you are just a moron...
The regular trolls that post stuff here don't actually read anything and are probably just copying and pasting talking points from somewhere else on the net.
The rest of us don't need to see them "refuted," cuz the people that are here for dialog learned to scroll past the trolls.
Those that feel they can somehonw "enlighten" others by posting mundane, basic facts that no one needs to read over and over again are just as stupid as the people that continually spew chimpy's talking points.
In many ways, the person that responds is even more ignorent.
Please don't give these people a "platform" for there bullshit -- just scroll along. Its a sad day when people enable the trolls to actually post more of their mindless verbage by giving them more opportunities to copy and paste, as if somehow they are having a rational dialog.
Yet again another example of the extreme nature of this current crop of Republican bootlickers.
ReplyDeleteWe see threats of dismantling, reorganizing or otherwise destroying long standing rules, procedures and institutions to continue the protectionist practices of a desperate party.
It should be noted, that many or most of these senate rules and institutions were created under a heavy Democratic congress. They showed their deference to the importance of oversight to be above political ideologies. As we see, this current group of slim majority Republicans will stop at nothing (including the destruction of dissent of all forms, even within their own party) to override long-standing structures to protect their slipping grip of majority rule and a dying Presidency.
We will always here from the Bushco. Apologists (notherbartalyia2, et. al.) How great this NSA issue is for the Republicans and Bush, while they display their desperation to keep it from further oversight. You would think that they would welcome the investigations, as the publicity of such would only help show what a strong leader they have and how powerful Mr. Bush is only trying to change the sheets of bedwetting Americans, keeping them safe from evil doers.
The apologist crowd are the true America haters. They prefer one party strangle holds to the Constitutional requirements of check and balances.
Excellent analysis, Glenn! You've hit the nail right on the head.
ReplyDeleteNow if we could only hit Senator Frist right on the head! What is he thinking? He talks about the committee becoming politicized, yet his words are the most politicized of all by his threatening to change the committee rules mid-stream.
The warrantless spying issue should not be a political one; fundamentally, it is a legal one and a consitutional one. And it's too important for him to play politics with. As you outlined, Senator Roberts' comments from a few years ago explain well the purpose of the Intelligence Committee. I just hope that his words will come back to haunt himself and Frist.
And speaking of Frist, how is the SEC's investigation of his insider-trading coming along? Perhaps we can hope that Frist will be indicted before he can do further harm to our constitutional rights.
http://drewlbucket.blogspot.com
Notwithstanding the urgent need to apply our immediate efforts to derailing Frist's machinations, I see a deeper issue imbedded in the facts that needs examining at some point:
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me is that the operational integrity of the role of the senate (and house) committees in exercising oversight and "checks and balances" on the executive rests upon the rather frail reed of the rules of the senate or house committees. Those rules are just a majority chamber vote (or even a committee vote) away from evaporating. The idea that there is a "tradition" or a "consensus" that the rules should be there is cold comfort to me, especially in the face of a cabal intent on overturning our constitutional system.
At some point, we must consider building a sturdier guarantee that there will be a power center in the government that cannot be overturned by the whim of 51 senators.
For example, establish a permanent independent prosecutor, a constitutionally independent Attorney General, or (if we want to do what many other democratic systems have done to preserve governmental lawfulness), an Ombudsman with the power to investigate, subpoena and initiate impeachment proceedings.
Honestly, I find it a bit sobering that the Senate Majority Leader can threaten to re-structure the Intelligence Committee in order to shut down an investigation by the Senate into allegations that the President broke the law, and there's not a peep from the establishment media.
ReplyDeleteI don't know your views on corporate media bias, but I believe that when Reagan rescinded the "Fairness Doctrine", and then later, other measures, in the mid 90's telecommunication act, allowing media owners, to operate more than one media company in an area, the media has swayed to a corporate/right-wing bias.
With the media in few hands, they have the power to set the agenda to decide what is news, or how they can suppress the negative news. An example of bias, is the report I read, which documented, that the Sunday talk shows, have a clear right wing bias.
At least we have the blogs...
Do some of these mental midgets get their self-worth validated because they can type a few words to "disprove" the copy and paste rhetoric of the trolls?
ReplyDeleteUnfuckingbelievable that anyone would even come to a blog that by-and-large has a resonable, intelletctual dialog and the stoop to the level of trolls that obviously don't read a thing and are just coyping and pasted talking points.
I think Gedaliya's comments have reached and then transgressed the limits of disruption.
ReplyDeleteThis troll is just copying and pasting and I am sure is laughing at all the morons around here that jump up on tiny little soapboxes to respond....
The the troll copys and pastes some more and sits back and enjoys a real good giggle....
Course its really the morons that are too stupid to scroll by that are the problem...
But it this is what you have to do to prevent someone from copying and pasting the same crap into the comment board, please do it!
I used to think this was an "intellectual" discussion group, but watching the way some respond to your 2 resident trolls, I now believe that they either have many helpers or this is actually one of the "dumber" boards on the net.
Thanks alot morons!
It seems that this new "anonymous" is another annoying noise to be ignored. I wish you other commenters who post legetimate, thoughtful comments as "anonymous" would come up with some sort of aliases, so we can more easily differentiate between you and the trolls who should truly remain anonymous in every possible respect.
ReplyDeleteKris C.
so we can more easily differentiate between you and the trolls who should truly remain anonymous
ReplyDeleteblah blah blah blah....
Like your "handle" makes you special...
It isn't the trolls that are actually the problem, its the mental midgits that constantly engage them when they are obviously just copying and pasting more of the same crap without any real thought to the thread.
Trolls are at all comment boards -- just some blogs have more thoughtful commenters that don't feel an urge to jump up on every tiny soapbox
but keep telling yourself that your npetty little ame makes you "special"
Glenn: Thank you for the tremendous amount of thought and effort that you surely put into this blog and also for promoting such engaging, effective political discourse. To you, sir, I tip my hat.
ReplyDeleteI live near Nashville, TN and have been following Senator Frist's position on the NSA scandal closely through his website: frist.senate.gov. On Feb. 28, his office issued this press release:
“Today’s meeting produced great progress in unifying Senators around a core approach to terrorist surveillance legislation. As I have emphasized repeatedly, the terrorist surveillance program is Constitutional, lawful and critical to protecting the safety and security of all Americans. I understand the questions and concerns raised about the program, and I have organized this informal working group to address these concerns without weakening our national security or anti-terrorist protections.
“To buttress this Constitutional and lawful program, the legislative approach we have discussed would provide a statutory framework to strengthen the terrorist surveillance program, establish a role for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and enhance Congressional oversight. I appreciate the willingness of Senators McConnell, Specter, Roberts, DeWine, Graham, Snowe and Hagel to work together constructively on this issue and look forward to finalizing the legislation and broadening bipartisan support.”(emphasis mine)
Yesterday, I called Senator Frist's office in D.C. to gather some insight on his position regarding the NSA program. After being connected to a staffer named Tommy and identifying myself as a registered voter in the state of TN, I pointed out that Senator Frist has made very strong claims as to both the legality and constitutionality of the NSA program, to which Tommy concurred. I then politely asked upon what legal/constitutional analysis had Senator Frist based such conclusions, even if such analysis was not his own (i.e. Gonzales'). The staffer replied, “It should be on the website.” After assuring him it was not, he fumbled around for a bit looking at the website himself before concluding, “He must not have made a public statement, yet.” The staffer became noticeably uncomfortable and rushed me off of the phone by inviting me to email/fax any additional questions, to which I will likely receive a more fluffy, though equally as empty, response.
As Glenn and so many others have pointed out, this is yet another empty, rhetorical position being taken by a leading Republican in order to manipulate the end result. I agree also that this ever increasing amount of rhetoric/threats from Frist and others is a glaring indication of how badly these people want to avoid oversight and just how invasive this program (or, more accurately, 'these programs') may very well be.
I would encourage anyone in the great state of Tennessee to contact Frist's D.C. office (frist.senate.gov) and respectfully encourage the Senator to stop impeding one of the most vital roles that the peoples' (that's us) congress has to fulfill: executive oversight.
Glenn, if you have any additional recommendations for how those of us in TN can pressure Frist, please let us know.
It seems this new "Kris C." is yet another annoying, vain person to be ignored. If you really want people to pay attention to your comments, then don't distract from them by signing your name or linking to your unrelated, unimportant blog.
ReplyDeleteThis is the lead story at Memeorandum.com and Joe Gandelman also has a round-up. Don’t worry, this story will get attention – it’s too big and the change which Joe calls a “mini-nuclear” option is to radical to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteBack to the issue at hand:
ReplyDeleteFirst: I haven't heard a single legal argument presented 'defending' the NSA wiretapping program under discussion (gods only know what other extra-legal programs the White House has running) that has withstood serious scrutiny or suggested this lies beyond the scope of Congressional oversight. In fact, I can't recall a single legal expert offering any defense whatsoever for this program; I will welcome any correction on this.
Second point: I believe it was firmly and legally established during the whole Lewinsky episode that the President CANNOT claim either Executive or attorney-client privilege with respect to advice he receives from or deliberations he undertakes with government attorneys or personnel. Thus Congress is well within its rights to request a full accounting of whatever deliberations were involved.
Third point: claims that this all falls under the rubric of "national security" and therefore are exempt from Congressional oversight, runs aground on judicial precedent that has firmly established the President is legally bound by the US Code. Thus, until a statute is determined by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional, it remains a binding limitation on all branches of the government.
In other words: try again, Bart.
ReichstagBurning sez: For example, establish a permanent independent prosecutor, a constitutionally independent Attorney General...
ReplyDeleteI don't know, this sounds good, but then again maybe the current Constitutional protections are about as good a balance as can be struck, and we just need to elect more senators who give a darn. Maybe this is happening.
Am having doubts about your (laudable) proposal because of past experiences where prosecutors have gone into a sticky situation and fired the hardest-working person in an agency, while walking right by bulging files documenting personal and financial violations by appointed or well-connected officials. And look at the job the Wash. Post's current Ombusdman is doing, what a joke! Won't even publish self-corrections, grrr...
Call me a ridiculous optimist, but I take the number of crucial leaks from and intra-party disputes with the administration as signs of hope. Maybe more people are reaching their breaking point, people who don't kick back and page through the Federalist Papers for inspiration, but who do care that their basic rights not get trampled. Maybe "substance" is winning back a few points from "spin"...
I wonder if those whispering-lie campaigns (e.g. impugning Cleland's patriotism) have lost any strength; I guess we'll find out in November!
PS: The news outlets disappoint me, but I guess they're all competing with "American Idol". Thanks, Glenn, for giving them some brain transfusions!
