Several weeks ago, The Washington Post published an Op-Ed jointly written by Bill Bennett and his neoconservative comrade Alan Dershowitz, in which Bennett -- of all people -- pretended to be an advocate of a free press by decrying the media's "capitulat[ion] to Islamists." Bennett was upset that only a handful of American newspapers had published the Mohammed cartoons, arguing that by failing to publish the cartoons, "the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities."
As I noted at the time and on several other occasions, Bush supporters like Bennett are the last people who ought to be parading around under the banner of a free press, given their lengthy and intensifying efforts to destroy investigative journalism in this country by criminalizing its defining functions and threatening reporters with imprisonment who expose dubious, or worse, conduct on the part of the Bush administration. That is a very real and disturbing trend which has received far less attention than it deserves -- particularly from, ironically and revealingly enough, the press itself.
Yesterday, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau received well-deserved Pulitzer Prizes for "national reporting" based on their (year-long-delayed) disclosure of the President's illegal NSA eavesdropping program. That award has set off a new slew of bitter commentary from Bush supporters, including Bennett, proclaiming that Risen and Lichtblau belong in prison. On his radio show this morning, the great free press crusader Bennett said: "I think what they did is worthy of jail."
Powerline, as always, helpfully expounds on this definitively American principle of throwing reporters in jail who publish stories which damage the political interests of the Commander-in-Chief during a Time of War. In an item entitled "Pulitzer Prize for Treason," Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson says that Risen and Lichtblau won the Pulitzer "for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists," which -- according to Johnson, "is a particularly serious crime insofar as it lends assistance to the enemy" -- all together, now -- "in a time of war."
According to Big Trunk, the Times reporters are even worse than Stalin apologist Walter Duranty, who wrote for the Times and won a Pulitzer in the 1930s. This is how he explains his sequencing of journalistic villains:
What about the Pulitzer Prize committee? When Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for the Times in connection with his mendacious coverage of Stalin's Soviet Union, he performed valuable public relations work for a mass murderer. He nevertheless did no direct harm to the United States. Today's Pulitzer Prize award to the Times brings a new shame to the Pulitzer Prize committee that builds on its disgrace last year via the award to the AP.
Remember - these are the people who think that they are elevated and pure enough to invade other countries in order to teach the repressed masses about democracy and freedom. They endlessly tout their own patriotism and crusades for freedom while agitating for the imprisonment of journalists who publish stories which reflect poorly on their leader. On countless fronts, they are on the precipice of dismantling every defining value and principle of liberty we have.
In his Washington Post Op-Ed where he pretended to believe in a free press, Bennett said this:
[O]ur general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent.
Today, Bennett said that the reporters who sparked one of the most important investigative stories in the last five years should be arrested, tried and convicted -- presumably for treason (I wonder whether Bennett and Johnson believe that a couple of decades in prison is a sufficient punishment for these reporters; after all, we hang, not imprison, traitors).
It is difficult, and I think foolish, to ignore these ugly impulses which are always pulsating immediately beneath the veneer of so many Bush followers. These are not random, fringe commentators whose extremist views are being held up to make a point. Rather, these are among the most representative and, in Bennett's case, influential Bush followers who have been incessantly and indignantly calling for the imprisonment of journalists. And as the drumbeat for war against Iran grows more intense, so, too, will the perceived justification for these types of distinctly un-American measures. The more "times of war" we have, the less room we have for marginal liberties, such as the luxury of a free press.
UPDATE: Bill Bennett's radio rant, an audio clip of which is here, is highly worth listening to in order to smell the destination to which our country has descended in five short years. Does this sound anything like the United States to you? Speaking of Risen and Lichtblau (and Dana Priest), Bennett said that they:
took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others, that they not release it - they not only released it, they publicized it -- they put it on the front page, and it damaged us, it hurt us.
How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program - so people are going to stop making calls - since they are now aware of this - they're going to adjust their behavior . . . .
Are they punished, are they in shame, are they embarrassed, are they arrested? No, they win pulitzer prizes - they win pulitzer prizes - I don't think what they did was worthy of an award - I think what they did was worthy of jail, and I think this investigation needs to go forward. . . . .
But these people who reveal our secrets, who hurt our war efforts . . . who hurt the efforts of the President's people . . . they shouldn't be given prizes and awards for this, they shouldn't be given prizes and awards for this, they should be looked into . . . the Espionage Act, investigation of these leaks, I'm telling you, I'm hot. . . .
They published this story "against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president." What journalists would dare defy the wishes of the president? And in America, no less. And now, The Terrorists know that we are trying to eavesdrop on them, because they never knew that before. And these reporters therefore belong in prison.
Perhaps the Post's memory need somes jogging. The Post should not forget that Dershowitz is a staunch believer in human rights as well, believing in the good efficacy of torture and an advocate of the torture warrant as touted in his famous paper.
ReplyDeleteAlso the Post's editors should remember that Bennet can best be remembered for his books on virtue and the virtuous life he has led.