As Gedaliya has graciously announced her departure and we won't have to waste time on her anymore, I make one last observation.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy, for the first time I, one of your biggest fans, disagree with you.
Moreover, as I hope you will come to realize, your position re: Gedaliya is inconsistent.
I have given up my personal life, dangerously neglected my work and put everthing else in my life aside to participate in ,as I see it, an attempt "save the country" before it's too late. Nothing less.
This blog has become a focal point in that attempt. An important raison d'etre of this blog is for others to benefit from Glenn's unique ability to laser in on the most important facts and devlopments relating to the various scandals which have come to characterize the Bush Administration, many of which have legal components to them so we look to Glenn for analysis. We also look to Glenn to give us his rendition of the big picture: where we are, why we are there, and what we can do about it.
He's a warrior who seeks to educate, inspire, arm with facts, and then lead the troops into battle.
Polite niceties about freedom of expression on blogs are entirely irrelevant at this late stage of the game. It may be philosophically interesting to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but in so doing, one doesn't win wars.
I already wrote here that I happen to know who Gedaliya is. Most of the observations on this blog about her have been inaccurate. She's a highly intelligent strategist who happens to also be a gifted writer who got to where she is by being quick footed, responsive to slight shifts in wind, and capable of high level fancy footwork, as are the people who work with her. She works with them, not for them, although they are in fact employed by Bushco.
Think of her as sort of a Dahlia Lithwith, but her "field" is not law, it's the effective deployment of propaganda stategies.
Why she should leave this blog immediately is very simple. Her original strategy has shifted, as some may have noted. Whereas her first attempts here were designed mostly to bring the Bush talking points to this blog and make sure the "hate-Bush" message was aired, she observed soon enough that wasn't working.
Her revised plan is nothing other than to demoralize.
The "Tokoyo Rose" tactic in warfare is not some lame-brained, pathetic throwaway. It's a deadly serious, highly effective strategy that cost thousands of lives in World War Two. "You can't win." "You're going to lose". "You've already lost" "Give up." "Nobody is on your side anymore." "Nobody cares what you think" "You're efforts are pathetic and doomed." "Look at you, you're ridiculous." In short, "Don't bother to fight. We've already won."
These are pscyhological provens that demoralize even the staunchest soldiers and cause them to give up.
David Shaugnessy, it is totally illogical to encourage people to take up arms, make the phone calls, write the letters, spend their valuable time, when you at the same time want to subsidize an infiltrator whose sole purpose now is to demoralize.
One of Glenn's signal strengths is his natural ability to inspire and motivate. But he can't keep coming back here to re-motivate every time some new Fristian outrage pops up to discourage us. And they're going to be a lot of those before the battle is won.
Helping those whose mission it is to make us lose heart is absurd.
Goodbye, Gedaliya. Good try, but not good enough, as the Force is on our side and we are in the right and we will eventually prevail.
Meanwhile, march on. Call Senator Snowe. Call Sen. Hagel, and Specter and Graham. And copy and paste Glenn's post of today and email it to every media person you can think of, post it on every blog you have time to visit, and proceed.
This only produces a blinding rage. Frist is pathetic, and I guess this represents how desperate the Republicans are. Side note: It would seem that the Bush Administration and the Republicans, in general, sense that the party may be over, sadly, for all of us, they will in the next weeks or months push through as many reactionary and entirely regressive, un-democratic measures as they can. Like adolescents, they will attempt to destroy the thing they can't control, our democracy. Dark days!
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteYou continue to astound me. At least when you find and recognize huge news like this, I can follow up with some legwork (ok, fingerwork!)
I've put complete contact info and talking points for phoning, emailing, and faxing Frist, Reid, Snowe, Hagel, Roberts and Rockefeller over at VichyDems. Specific post here: Roots Project All Hands on Deck
But I'm still scratching my head as to how the hey you come up with this stuff so quickly and thoroughly...
this slightly off-topic, but:
ReplyDeleteI have a question with regard to the action in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: is there any? Or is the only congressional committee seriously looking into the NSA program the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Judging from the press releases coming out of the House Intelligence Committee, the House seems to be purposefully conflating inquiry into the NSA eavesdropping program with some proposed review of FISA. Is this the way they're going to handle it?
I ask because I am from New Mexico and Rep. Wilson is chair of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. She's from a fairly small, well split district, is up for reelection, and this could be a pretty big issue for her with the appropriate coverage...
I continue to believe that the Judiciary Committee is the real danger zone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Judiciary is a key forum too -- as is Homeland Security, which I'm pretty sure has administrative oversight of the NSA. One thing at a time, though: we'll put out this fire if possible, then work on Judiciary etc.
On a different note: for anyone who's interested in seeing exactly what it is that Rockefeller is asking for, his motion is right here. (CAUTION: .PDF)
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteBack to the issue at hand:
First: I haven't heard a single legal argument presented 'defending' the NSA wiretapping program under discussion (god only know what other extra-legal programs the White House has running) that has withstood serious scrutiny or suggested this lies beyond the scope of Congressional oversight. In fact, I can't recall a single legal expert offering any defense whatsoever for this program; I will welcome any correction on this.
A number of conservative legal scholars have attempted to put forth legal arguments supporting the Administration's position, but they have added nothing new to the ludicrous arguments put forth by the Administration itself. In my opinion, the most astonishing effort I've seen in this regard is the article "Wire Trap" in the February 2 issue of The New Republic." In that piece, Richard Posner, Federal Circuit Court judge, University of Chicago Law School professor, and one of the most influential conservative legal scholars around argued essentially that the legal questions were not all that important. What really matters, according Judge Posner, is whether the NSA spying program has actually been effective and whether it has actually had any concrete effect on individual liberties. He makes what I think is the astonishing and appalling statement that, "Lawyers who are busily debating legality without first trying to assess the consequences of the program have put the cart before the horse." He writes that, "a conviction that the program had great merit [and little effect on individual rights] would shape and hone the legal inquiry. We would search harder for grounds to affirm its legality. . ." In Posner's view, if the NSA spying "works" and doesn't infringe too much on individual rights (how this is to be determined, he doesn't say,)we should find a way, if at all possible, to make the law fit. Where this ends, he doesn't say, either. I'm greatly simplifying Posner's argument, but you get the drift and can probably fill in a lot of the rest of it yourselves; you've heard it from the everybody from Alberto Gonzalez to Senator Roberts to Michelle Malkin.
In short, while Posner is known as a pragmatist, in this instance, he takes the "pragmatic" approach to constitutional analysis to the extreme, to the point that the very concept of constitutional legal analysis has no meaning left. That someone with Judge Posner's legal knowledge, skill, and scholarly reputation can't come up with a better argument supporting the NSA spying program than this I think demonstrates that there is no legitimate legal argument to support it.
(Here's the link to the Posner article , but it may be behind the TNR firewall if you're not a subscriber. Some of TNR's articles are freely available while some aren't and I don't know which category this falls in to.)
Kris C.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteI know it's fashionable among some in the blogosphere and elsewhere to dump on "The New Republic," and not without some jusitification. So, before anyone jumps down my throat about not only readng but actually subscribing to it, (it's happened before) I'll defend myself in advance by saying that I subscribe to and read all kinds of things, (so much so that it's a wonder I have any life other than reading all this crap) so just leave it alone, OK?
Kris C.
Why does oversight of these CLASSIFIED intelligence operations matter?? This is why:
ReplyDelete"SENIOR CIA OFFICER LETS SLIP SIZE OF BUDGET -
DDNI for Collection Mary Margaret Graham, a 27-year veteran of the CIA, accidentally let slip last week the size of the annual intelligence budget, long a tightly held secret, UPI reported...
...Speaking at a conference in San Antonio, TX on satellite and photographic intelligence at which a reporter for US News and World Report was in attendance, she let out that the budget came to $44 billion....
...The government has repeatedly gone to court to keep the current intelligence budget and even past budgets as far back as the 1940's from being disclosed." (DKR)
Which is from this source:
http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/2005/2005-44.html#SeniorCia
And here's a portion of the UPI article:
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 [2005] (UPI) -- The U.S. government's annual intelligence budget, long a tightly held and long-defended secret, is out of the bag -- $44 billion...
...'It is ironic,' Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists told the newspaper. 'We sued the CIA four times for this kind of information and lost. You can't get it through legal channels.'"
To try to bring this $44 BILLION down to a size we can start to comprehend, that amount of money, divided evenly among the 50 states, would give each state $880,000,000 [that's $880 MILLION dollars]. Closing in on a billion per state, in other words. I wonder how many classified operations such a sum can buy... It comes out to about one and a quarter BILLION dollars for each member of the Congress tasked with overseeing its expenditure.
I completely agree with the aim of the "bipartisan" design of the Intelligence Committees. I wish the rest of the oversight in the Legislative Branch was equally "bipartisan" as well. With such a gross imbalance now existing between the Legislative Branch's financial resources and the Executive Branch's financial resources, some serious reform of the system is demanded.
Here are the 35 privileged members of the two Intelligence Committees who are entrusted by the House and Senate with the sworn duty of exercising careful oversight of, and thereby 'checking and balancing,' the classified (and thus unknown and unknowable to the public) activities of the Executive Branch's $44 billion-dollar-a-year intelligence agencies:
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan, Chair - R
Ray LaHood, Illinois - R
Terry Everett, Alabama - R
Elton Gallegly, California - R
Heather Wilson, New Mexico - R
Jo Ann Davis, Virginia - R
Mac Thornberry, Texas - R
John McHugh, New York - R
Todd Tiahrt, Kansas - R
Mike Rogers, Michigan - R
Rick Renzi, Arizona - R
Jane Harman, California - D
Alcee L. Hastings, Florida - D
Silvestre Reyes, Texas - D
Leonard L. Boswell, Iowa - D
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer, Jr., Alabama - D
Anna G. Eshoo, California - D
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey - D
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Maryland - D
John Tierney, Massachusetts - D
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
Pat Roberts, Kansas, Chair - R
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Vice Chair - D
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah - R
Carl Levin, Michigan - D
Mike Dewine, Ohio - R
Dianne Feinstein, California - D
Christopher S. Bond, Missouri - R
Ron Wyden, Oregon - D
Trent Lott, Mississippi - R
Evan Bayh, Indiana - D
Olympia J. Snowe, Maine - R
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland - D
Chuck Hagel, Nebraska - R
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin - D
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - R
Please stop being rude, or else go away.
ReplyDeleteWell being polite doesn't work - been watching these threads deteriorate over the past week or so as a couple of trolls actually start post move verbage than glenn or people that have actually read the posts. Some are just copying and pasting the same points...
An otherwise robust discussion turns into the inane...
It isn't really the trolls faults, its those that think they can "one-up" them...
The trolls just take over -- this gets put in its place on other blogs; time to do it here.
Unless glenn prefers this to be a troll haven and blog for the dimwitted.
It is disappointing that some would continually get up on those little soapboxes and refute the inane....
but they do...
which is really the most inconderate thing of all, isn't it?
ninufar said...
ReplyDelete"I don't know, this sounds good, but then again maybe the current Constitutional protections are about as good a balance as can be struck, and we just need to elect more senators who give a darn. Maybe this is happening.
Am having doubts about your (laudable) proposal because of past experiences where prosecutors have gone into a sticky situation and fired the hardest-working person in an agency, while walking right by bulging files documenting personal and financial violations by appointed or well-connected officials. And look at the job the Wash."
Thanks, ninufar for the comments. I have had many doubts and second thoughts myself as I have worked toward this concept. Consider Ken Starr: He is a powerful argument against an independent special prosecutor. And, it is easy to say that the system hasn't failed yet, so why change it.
The other side of the coin that keeps pointing me in this direction is the Weimar Republic example. Democracies CAN fail--spectacularly. And when they do, they are usually unrecoverable. My fear is that Rove has now blazed the pathway to the destruction of our democracy. If we don't build a wall across that path, someone smarter and more ruthless than Bushco will exploit the demonstrated gap in our defense against totalitarian overthrow.
If you want to explore the idea further, there is a fascinating debate on an independent Attorney General at Legal Affairs, http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_IndieAG0206.msp. When I don't have to work for a living any more, I am going to blog the idea more extensively.
All props to Glenn for his insightful commentary and the willingness to support a wonderful venue.
"...as is Homeland Security, which I'm pretty sure has administrative oversight of the NSA."
ReplyDeleteum... Can someone please figure out if this is true?
The full title of the Committee - the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs - would seem to indicate that it is the case, as would the titles of its subcommittees.
i ask just 'cause New Mexico Senator Domenici is on that committee. he's probably retiring in 2008, but he's a real old-school principled conservative, and could probably be goaded into doing something with enough pressure...
I'll stop making NM comments now.
no, not quite now.
I keep mentioning NM because it's a tiny state with an even party balance
right now. It went bush on 2000 and 2004 by much less than %5, and even crusty incumbents could be made to listen fairly easily in the current political climate.
and if democrats was to win back a majority in congress in '06 or '08, it will happen because they pushed to get people like Wilson (she really is in a tenuous position, and she also happens to be an excerable lawmaker.) and Domenici, in states like NM, on record on these issues.
ok now.
ok done.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell being polite doesn't work
Good points. And polite, too."
woah. meta-metablogcommenting. way to go.
It isn't really the trolls faults, its those that think they can "one-up" them...
ReplyDeleteHow about those who think they can one-up those who think they can one-up the trolls? Fact is, you never say anything of value and substance, which makes you a clear troll.
peachkfc quotes Richard Posner: "a conviction that the program had great merit [and little effect on individual rights] would shape and hone the legal inquiry. We would search harder for grounds to affirm its legality. . ."
ReplyDelete"a conviction"?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conviction
A fixed or strong belief. See Synonyms at opinion.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dconviction
(n) conviction, strong belief, article of faith (an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence)
i.e., Posner is saying that lawyers should become true believers in the Church of Bush.
The question, however, is where the fire actually is. They don't pass laws in Homeland Security. Or Intelligence.
ReplyDeleteI suppose we have two goals: (1) to have SOMEONE (other than John Conyers) hold real hearings into the NSA program, in order to provide sufficient Congressional oversight to protect the American people, keep the issue on the front burner with the electorate, put pressure on the WH to mind its Ps & Ws, and possibly uncover sufficient evidence to support impeachment; and (2) prevent the Republicans from passing a law (DeWine's, Graham's version of DeWine's, or Specter's) that "resolves" the issue and obviates the need for hearings.
(1) is our real goal. (2) is just our defense against their effort to stop us from getting (1). So I focus more on (1).
Does that make sense?
Ps & Qs. Though I wish it would mind its Ws, too.
ReplyDeleteI'm familiar with the Posner article, if only because his was the only 'name' in conservative legal theory I half-recognized.
ReplyDeleteWhen I tried to read through the article itself however, it struck me as something more belonging to a print symposium in the publication "First Things" back in 2001 or 2002 concerning judicial activism: long on negative opinion, with no grounding in either scholarship or real legal theory. In short, a waste of print and offering no compelling arguments affirming the program.
I think at this point we can all agree (contrarians notwithstanding) that no-one has been able to present a case that affirms the legality of this program that stands muster, yes?
Congression investigation therefore is the next logical step.
Oh, and Posner's assertion that "the program had great merit [and little effect on individual rights]" is more than slightly suspect, at least philosophically. I doubt he'd be as readily trusting of it were the President a Democrat. Or perhaps he would; 'principle' is such a fluid thing these days...
eyes wide open wrote: I already wrote here that I happen to know who Gedaliya is.
ReplyDeleteThis is highly implausible, and you have provided no evidence to support it. I doubt that you know who she is any more than you know what capitalism is ("the means of production are in the hands of the people"?? That's the definition of socialism).
Keep in mind how wrong you were about the Republican party ("laissez faire" in practice means "freedom to steal, exploit, pollute, and accumulate power", it has nothing to do with "markets"). The same flawed intellectual processes are still at work.
How about those who think they can one-up those who think they can one-up the trolls? Fact is, you never say anything of value and substance, which makes you a clear troll.
ReplyDeleteHey - glenn issues a statement to one troll that there will be only 1 post allowed a day, there is not as much feeding as earlier in the week, and most of this discussion is failry on-track
Say what you want -- but if the real idiots don't feed the trolls, we discuss the real issues...
but hey, if you feel better making that proclaimation, go ahead...
now back to the chimperor...
This is pretty big:
ReplyDeleteReagan’s Campaign Manager: Team Bush Is ‘Incompetent’
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/03/04/gop-operative-ed-rollins-team-bush-is-incompetent/
“You know, the reality is, they’ve lost their touch … [Every] week it’s something that just reinforces the message that these guys don’t know what they’re doing. They’re incompetent. I mean, we’re almost to the point, where we’re going to look fondly back on Jimmy Carter’s administration. And I say that with great sadness as a Republican. But it’s week after week after week that they just can’t seem to find their way. Normally a foreign trip gives you something. You go there, but if we’re walking back with mangoes, and they’re getting nuclear rods, that’s not a very good swap.”
so much for wrapping the chimperor in ronny's dead arms...
Nancy never did like the bush clan. Guess when the idiot son of a bush family friend tried to kill her husband, she kind of "woke up."
Wonder what she has to say about the idiot son of bush I trying to kill our democracy?
BTW, eyes wide open, the clearest reason that your assertion that you know gedaliya's identity is implausible is your claim, based evidently on naive application of English language conventions, that gedaliya is female. Gedaliya is in fact a male name, and he states that he is male in his profile.
ReplyDeleteWhat is astonishing is how much Frist is willing to carry Bush's water.
ReplyDeleteIt's not astonishing when you realize that Frist was hand-picked by Rove. Democrats slapped their own backs silly for dislodging Trent Lott, a move engineered by Karl Rove. Without Rove's efforts, Trent Lott's gaffe at Strom Thurmond's BD party would have ended at an apology. See
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/2002/12/20-2.html
for details on this power-consolidating coup.
More on Frist carrying water for Bush:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_06_19.php
TPM Reader JH on Frist (and speaking sentiments we share) ...
"Rove & Co. are well aware Frist wants to be Pres. So they tell him they won't support him unless he's their dog. Of course it's likely an elaborate double cross, to simultaneously show him up as a weakling, so that by 2008 he's an even bigger joke than he is now."
Then there's TPM Reader RK ...
"Hasn't it been obvious since the White House "helped" Lott out? They wanted someone who would do their bidding, and Frist has been their boy since way back.
And, not that you asked, but: an interesting parlor conversation would discuss who is a bigger wh--e: Frist or McCain? For my money, McCain wins by a mile - Frist has no pretense of being his own man, whereas McCain ran as a pseudo-anti-Bush in 2000, etc."
I sigh and hope this couldn't be true about Sen. McCain. Alas ...
-- Josh Marshall
I'm kind of having trouble understanding Frist's letter, let's see, his party in the end does control the committee but it is the Democrats who are kicking the political football by having an investigation ?? I think you've read the situation correctly: that the Republicans are in complete disarray over what to do and are desperate about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't trust Specter, but I will give him the credit of not puppy dogging for the administration like Frist is. Specter is committed to at least having Congressional and Judicial oversight involved in the NSA, which is something that Frist has zero interest in.
Somewhere along the way, the political reality has to kick in, that Frist simply can't change the committee rules without having a major rhubarb which will lead to more and louder calls into an investigation. Just like Nixon couldn't fire a special prosecuter without having more voices start asking about what is going on. This might leave Spector's "Nixon pardon" as he next best option for the administration.
You made a great point the other day that if the Bush Administration lets go of the "I'm the Commander and Chief, I can do anything argument" that it has to do when accepting what Specter legislation then it alienates its base.
But, again, I have to wonder if the expedience of reality isn't going kick in and the WH realizes that it has to cut and run wih the best deal it can get. I'm not saying that the WH will do it, but I wouldn't preclude it from happening. The Dubai deal is a good example of how decisions made can go against one's political base.
I thought it was fascinating that some constitutional scholar told the SJC that Specter's amendment was unconstitutional because it was a "general warrant." That hit the nail right square through the board.
I've been thinking about the Turong case for awhile and I think one of things about it is that the court decided that the warrantless spying was OK until the point of prosecution, which had to be done under a warrant. This seems to tie in with the FISA Court red tagging some of the NSA information it was getting
when they were getting asked for the warrants. They were seperating the stuff that could be used in court from the stuff that couldn't. Would this be a legal distinction between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause?"
I just wrote to Senator Roberts. I think we should flood his office with letters questioning Frist's motives and his willingness to usurp the Committee's duties to the American people!
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of having trouble understanding Frist's letter, let's see, his party in the end does control the committee but it is the Democrats who are kicking the political football by having an investigation ??
ReplyDeleteWhere oh where have you been? The Republican strategy (spelled out in black and white on a strategy bullet points card that they are required to memorize and then burn) for years has been to label any criticism of any Republican by any Democrat as "partisan". This meme has been dutifully picked up and repeated ad nauseam by the media, so that when folks like Frist play this game, a good chunk of the American people have no trouble "understanding" it -- i.e., having their eyes glaze over and their heads nodding and their chops mouthing "a pox on both their houses, with their partisan bickering!". Just read David Shaunessy's comments about how he is "non-partisan" and of how "hyper-partisan" organizations like MoveOn are and you'll grasp the effectiveness of the strategy.
You are, by every definition of the word, a troll.
ReplyDeleteOh boy -- now we can have one of those 300+ threads where everyone claims the post above it is a troll!
Let the battles begin!
So gendaliya, in a tearful goodbye, objects to the one post rule.
ReplyDeleteThen Bart shows up. Anyone ever see these two in the same thread at the same time?
But I must say, with all due respect, Mr Grunwald should not limit any of these maniacs their say. Just collapse their comments and skip over them.
I know it can get some folks off topic, but sometimes it is fun to argue with right-wingers, even if it is a little childish.
So I would respectfully ask that trolls be left alone. Just ignore them, or not, whatever.
That is what make the internet great!
This is rather ironic, isn't it:
ReplyDeleteWhite House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks
Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted
The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400867_pf.html
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Somehow I don't think they are talking about the Plame leakers, but the people that leaked that they leaked...
thersites says ROOTS PROJECT: ALL HANDS ON DECK.
ReplyDeleteCome on, everyone, we've got two days to do it. Here are the numbers. DO IT!
From thersites at Vichy Dems:
"Apparently those two honest Republicans are holding firm so far, because now Glenn Greenwald tells us that Bill Frist is threatening to bypass the Committee altogether by rewriting the rules to avoid hearings. Of course, Frist calls it necessary to ensure "oversight" due to Democratic "partisanship", but that's just Orwell-speak: it's really a partisan Republican effort to "disappear" the NSA scandal to avoid catastrophic Republican losses in next November’s Congressional midterm elections.
This means our current Maine-Nebraska Roots Project, and our recent Kansas Roots Project, are opening up. We need to fight on several fronts now:
1. EVERYONE: Read Glenn Greenwald's excellent piece. It's long, but you need to understand what's happening. Then take action:
2. RESIDENTS OF KANSAS, MAINE, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, WEST VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE: Take state-specific action, as follows:
KANSANS: If Frist succeeds, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts will LOSE power, because the committee he chairs will have been neutered. If he wants to remain a player in Republican party politics instead of a reliably-impotent lapdog, as well as honor his oath of office to respect and defend the Constitution, he needs to stand up to Frist and demand that his committee's rules be left alone. Kansans need to email, fax and call Roberts' DC and District offices and demand that he not permit the Intelligence Committee's rules to be changed. IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A KANSAN. Contact info for Pat Roberts is under “Bad Guys.”
MAINERS AND NEBRASKANS: It's too late now to have Letters to the Editor published. Instead, email, fax and call Olympia Snowe's and Chuck Hagel's DC and local offices to praise them for standing firm and reinforce that we want them to resist Frist's meddling with the Intelligence Committee's rules AND to keep demanding real hearings into the NSA program, not just the whitewashes that DeWine, Specter, and Graham are proposing. IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A NEBRASKAN OR MAINER. Contact info for Snowe and Hagel is under “Moderates/Swing Votes.”
NEVADANS: Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, is well-intentioned but weak when it comes to party discipline. Remind him how the Republicans are still stalling on the Iraq War Intelligence report, and urge him to support Jay Rockefeller and demand REAL hearings this time. Contact info for Harry Reid is under “Good Guys.”
WEST VIRGINIANS: Your Senator, Jay Rockefeller, is doing great work. Email, fax and/or call and tell him so, and urge him not to cave in and compromise on either the Committee Rules or on his call for hearings. We’re tired of compromise and want to fight, and damn the torpedoes. Contact info for Jay Rockefeller is under “Good Guys.”
TENNESSEEANS: Call, email and fax Bill Frist’s DC AND District offices and politely give him hell, both for trying to change the Intelligence Committee's rules and for trying to whitewash the NSA program instead of holding fair, bipartisan hearings. Let him know you’re a Tennessee voters and you’ll remember how he handles this situation when you vote next November. Contact info for Bill Frist is under “Bad Guys.”
3. EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA: This is no longer a primarily local effort. All Americans have the right to be heard, so make calls. Just run down the Contact Information list below: Good Guys (praise and encourage to stand firm); Moderate/Swing Votes (praise and encourage to hold hearings); Bad Guys (tell them you know what they’re up to with the Intelligence Committee rule change threat, and shame, shame, shame).
EVERYONE: USE YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND WORDS.....
Fight hard and have fun. It all comes to a head Tuesday when the Intelligence Committee meets.
*******
CONTACT INFORMATION
MAIN CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD: ALL D.C. OFFICES CAN BE REACHED TOLL-FREE HERE: 888-355-3588
U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
Committee direct telephone number: (202) 224-1700
GOOD GUYS:
Harry Reid (D-NV) (Senate Democratic Leader; well-intentioned but weak at enforcing party discipline. Tell him to stand up to Frist’s threat to change the Intelligence Committee’s rules; ask him to fight for a change even if it means a showdown, and to support Jay Rockefeller however he can.)
Telephone numbers
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
D.C. office direct line: 202-224-3542
D.C. office direct line toll-free from Nevada: 866-SEN-REID (866-736-7343)
Carson City office telephone: 775-882-7343
Reno office telephone: 775-686-5750
Las Vegas office telephone: 702-388-5020
Fax numbers
D.C. office fax: 202-224-7327
Carson City office fax: 775-883-1980
Reno office fax: 775-686-5757
Las Vegas office fax: 702-388-5030
Senator Reid webmail link
Rockefeller, John D. IV “Jay” (D-WV) (Ranking Democratic member and Vice-Chair, Senate Intelligence Committee; knight in shining armor, encourage him to keep fighting and not cave in)
Telephone numbers
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
DC office direct line: 202-224-6472
Beckley office phone: 304-253-9704
Charleston office phone: 304-347-5372
Fairmont office phone: 304-367-0122
Martinsburg office phone: 304-262-9285
Fax numbers
DC office fax: 202-224-7665
Beckley office fax: 304-253-2578
Charleston office fax: 304-347-5371
Fairmont office fax: 304-367-0822
Martinsburg office fax: 304-262-6288
Senator Rockefeller webmail link
MODERATES/SWING VOTES:
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (Member, Senate Intelligence Committee; swing vote; encourage)
Telephone numbers
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
Washington, D.C. office direct telephone: (202) 224-5344
Washington, D.C. office toll-free from Maine (800) 432-1599
Auburn office telephone: (207) 786-2451
Augusta office telephone: (207) 622-8292
Bangor office telephone: (207) 945-0432
Biddeford office telephone: (207) 282-4144
Portland office telephone: (207) 874-0883
Presque Isle office telephone: (207) 764-5124
Fax numbers:
Washington, D.C. office fax: (202) 224-1946
Auburn office fax: (207) 782-1438
Augusta office fax: (207) 622-7295
Bangor office fax: (207) 941-9525
Biddeford office fax: (207) 284-2358
Portland office fax: (207) 874-7631
Presque Isle office fax: (207) 764-6420
Senator Snowe webmail link
Chuck Hagel (R-NB) (Member, Senate Intelligence Committee; swing vote; encourage.)
Telephone Numbers:
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-4224
Omaha office (402) 758-8981
Lincoln (402) 476-1400
Kearney (308) 236-7602
Scottsbluff (308) 632-6032
Fax Numbers:
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-5213
Omaha office (402) 758-9165
Lincoln (402) 476-0605
Kearney (308) 236-7473
Scottsbluff Office (308) 632-6295
Senator Hagel Webmail link
BAD GUYS:
Frist, Bill (R-TN) (Senate Majority Leader; leaning hard on moderate Republicans Snowe and Hagel to cave in on NSA hearings; threatening to change Senate Intelligence Committee rules to torpedo hearings if necessary to keep White House wrongdoing out of the limelight.)
Telephone numbers
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
DC office direct line: 202-224-3344
Nashville office telephone: 615-352-9411
Chattanooga office telephone: 423-756-2757
Jackson office telephone: 731-424-9655
Kingsport/Tri-Cities office telephone: 423-323-1252
Knoxville office telephone: 865-637-4180
Memphis office telephone: 901-683-1910
Fax numbers
DC office fax: 202-228-1264
Nashville office fax: 615-352-9985
Chattanooga office fax: 423-756-5313
Jackson office fax: 731-424-8322
Kingsport/Tri-Cities office fax: 423-323-0358
Knoxville office fax: 865-637-9886
Memphis office fax: 901-683-3610
Senator Frist webmail link
Pat Roberts (R-KS) (Chair, Senate Intelligence Committee; weak-kneed, encourage to rebuff Frist’s attempt to change the rules, and insist on having hearings rather than whitewash)
Telephone numbers
Main Capitol switchboard number (all Congressional offices): 888-355-3588
Washington, D.C. office direct telephone: 202-224-4774
Dodge City telephone: 620-227-2244
Overland Park telephone: 913-451-9343
Topeka telephone: 785-295-2745
Wichita telephone: 316-263-0416
Fax numbers
Washington, D.C. fax: 202-224-3514
(Also consider addressing faxes to Jackie Cottrell, Roberts’ Chief of Staff)
Dodge City fax: 620-227-2264
Overland Park fax: 913-451-9446
Topeka fax: 785-235-3665
Wichita fax: 316-263-0273
Senator Roberts webmail link
posted by Thersites2"
re: troll banning, etc.
ReplyDelete(please skip if you're already sick of this conversation.)
hey, yeah, um... this has kinda' devolved. meta-meta-troll-trolling is pretty silly. please get over it.
in general:
I think the best way to think about the troll situation is to remember all those conversations held between forty or fifty people in a large room: they nearly always begin with relatively ordered exchanges, but if left unmoderated they quickly devolve into mere noise.
Glenn has decided that he will place concern for freedom of expression over concern for producing a constructive, ordered exchange of ideas. I would speculate that he does this out of respect both for the range and depth of his readers opinions, and for their maturity (...a respect obviously misplaced). This is why he says that commenters are responsible for determining what they will respond to.
However, I personally don't think that blog comment threads present any issues of freedom of expression at all since they are better seen as a product shaped solely by the opinions of the blog owner rather than as a product of the commenters themselves. the blog owner has control over the forum and commenters can either accept those rules or go elsewhere. Commenters should be free to express themselves, but it should be understood that comments sections are always about something in particular and thus that freedom of expression does not extend to interrupting or obstructing the development of the blog comments in the way desired by the blog owner.
I would even go so far as to advocate expurgating posts that are not strictly relevant to the direction of the comments, regardless of whether they are trolling or not. Repetition, thank-yous to Glenn, pointless exercising of anger toward the president, despair over the state of the world: these I would cut.
Practically speaking, a tightly moderated comments section produces a much higher caliber of discussion because each poster knows that posts no strictly on point are going to be expunged. The main downside to tightly moderating a comments section is that inevitably the range of ideas expressed narrows and the comments may become overly homogenus, but this again is the prerogative of the blog owner and would be a result of heavy-handed moderation.
Obviously, the comments on my blog, were there any, would be many fewer.
Anyway, it’s glenn’s blog, and I think the compromise he reached with gedalaya (or whatever) is a good one.
It should be liberally extended to the other trolls on the site as needed, even though I think Glenn will be reticent to do so.
(oh and there's no need to point out that by my own criteria, I would cut this post as being off topic, thanks...)
TENNESSEEANS: Call, email and fax Bill Frist’s DC AND District offices and politely give him hell, both for trying to change the Intelligence Committee's rules and for trying to whitewash the NSA program instead of holding fair, bipartisan hearings. Let him know you’re a Tennessee voters and you’ll remember how he handles this situation when you vote next November. Contact info for Bill Frist is under “Bad Guys.”
ReplyDeleteAll of which sounds great, except it'll do little good to talk about November w/Frist. He announced long ago that he's not running for re-election for his Senate seat.
.
that's true, but he does have delusions of eventual presidency...
ReplyDeletethough i suppose calling up and saying "I'm more than capable of holding a grude for two years" isn't really effective when the person you're talking to can't think past the end of next election cycle.
gedaliya said...
ReplyDelete"If the NSA dispute was really a "scandal," a la Bill Clinton's intern shenanigans, or Richard Nixon's abuse of power, the public would be paying attention. What they see instead is another boring episode of a seemingly endless soap opera - a Groundhog Day type of soap opera- in which bitter partisan politics is all the fare you get. How many times do you think the public can take watching the minority party once again attempt to criminalize the policies of its opponent?"
Hmmm. and Bush's poll numbers are how far down in the toilet now? I would venture the thought that the flush lever isn't even halfway down yet. I would also venture the thought that pesistent low poll numbers indicate that people are paying attention.
Glenn said: Frist's purported concern over the way in which "politics" is preventing the Committee from engaging in meaningful oversight is nothing short of hilarious.
ReplyDeleteNot really, they are counting on the press to recite their words.
gris lobo -
ReplyDeleteperhaps you skipped past glenn's post where he decided to limit that particular troll to one post a day and then the troll got all huffy and said s/he was leaving.
please, don't encourage her/him to stay by FEEDING THE TROLL. you've been here enough to know better.
You guys do realize that the Constitution was set up to protect the minority from the majority, as well as the majority from the minority right?
ReplyDeleteThat means that the majority doesn't just get what it wants because it's the majority. It also means that the majority doesn't get to violate the rights of the minority because it can.
Since there is a question of peoples rights being violated by the NSA program, the majority (republicans) shutting down any inquiry because they have the power to do so, ignores the entire point of the Constitution.
Being the majority doesn't make you right. It makes you the majority.
David Shaunessy:
ReplyDeleteNothing could be farther than the truth that I am no longer your fan, same as I have been since reading your first post. You are terrific!
Also, it's comforting to have other non-partisans in the ranks. I went over to your blog to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your posts but couldn't get my comment to post there.
So I tell you here. I benefit enormously from your insights and your enthusiasm and will continue to do so as we proceed.
It's nice to be working alongside you and Glenn in cyberspace.
Back to the phones. I am getting to hate them but that's a petty complaint, I know. I personally am glad we have this March 7 demarcation mark coming up soon, which will allow us to at least assess how well our early efforts are paying off.
I do have a feeling that this may be the time Frist has finally gone too far. The manner in which Bush handled the Port deal did suggest that he has become besotted with power and no longer has his finger on the public's pulse.
This has that same smell to it. We'll see how it plays out, but it does have the type of "desperation" written on it that suggests that Bushco is indeed showing some battle fatique.
Anyone listen to Bush's speeches made while he was in India? If you didn't look closely, you'd think it was a parady on SNL. His words were so bizarre Lou Dobbs had trouble remaining "neutral" when he reported the story. Things like "Yes, I know Americans will suffer and lose jobs and it can be a really sad thing to lose your job, but it'll be good for the Indian people." Things that wacky.
drewl: And speaking of Frist, how is the SEC's investigation of his insider-trading coming along?
I was wondering this myself. The press has been strangely silent about this for a while, but of course they, like everyone, have been overwhelmed by the geometrically increasing Bushco scandals that have been coming out ever more frequently. When we get past March 7, I think spending a little time familiarizing ourselves with Mr. Frist's own back yard would be instructive.
Is it just me, or does this latest attempt of his have that type of extra zealous, misguided, foaming at the mouth loyalty associated with it which suggests somebody somewhere has some very big goods on Billy Frist.
juice,
ReplyDeleteyou've just stated the obvious presupposition of Glenn and the majority of the commenters here.
way to go.
What struck me the most in Frist's letter was his assertion that our resources would be spread too thin--his implication that an investigation would be too distracting, and would divert energy and resources from more important matters.
ReplyDeleteYet is this not the same party who put the nation on hold to attend to a young woman in a perpetual vegetative state? Could we perhaps have had more manpower during the Katrina fiasco if much of it weren't stationed in the Middle East, or is a natural catastrophe too much of a distraction?
Furthermore, it's outrageous that Mr. Frist would claim there are more important things to attend to, when it seems blatantly obvious that his party only seems to operate under the guidelines of what would be most beneficial to itself, so for him to sit there and behave as if they're all doing everything they can to solve the ills that plague us is beyond insulting.
*YAWN*
ReplyDeleteEveryone seems to know everyone else's motives.
The funniest part of all of this is that the "blog" phenomenen is mostly clueless.
Not clueless as to what is going on. Far from that.
They are clueless in a more sinister way.
The"blog" phenomen did not start when the word was coined.
For many years political operatives have programmed websites in order to advance their views.
The problem is that the "blog" phenomenon was created by the corporate newsmedia in order to fill gaps in news coverage as well as limit slightly the need for expensive news stars to use in there coverage.
But, I guess noone else is concerned that bloggers have adopted a sense of hubris about their true ability to influence the actual vote counting in elections.
The number of eligible voters has not increased.
Numbers of votes is the true power in an election. An election that decides everything from who is elected to office to who decides court cases.
The eye will see and the mind will understand.
The blog, unfortunately will merely satiate the lazy into feeling they have actually done something worthwhile.
Jeff Barea http://www.bcef.org
"capitalism is ("the means of production are in the hands of the people"? That's the definition of socialism)."
ReplyDeleteWhat? Only marxists view "the people" as "people as filtered through government".
Socialism: "Socialism is an ideology of a social and economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned and administered by all of society."
For "collectively owned" read "owned by government."
For "administered by all of society" read "administered by government."
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade)."
I'm sorry you have been so brainwashed as to think of "the people" as stepchildren of government, but I continue to use the work "people" in its literal sense, which is the plural of persons.
thersites, sorry I didn't see your comment before I posted the info from your site here.
ReplyDeleteAs for "But I'm still scratching my head as to how the hey you come up with this stuff so quickly and thoroughly..."
Easy. Glenn's bugged Frist's phone.
Turnabout's fair play, dontchathink?
On the Frist issue:
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that Frist is not going to run for re-election for his Senate seat then that explains a lot about his actions. He has nothing to lose, even keeping in mind that he wants to run for President in 2008.
The electorate has a remarkably short memory (although the advent of blogs may change that somewhat) If he is able to shut down the investigation of the NSA spy issue it won't stay in the mainstream media for long. How many here believe that a little over two years from now that voters will remember what he said and did about an issue that ultimately went nowhere. (provided he is successful in preventing it from doing so) None or almost none I assure you.
I think the true issue here should be to concentrate on the November elections. The reason being that I feel that the only way a real investigation will ever occur is for the Democrats to take over either the House or the Senate or both in the fall.
One of the big things that everyone should be pushing for is for paper receipts from electronic voting machines. Without them a recount is impossible even in districts such as the one in Florida that mysteriously reversed it's voting pattern of many years and elections. Another would be to get as many volunteers together as possible with cam corders and or cameras to document any voting irregularities like the ones that have occured in Ohio and Florida during the last two elections. Last but not least (and mabe Glen can give some insight on how to do this) there needs to be a citizens watch group formed to watch for any unusual purging of the voter rolls just prior to the election, as occured in Ohio in 2004.
Those are my suggestions anyway. And I'm going to toot my own horn a little here but I did say when I first started posting here that this NSA spy story was a lot bigger than anyone realized yet. Frist's actions seem to bear this out.
Bart sez:
ReplyDeleteCongress has absolutely no right to the internal legal advice given to the President under executive and attorney/client privilege.
Sorry, Bart, the Republicans put a stake through this when they decided that they'd go for any privileged conversations of any kind (not just those between the preznit and the attorneys hired on taxpayer money) in their zeal to crucify a preznit for having a consensual blowjob.
You folks blew your wad there. Don't get to upset when you're forced to lick it up as well.
Glenn will do what he usually does - avoid responding to dissenting views.
You misspelled "stoopid views refuted ad nauseam and repeated even more ad nauseam".
Bart sez over and over something I do agree with:
I have no problem at all with the intelligence committees requesting information on any and all intelligence gathering programs...
The oversight committee can ask for a copy of the order...
If they have questions about the guidelines under which the program works, then they can ask for that...
[Glenn]: What was done with any information collected on U.S. citizens pursuant to such secret order?
Good question to ask...
OK, Bart, glad to see you've come back from the dark side.
So you're suppporting an actual investigation ... how refreshing. Now that this has been settled, can we get onto the next post? Thanks in advance for your co-operation, Bart.
Cheers,
And the Oscar for Best Investigative Journalism goes to
ReplyDelete.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GLENN GREENWALD!
Congrats, Glenn, don't forget to thank your family :)
PS. Dr. Lim. Interesting suggestion. Google should get on it and develop new sortware for blogspot which automatically sorts all posts by any "anonymous" to a separate thread. Those willing to put a name beside their ideas can then "talk amongst themselves."
arne -
ReplyDeletebart is a regular troll here and unless he has something particularly interesting, he shouldn't be encouraged to come back.
not telling you what to comment on.
just sayin' he's a troll.
don't feed him.
What TV channel have you all been watching this last year which has focused on the corruption in the Bush administration and the disintegration of our government?
ReplyDeleteExactly.
That's why it's crucial to start watching Lou Dobbs every day from now on.
His Friday show was astounding--a non-stop diatribe about the insane policies of Bushco.
This is really a very remarkable development for a widely watched cable news station. A very big part of the current problem has been that there's been a channel for the "cultish" division of the right wing to watch and all they have heard is BushCo's propaganda.
There's been no comparable channel for serious critics of Bushco's policies.
The Port deal changed all that.
Lou Dobbs has decided to go all out and take on the whole shocking situation, and people who have been disenchanted with what is going on in government are flocking enthusiastically to watch Lou like bees to honey.
The fact that CNN is allowing him to do so is the big story, and must suggest that the ratings are going up as more and more people tell their friends what is happening. That means there are more critics of Bushco than the media has been factoring in to this point.
Lou has gone way beyond merely "reporting the news." He represents a point of view now, and that view is that to change things, we need to quickly get rid of the present control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House by the party in power, as they have grossly abused the trust of the American people.
Watch him. He's a balm for the soul these days. I wouldn't be surprised if Glenn's take on this Frist move is part of his program on Monday.
'Nite all!
Nope, couldn't leave until I post this big new headline on Huffington Post:
ReplyDeleteGOP Worried About Losing Control Of House In November...
US News & World Report | Gloria Borger | March 4, 2006 at 10:03 PM
So it has finally come to this: Congressional Republicans, once a compliant bunch, are now openly defiant. In some ways, it's not surprising: The president is a lame duck, leading an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, and his personal popularity is at an all-time low. After all, members of Congress are most loyal to themselves when it comes to saving their jobs. And Republicans are worried that they could actually lose control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections. "It's not that we feel we now can [criticize the White House]," says one nervous House Republican. "It's that we feel we must." Survival is a basic instinct.
But something else is happening: Republicans are truly miffed at a White House that they consider too secretive, too arrogant, and too interested in extending its own power. When the president threatened to veto legislation to block a Dubai company from operating six American ports, that was too much--even for some conservatives. "I think the administration has looked at the legitimate power of the executive during a time of war and taken it to extremes," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told me. "[It's] to the point that we'd lose constitutional balance. Under their theory, there would be almost no role for the Congress or the courts." Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott put it more succinctly: "Don't put your fist in my face."
Wait. I forgot to include the heading on that US News and World Report article:
ReplyDeleteTrust Me? Yeah, Right
By Gloria Borger
Heh heh heh:) Way to go, ThugCo.
You know, nobody really actually likes bullies, even their "friends"....
*The above is just an excerpt. Go read the whole article.
libellus:
ReplyDeleteThanks :)
libellus said...
ReplyDeletedidn't mean the snark, it's just that that's one of the things i work on right now - election reform - and it's disenheartening to see people advocate for the creation of duplicate efforts when those already underway are in need of real support.
I don't mind the snark. When I post I am looking for constructive input as well as expressing my opinion. Your expertise and knowledge in the area is obviously far greater than mine. I take your suggestions to heart and will do what I can to try to help implement them.
:)
Eyes wide ...: I'm sorry you have been so brainwashed
ReplyDeleteAnd here I was starting to like you ... no, I do like you, despite your delusions about knowing who gedaliya is and your completely cluelessness about the realities of economics. Your inability to decide whether your eyes are open or shut is particularly endearing. But when it comes to capitalism, they are definitely shut. As wikipedia notes, "control of production and distribution is primarily in the hands of companies each acting in its own interest". Companies are not "the people", even -- or especially -- in light of the legal fiction of "corporate persons". That fiction has nothing to do with "free markets"; it's a mechanism by which the coercive power of the government is used to shield the beneficiaries of corporate actions from social sanctions for those actions. "social sanctions"? Such a concept is absent from neo-classical economics, which makes the field a pseudo-science. You really ought to read Kenneth Lux's "Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality" (http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/GreedIsGood.htm), but I doubt that you will, because it challenges your religious dogma about "free markets":
"If the butcher or baker can cheat us (say by using short weights on his scale), and he can get away with it, isn't it in his self-interest to do so? The answer must be yes. There is nothing in self-interest that rules out cheating, especially if one is good at it. It is not self-interest that prevents someone from cheating. Self-interest only dictates that they not get caught." (P. 83)
". . . economists came to conclude that from the standpoint of self-interest it would be irrational for someone not to cheat if they could be reasonably sure of getting away with it. 'Honesty is the best policy' is not an economic doctrine." (P. 83)
"Smith's forthright talk of businessmen cheating and oppressing the public seems to stand in direct contradiction to his advocacy of self-interest as the sole principle necessary for the achievement of the public good. The saving grace was supposed to be the 'invisible hand' of competition. It was competition that would keep these instincts and 'expensive vanities' of the merchants, dealers, and landlords in line. . . . Smith had essentially (P. 83) overlooked the possibility that self-interest would work to undermine and eliminate competition and thus to tie up the invisible hand. It is this outcome of unrestrained self-interest that is the fundamental flaw in any absolute policy of laissez-faire." (P. 84)
". . . the principle of self-interest dictates that the individual seek self-benefit by imposing costs on the natural environment. From the Industrial Revolution and continuing down into the present, self-interest has produced pollution, depletion, and the progressive destruction of the natural world." (P. 84)
"Our review of several periods of history has shown that the good of all is not attained by pure self-interest or egoism. There must be another principle operating in people, a principle that moderates self-interest in favor of the general good. We indicated above that a sense of honesty could be one such moderating tendency. Honesty follows a standard that is outside of self-interest, and this is precisely the definition of morality. Other such principles are fairness, integrity, reasonableness, and a sense of justice." (P. 87)
"As a matter of fact, it is according to Smith himself that justice is necessary for the good to be attained." (P. 87) Later on in the book he says, "'Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interests in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.'" (P. 87)
"What Adam Smith ought to have said was, "'It is not only from the benevolence . . . [of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.]'" (P. 87)
". . . Smith's sanctioning of self-interest without any qualifying or restraining force completely eliminated the moral problem in human action. Morality is always a matter of choosing, and situations of moral relevance always involve conflict of interest. One has to choose between the interests of 'rightness' (which can be taken to mean honesty, justice, fairness, the concerns of the other, the public, society) and the interests of the self in disregard of rightness." (P. 89)
Since I can't get the create a link to work, I'll link to my post about the wider issue, which included Frist (thank you, Glenn, for the links, I did link to this post in mine) and his partisan hackery.
ReplyDeleteQuite simply, Congressional leaders don't give a damn. All they care about is the temporal power they think they have (because they really don't have it when they abdicate to Bush) and their party, the mentality that rules most undemocratic nations.
It flat out pisses me off, and I am so disgusted that I couldn't come up with anything other than ARRRGGGHHH! as a title this time. I may just run for local office in 2008 to start a political career to make a difference. I cannot any longer just complain and donate. I think I need to take matters into my own hands. These people have forgotten what it means to be an American. I never thought I'd see the day where party trumped nation. God help us all.
truth machine:
ReplyDeleteCompanies are owned by....people (In a capitalist country anyway) Well, at least for the most part...Dubai Ports World being an exception
libellus (this refers to?) and gris lobo make excellent points about the fragility of our election system in the face of paperless voting. The folks at Stanford, like David Dill, and at Caltech and MIT in their joint analysis of voting systems are spot on in condemning voting without paper trails as particularly subject to voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteVOTE ABSENTEE! There is no easy way to quickly and universally fix the real problem since Secretary of States are continuing to exacerbate it, but if you vote absentee, you leave a paper trail. And it costs the state more, and I would guess the problems of most states are not disposing of excess revenues.
Turing Test said...
ReplyDeleteVOTE ABSENTEE! There is no easy way to quickly and universally fix the real problem since Secretary of States are continuing to exacerbate it, but if you vote absentee, you leave a paper trail. And it costs the state more, and I would guess the problems of most states are not disposing of excess revenues.
Good idea! I will have to see how to vote absentee in my state before the elections. I vote religiously but where I am at the infamous Diebold machines are used with no paper trail, so I always wonder if my vote has really been counted, and if so if it has been counted correctly.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteFor those of you that do not know me, I am a blogger with middle to right political convictions, and a blogging friend of Glenn’s.
Glenn, whilst you know that I often read and enjoy both your blog and your comments section, which is by now renowned for it's ability to home the left side of the blogosphere who wish to have an intelligent conversation, I am absolutely appalled by your decision to effectively ban Gedallya. For restriction to one comment is the same for anyone who wishes to have a decent discussion.
I happen to know the identity of Gedallya, who indeed is male, and represents a good deal of intelligent argument from the right, which you may or may not disagree with, and which he delivers politely and more succinctly than I have seen not only on this thread but on the others at Unclaimed. Just looking at some lengthy posts on this thread which you have allowed without any comment from you, clearly shows your intent.
That you are allowing these monotonous bullies that either go under Anonymous or some other name without a proper email address, astounds me. You do not object to their comments, and yet you have effectively banned one of the only decent right wing commenters, who seems to be loyal to your blog, and left the bullies in, I assume simply because they agree with you.
What other reason could you possibly have to leave some of them in? You have read them and you know what I am talking about.
Yes the quality of the comments section has deteriorated, but not because of the serious commenters like Gedallya, but because of commenters that you are not restricting because they agree with you. Clearly they are administrating this comment section, and not you.
The decision you have made, even though you call it difficult, would not have been as difficult one for you to make as the one that would require the bullies that add no value to your comment section to be restricted, but who agree with you. That would have been the difficult choice, and clearly one, judging by this thread alone you are not prepared to make.
You have made the wrong decision and quite frankly one which I would not have expected from you.
Gris Lobo, you are welcome.
ReplyDeleteI may repost this idea of absentee voting a few times before November, but being reared in Oklahoma and Texas, I understand that even with paper ballots, 200 or so folks may vote in alphabetic order and that this may be one of the smaller election frauds in say LBJ's 1948 Senate victory. "Means of Ascent" is great political biography, and one of best discussions of election campaigning and election fraud ever written. However, the system has evolved so that paper ballots have been ever more accurate. The introduction of electronic balloting is an invitation to a new kind of fraud, one in which the staff of county registrar of voters (this is a skeleton staff until the influx of temps at election season) is ill equipped to handle. While the permanent staff and temps can reasonably prevent most physical tampering with the election, they would be clueless about electronic tampering. vote absentee
Companies are owned by....people (In a capitalist country anyway)
ReplyDeleteGee, really? Is it possible that I already knew that, but that it doesn't contradict what I wrote?
Here's a simple explanation, but perhaps not simple enough for someone with your obviously limited capacity: "people" is not the same as "the people". For instance, while it is true that people, American people mostly, own Halliburton, it is not true that the American people own Halliburton. I, for instance, have no part in the ownership of Halliburton. Nor do I own or control the means of production; that is held by a small percentage of the population, not by "the people". Now, one can honestly debate whether that is a good thing or not, but misrepresenting the facts and claiming that capitalism is a system in which "the means of production are in the hands of the people" is not honest.
For those of you that do not know me, I am a blogger with middle to right political convictions, and a blogging friend of Glenn’s.
ReplyDeleteWe know you as a crypto-fascist and Bush suckup who launched a thoroughly dishonest attack on Glenn on your blog, after which he tore you a new one here. And now we know you as someone who absurdly says of an uber-troll (whose name you can't even manage to spell right) that he "represents a good deal of intelligent argument from the right" -- a truly sorry statement about the right.
Get lost, scumbag, your trollery isn't wanted here.
The security industry is now big, big business in this country. How many calls, flyers, commercials, etc. are devoted to "home security systems", paper shredders, gated communities, and so forth.
ReplyDeletePrograms like Dateline and many cable news broadcasts (Nancy Grace, Rita Cosby, et al) are little more than senior scare shows that simply confirm in consumer minds the need to blow money on security related products so as to live and work in a "safe" community.
And along comes this NSA spying program. I find it instructive to think in terms of what we do NOT know about this program:
1. We do not know its scope; i.e. its reach and depth, the numbers.
2. We do not know how the information gathered is used; i.e. is it sold to the highest bidder, is it held to be used at some later date as a bargaining chip to force people such as Frist into line?
3. We do not know who has access to this information.
4. We do not know the nature of information gathered on individuals to include members of Congress, media personalities, political opponents, political allies; i.e. is the information limited to possible terrorist ties or is it personal information?
Perhaps the reason for the extreme position taken to protect this program by BushCo lies in the answers to these questions. For a public who has been sold on the idea of taking multiple steps to protect their homes and communities from nefarious persons; such as lowlife criminals and to protect their identities, Bush's exortation to "trust him" as regards this program rings as hollow as the BushCo position on Portgate.
There is rot at the core of this program and the American people can smell it. Sure bloggers may be more visibly alarmed because they have a means to communicate their angst but that does not mean the average little blue hair doesn't smell a rat as well.
BTW, I forgot to mention that hypocritical slimebucket Alexandra banned me from her blog and deleted all my posts. She criticizes Glenn on his own blog for restricting "Gedallya" (whoever that is), not out of a concern for free expression as some decent people here have (after all, she's a right winger, by definition ideologically committed to restrictions of freedom and other crimes against humanity), but because she's strategically opposed to having a thorn removed from Glenn's side. She wants Glenn to ban people who are, heaven forbid, anonymous and don't provide email addresses -- making it harder to track them down and "render" them, I suppose. She says it would be an easy choice for Glenn to ban "bullies" who agree with him. Well, I'm sure it would be easy for a fascist like herself to ban people who agree with Glenn -- and she has. But has she ever banned bullies who agree with her (like Gedaliya) from her own blog? Somehow I doubt it.
ReplyDeletePlease do not feed the trolls.
ReplyDeleteRead their tripe, or skip it, but please do not engage them.
Glenn's blog is so informative, so well-researched, and so intellectually appealing, that it is a shame to actually derail productive debates by stooping to the trolls' level.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteHaving read the majority of this thread yesterday, I went to bed last night disturbed by the decision to limit Geladiya to one post per day. I hesitated to post on this subject since I wanted the focus to remain on Frist's actions. But when I found that I was still thinking about it this morning, I decided to post.
I realize that free expression in a blog setting presents certain problems (i.e. trolls hijacking a thread), but that's the thing about free expression ... it's always gonna be a challenge ... whether the community is online or not. And every community has to make choices about how to balance free expression against the perceived damage to the community.
With the ability to collapse a thread and the ability to ignore certain posters, adults have the resources they need to keep a thread from being hijacked, thus mitigating whatever the perceived danger is from the repetitive posts of a troll. People who express concern about maintaining a certain level of discourse on this blog, already have the tools they need to do so.
But if the community meets that challenge by limiting those who express ideas who don't like or agree with, we simply make martyrs of them. And we confirm their view of the left as arrogant and elitist.
Someone referred to this blog as your private property. I think that it is maybe more accurate to say that it is your private product -- which you have chosen (thank God) to share with the public. And by placing it in the public domain and offering the option of comments, you have opened up this product to both thoughtful commentators and to the troll population.
I think we have to treat the rights of both to express their views (however distasteful to the majority of the community) as more important than our distaste and annoyance with a particular poster (s).
In my view (and to paraphrase an ealier poster), polite niceties about freedom of expression are never irrelevant no matter how late the stage of the game.
I understand that this is your decision. But I hope you will consider rethinking it.
I have just scoured the NYT and WP for any mention of Frist's latest nasty threat to our democracy. One would think that both newspapers would have outraged editorials strongly condemning Frist's threat.
ReplyDeleteFat chance! Not a peep!
Good morning, everyone, nice to be back.
ReplyDeleteBefore I get back to the main point at hand, just a few words concerning trolls, banning, etc.:
In response to one of my posts yesterday,in which I wrote, "Much as I love and respect you, I disagree with and, in fact, am somewhat surprised by, your decision [to ban gedalyia] for the reasons previously stated. But, it's your blog, so there you are," Glenn wrote:
I did it reluctantly and ambivalently. I've received a lot of e-mail asking me to do much more to preserve the quality of the comments discussion. It has nothing to do with his viewpoint but with the intent to disrupt (numerous other pro-Bush bloggers are free to post away).
I will write a post about this topic over the next day or so for anyone who wants to talk about it. I think this Frist story is extremely important and could have a huge impact and I don't want the discussion to get sidetracked by this other topic, but I understand that people feel strongly about it.
4:32 PM
I absolutely agree with Glenn that this Frist story is hugely important. In fact, the whole NSA thing is possibly the single most important constellation of issues facing our country right now in that it involves so many crucial issues of civil rights, Presidential power grabs, the assault on the basic structure of our government, etc. I'm going to date myself here by telling you that I was a teenager when Nixon was President (I'm proud to say that I was in the first group of 18 year-olds to vote for President in 1972 and am even prouder to say that I cast my vote for George McGovern)and was very politically involved back then. Since that time, I have not been so worked up about anything and willing to get actively involved until the NSA scandal broke. It's not too extreme to say that the future of American Democracy is at stake here, and Glenn and others are right: we should not get distracted by trivialities like gedalyia and other trolls.
BUT---Banning Mr. or Ms. G (there seems to be some dipute about that) does not seem to have elimated the distraction. In fact, after I read the overnight comments, it seems that the distraction factor is even worse because people can't stop talking about it. Even bloggers from the other side (e.g., the lovely Alexandra) have started showing up to put their two cents in and dump on Glenn (one of my predictions, sorry I was right, Glenn.)
I think implicit in Glenn's comments above is the idea that he was hoping that the ban on one troll would calm things down, get people back on track, and then a bit later, he would post something on the issue where we could all argue about the pros and cons of banning trolls and all that stuff. For those of us who really want to focus on Frist (hey, that would make a nice campaign slogan, huh?) why don't we try to put this banning crap aside and stay on point here? In other words, JUST IGNORE THE NOISE, PLEASE!!!!
I had given some advice on doing this in a post yesterday, but I think this post from just a little while ago says it much more pithily and, I think, effectively, than I did:
Anonymous said...
Please do not feed the trolls.
Read their tripe, or skip it, but please do not engage them.
Glenn's blog is so informative, so well-researched, and so intellectually appealing, that it is a shame to actually derail productive debates by stooping to the trolls' level.
11:28 AM
Hear, hear.
Kris C.
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeletetheir sites says ROOTS PROJECT: ALL HANDS ON DECK.
Come on, everyone, we've got two days to do it. Here are the numbers. DO IT!
Eyes Wide Open, if you have the webmail links to the Contact Info (which didn't come through in the original post) and they are handy, it would be great to have you post them.
My letter to Republicans will state simply:
This Administration is corrupt. For the sake of the Republican Party and the American people, do the right thing! Investigate.
[Hopefully, making it essential for "their party" will get them off the dime.]
www.thiswildride.blogspot.com
Truth Machine
ReplyDelete"Get lost, scumbag, your trollery isn't wanted here. We know you as a crypto-fascist and Bush suckup ....that hypocritical slimebucket Alexandra banned me from her blog and deleted all my posts."
Yes I did, I don't allow disgusting language like that on my blog. The very fact that Glenn you are keeping silent, and do not even tell him to tone it down tells me everything. I am now a troll? Thank you Glenn.
But you do allow disgusting persons like yourself to run your blog. Perhaps Glenn hasn't told me to tone it down because he hasn't even read my comment, but that doesn't stop a truly evil piece of slime like yourself to use it as an excuse to bash him. Yes, indeed you are a troll, since you are only here to inflame and cause trouble, not to contribute anything of substance.
ReplyDeleteTo anyone who doubts my characterization, I invite them to visit her blog and see what a truly despicable hateful racist she is -- a favorite of filth like Michele Malkin.
Glenn, you've done a great job articulating the anti-NSA legal POV. But there is legitimate
ReplyDeletedisagreement among legal experts. AFAIK, all judicial decisions to date acknowledge
the president's Article II authority. Periodic briefing of key members of the intelligence
committee can fairly be construed as oversight. Nowhere in the whistleblower laws is leaking
classified information to the New York Times part of the procedure, but the leaker appears to
be a hero to many of the commenters here.
Responding to Frist's proposed actions invoking Senate procedure, ReichstagBurning says: " For
example, establish a permanent independent prosecutor, a constitutionally independent Attorney
General..." In other words, let's change the constitution?!
CaseyL said... 1:37 PM: "This is where the second possiblity comes in. Maybe Bush won't relinquish
power in 2009."
Citing Kos and Ted Rall and making DU-like paranoiac conjectures like CaseyL's 1:37 contribute
to rational discussion how?
Even bloggers from the other side (e.g., the lovely Alexandra) have started showing up to put their two cents in and dump on Glenn (one of my predictions, sorry I was right, Glenn.)
ReplyDeleteThe disgusting Alexandra is an opportunist thug -- Glenn isn't the sort to make his decisions based on whether she will throw up putrid comments about them, as is clear from his previous posting devoted to her vile attack on him for daring to speak the truth about her beloved leader, whom she prays she will be joined with in heaven after he destroys all those swarthy Muslims and brings on the Rapture.
I think implicit in Glenn's comments above is the idea that he was hoping that the ban on one troll would calm things down, get people back on track, and then a bit later, he would post something on the issue where we could all argue about the pros and cons of banning trolls and all that stuff.
Just read his lengthy post -- then you won't have to "think" about his reasons for his actions, since he lays them out clearly.
truth machine said...
ReplyDelete[peachkfc wrote] I think implicit in Glenn's comments above is the idea that he was hoping that the ban on one troll would calm things down, get people back on track, and then a bit later, he would post something on the issue where we could all argue about the pros and cons of banning trolls and all that stuff.
Just read his lengthy post -- then you won't have to "think" about his reasons for his actions, since he lays them out clearly.
As you might recall, in my prior comments, I respectfully disagreed with Glenn's decision to restrict gedalyia and possibly to restrict or ban other trolls, such as yourself. And you are rudely insulting me because . . .?
Alexandra said...
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that Glenn you are keeping silent, and do not even tell him [truth machine] to tone it down tells me everything. I am now a troll? Thank you Glenn.
Alexandra, you may not be a troll, but this is not your fight. If you don't want to be insulted by Glenn's troll, why don't you stay on your own blog where you can take care of your own trolls as you please. I really don't think it is reasonable to deliberately choose to insert yourself into this discussion, decide that you don't like the parameters, then complain that Glenn hasn't ridden up on his white horse to slay your dragon, or, rather, your troll, as the case may be.
Peach,
ReplyDelete"I really don't think it is reasonable to deliberately choose to insert yourself into this discussion, decide that you don't like the parameters,"
I don't understand your comment. I spoke up for Gedaliya as you did earlier on at length. Now I am "inserting myself" and your comment is acceptable? This is not my fight, but it's what...your fight?
I happen to know Glenn personally, as I do Gedaliya, and I wanted my feelings to be known, just as you did. I also am not the person who started or carried on about the comment thread nor am I the person who will be intimidated by personal attacks by someone like TM who clearly has a personal issue.
In any event Glenn has subsequently posted on this issue on the other thread, therefore discussion here now seems innapropriate.
Alexandra,
ReplyDeleteI think my comment was very clear and, frankly, I have no doubt that you do understand it, although you might not care for what I said. In any event, I agree, Glenn has taken this discussion to another thread, as he had suggested he would, and I am more than happy to have this thread get back to the original issue at hand.
Kris C.
Peach,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I truly do not wish to fight with you. You seem a reasonable person and I know you disagree with rudeness as much as I do.
Glenn has made his position clear regarding abusive comments on the other thread, and it's his call.
I wish you a goodnight, and hope you enjoy the Oscars if you are watching.
anonymous:
ReplyDeletearne -
bart is a regular troll here and unless he has something particularly interesting, he shouldn't be encouraged to come back.
not telling you what to comment on.
just sayin' he's a troll.
don't feed him.
Yeah, I know what Bart's up to. He says the same thing for days, gets blown out of the water, and most people don't think it worthwhile to keep repeating the same refutations over and over when he ignores them. Which I think I said there WRT Glenn's refusal to repeat himself (and which Glenn himself stated in a post above mine).
That said, it was fun to point out that Bart is on our side WRT asking for an investigation. ;-)
As to trolls in general, I do admit to being of the ones that have a hard time letting people spout nonsense and/or lies; my "send" finger is itchy. But given the commentary here, I will try to restrain myself. So to you, Bart: I'm done with you on the issue of the NSA investigation.
Cheers,
How will Snowe, Dewine, and Hagel like being the victims of a Saturday Night Massacre?
ReplyDeleteOn Constant's blog today:
ReplyDeletehttp://constantpated.blogspot.com
It is irrelevant that the DNC is a "minority." The Statues give Congress -- namely the Ranking Member in each Committee, or the Senior DNC person -- the power to order the NSA IG to conduct a review.
I love your blog, Glenn. PP
Nice to see the copy and paste crowd have again took over the blog, trying to convince the world through the sheer volumn of the tangent posts and dangling dialog that they are smarter than everyone else and have all the answers.
ReplyDeleteWhat an accomplishment when a contrairian, copy and paste troll can engage the egos and arogance of a few commenters and drown out glenn and those that come to discuss his topics.
Nice going morons -- thanks for feeding the troll...
Come on, everyone, we've got two days to do it. Here are the numbers. DO IT!
ReplyDeletehow about you quit telling everyone else what to do, since you obviously don't have a clue...
yeah right -- between feeding the trolls and making snarky comments, you really have the right to tell me what to do don't you?
moron...
Like you have any real idea what you talk about...
turing test said...
ReplyDeleteGris Lobo, you are welcome.
I may repost this idea of absentee voting a few times before November
I think that would be a very good idea. I'm sure there are others besides myself that are unaware of the option of doing so.
peachkfc: And you are rudely insulting me because . . .?
ReplyDeleteYou managed to find a rude insult where there wasn't one. In any case, it's not hard to figure out the motivation for rudeness and insults -- they are usually indicators of contempt. But I wasn't feeling any contempt for you, and didn't express any. I merely pointed out that it's better use evidence in place of imaginings when the former is available. If found my mode of expression "rude", there's a book or two about how varying communication styles and expectations can result in miscommunication that you might want to read.
As for Alexandra, she is trolling here (as well as being a truly despicable person for whom I have more contempt than can be expressed in this medium), and your comment to her was quite perceptive.
P.S. I respectfully disagreed with Glenn's decision to restrict gedalyia and possibly to restrict or ban other trolls, such as yourself
ReplyDeleteI'm not a troll, something that Glenn has recognized, even if you haven't. He recognizes it because he has found ideas and insights in my posts, and probably has noticed that they are targeted to specific comments, rather than being designed to bait whoever comes along, the way Gedaliya's, often Bart's, and a number of the anonymous posters' comments are. And he, unlike you and Alexandra, doesn't get hung up on shallow nonsubstantive issues like "rudeness".
truth machine said...
ReplyDeleteP.S. I respectfully disagreed with Glenn's decision to restrict gedalyia and possibly to restrict or ban other trolls, such as yourself
I'm not a troll, something that Glenn has recognized, even if you haven't. He recognizes it because he has found ideas and insights in my posts, and probably has noticed that they are targeted to specific comments, rather than being designed to bait whoever comes along, the way Gedaliya's, often Bart's, and a number of the anonymous posters' comments are. And he, unlike you and Alexandra, doesn't get hung up on shallow nonsubstantive issues like "rudeness"
One person's troll may be another person's genius, I suppose, but I would not presume to speak for Glenn's opinion about anything and I'm not sure you should either. Be that as it may, I have not been around long enough to know you very well, so perhaps I should not hang a label on you too quickly. (I also think I may have confused you with some of the really nasty commenters here and for that I apologize.)
Now, I will not again presume that I know your intentions, but I must inform you that I am highly insulted by your comparing me to Alexandra; the very idea makes my skin crawl. More important, you are quite wrong about me. I am not hung up on rudeness, obscenity, or anything else; as far as I'm concerned, you and everyone can say whatever the hell you want, it's no skin off my nose. I only mentioned rudeness to you because I perceived it to be there in your comment to me and I simply asked you why you felt you needed to be rude. You have said you did not intend to be rude, I accept that, so that's the end of it for me.
Kris C.
There's pretty good evidence that the public does indeed care about George Bush and Dick Cheney's domestic spying.
ReplyDeleteYou can dismiss one poll as being the result of a "liberal media", but when you see poll after poll all showing similar results, and even reliable conservatives saying it's time to take a closer look at lawbreaking in the White House; when you've got right-wing media organs like the Wall Street Journal and Barron's writing articles about impeachment; when you hear some of the biggest Rush-fans talking about things in the Bush presidency going "too far", then I think you can safely say the public is paying attention, and does indeed care.
If you listen closely to what's coming out of the RNC and the Hannity's, Limbaughs and Savages, you start getting a picture of fear bordering on hysteria. I'm old enough to remember some of the scrambling that went on during the months leading up to the Watergate hearings, and it all sounds familiar to me. Things are changing in this country. The GOP's last resort is still Diebold, but there are even cracks starting to show up in that safety net.
I think it finally comes down to the fact that Americans may be slow to move, but there are enough decent people who believe in the principles upon which this country are founded, and that put country before Republican party political gain, that there will be a reckoning for the Bush Administration. Just look at the way the more honorable members of the Right-Wing media army are starting to separate from their more dispicable associates. I've been reading some astonishing posts in the most unexpected places, like the NRO Corner, etc. Glenn's mentioned a few of them himself.
P.S. I also think I may have confused you with some of the really nasty commenters
ReplyDeleteI am nasty, but nastiness is not equivalent to trolling. It is this focus on form rather than substance that you and Alexandra share -- which is not a "comparison", any more than to say that you are both female is to "compare" you.
P.P.S. I don't really think you're stupid. I was being reactively nasty -- in fact, on afterthought, I think I was stupid to write those posts. We're allies and it makes no objective sense for me to antagonize you like that. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteBut I did not, in fact, compare you to Alexandra. I compared (or contrasted) you -- and Alexandra -- to Glenn, not to each other.
truth machine said...
ReplyDeleteP.P.S. I don't really think you're stupid. I was being reactively nasty -- in fact, on afterthought, I think I was stupid to write those posts. We're allies and it makes no objective sense for me to antagonize you like that. I apologize.
But I did not, in fact, compare you to Alexandra. I compared (or contrasted) you -- and Alexandra -- to Glenn, not to each other.
I was all set to write a really nasty response to your earlier two posts until I saw this one. Apology accepted and appreciated. But I don't like being mentioned in the same sentence with Alexandra or in any way lumped into any category that includes her (e.g., people being compared to Glenn and coming up short) whatever the reason. Since you're not exactly a big fan of hers, I am sure you can understand my feelings on this. Besides, I haven't been around long enough nor do you know me well enough (I mean, I've only been posting here for three days, for crissake) to put me into any category at all or to compare me to anybody. But you're right, we are allies, so let's not fight anymore. With each other, anyway; I encourage fighting with the likes of the skin-crawl inducing Alexandra.
the likes of the skin-crawl inducing Alexandra
ReplyDeleteWe have more in common than I had appreciated (silly hasty me). Thanks for your comments.
truth machine said...
ReplyDeletethe likes of the skin-crawl inducing Alexandra
We have more in common than I had appreciated (silly hasty me). Thanks for your comments.
My pleasure. I look forward to talking to you more and working with you, Glenn, and our fellow travelers (so to speak) on achieving our common goals. See you in the next thread.
I can assure you, anon, that I will give all due to consideration to your comments: mu.
ReplyDeleteGlenn and Prissy,
ReplyDeleteHere's the link: How to force the NSA IG to review the matter: [ Click ] This is action outside the committee -- so what's Frist's excuse not to direct the NSA IG to review; and why isn't the Ranking Member asserting this rule?
. . . .No answers: Time to plan for a State Constitutional Convention to change Article 1 Section 5, and make the Senate/House rules something the states directly write and monitor, per 10th Amendment. We can withdraw from the Congress the power to monitor their own rules.
Don't think it can happen? Look what one blog did in 30 days: Click Everyone now knows the local citizens can compel Congress to face an issue per the House Rules.
We can do it again on the House/Senate rules themselves -- and strip the power rom the Chamber to make it's own rules. There are eight months until the November election -- plenty of time to grind the RNC lawfully into the ground.