Write to CNN. Get him off the air.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Bennett say this? His radio program? Is there a transcript?
ReplyDeleteWhere did Bennett say this? His radio program? Is there a transcript?
ReplyDeleteThe link to the audio is in the Corner link I posted.
Here's a direct link to the mp3
ReplyDeleteYes the book is very good. I can't remember if it was there, or in Coll's Ghost Wars where I read that the CIA had not not been taken by surprise by the Pakistani nuke test--that they knew, but saying so would have caused problems in the always complicated politics of the US and the subcontinent.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder. Just suppose if you extended the line made by guys like Bennett, Dershowitz, and Gingrich it to its logical conclusion. What would they think about the world resulting from their world-view?
ReplyDeleteBill Bennett, founding father:
ReplyDelete"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless the press prints something against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president."
Seeing as office-holders all take their oaths to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION of the United States, it would seem that the real traitors are the ones who are abridging our freedon, not the ones who are exercising it.
ReplyDeletejust saying......
... and if an editor publishes an anonymous source, a torture warrant shall forthwith issues to discover the source.
ReplyDeleteA little off topic, but this quote in Carl Bernstein's Vanity Fair article bolsters Glenn's often-repeated point that the GOP scare tactic on the censure- investigation-impeachment question, that if the Democrats pursue any of this they will be trounced in the elections, is malarkey.
ReplyDeleteIt's really the other way around:
Karl Rove and other White House strategists are betting (with odds in their favor) that Republicans on Capitol Hill are extremely unlikely to take the high road before November and endorse any kind of serious investigation into Bush's presidency—a gamble that may increase the risk of losing Republican majorities in either or both houses of Congress, and even further undermine the future of the Bush presidency. Already in the White House, there is talk of a nightmare scenario in which the Democrats successfully make the November congressional elections a referendum on impeachment—and win back a majority in the House, and maybe the Senate too.
But voting now to create a Senate investigation—chaired by a Republican—could work to the advantage both of the truth and of Republican candidates eager to put distance between themselves and the White House.
The calculations of politicians about their electoral futures should pale in comparison to the urgency of examining perhaps the most disastrous five years of decision-making of any modern American presidency.
When Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for the Times in connection with his mendacious coverage of Stalin's Soviet Union, he performed valuable public relations work for a mass murderer.
ReplyDeleteYes, much as Powerline does today.
.
Speaking of Alan Dershowitz, you know what's really funny? Here's how he has himself described by his Agent:
ReplyDelete"the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights."
"a feisty civil libertarian. . ."
"impassioned civil libertarian. . ."
"compassionate eloquent leadership and persistent advocacy in the struggle for civil and human rights."
"outstanding contribution as a scholar and dedicated defender of human rights."
Oh yeah -- these are all quotes from major corporate media publications or awards he has received.
I'll retire to bedlam.
Shit, you don't have to stretch for extreme examples like the NSA wiretap program--the media whores were behaving even more supinely for Bush on a day to day basis for years, than they ever did in regard to the Danish cartoons. Ask Elizabeth "Asking Questions Is Scary" Bumiller. At least with the cartoons, there was a distinct risk of violence; plus, no one really needed to see the cartoons in order to have a reasonably well-informed opinion about them.
ReplyDeleteShorter Bennett:
Self-censorhip on behalf of violent Muslims: Bad
Self-censorship on behalf of mendacious Administration: Good.
The very annoying thing is that Powerline doesn't have comments. So it isn't possible to confront them with that link to Glenn's compilation of Bush quotes that let the terrorists know the tools we are using to listen to them.
ReplyDeleteI have only read the LA Times' coverage of the Pulitzer awards. Does any of the stories about the Risen/Lichtblau NSA story mention or even allude to the NYTimes' having suppressed the story before the presidential election?
ReplyDeleteHell, it wouldn't even have appeared in time to qualify for this year's Pulitzers, or maybe ever, if not for the pressure created by the impending publication of Risen's book! You'd think that craven performance by the Times would be worthy of note in Pulitzer analysis stories -- the irony of a paper basking in an award for a story Sulzberger and Keller wanted to sit on.
Well, well, well.
ReplyDeleteI see there are no comments allowed on Powerline. Not surprised (I had never checked before because I don't want to give them hits).
I wanted to point out (not that it would do any good) that Mr. Johnson is incorrect.
"for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists
No. No, sir. They are not performing surveillance on terrorists; that is demonstrably false.
The NSA is listening to everything in order to find *suspected* terrorists. Those suspected are given to the FBI for followup. Remember the FBI agents commenting a few months ago about the thousands of leads they are having to follow up? Leads that go nowhere?
Saying "terrorists under surviellance" implies that we know they are terrorists BEFORE we listen. Demonstrably false, as the FBI has to follow up. If we know they are terrorists, why send the FBI to find out if they are terrorists?
These people continue to completely misrepresent the NSA program, even in the face of already published, non-leaked information that demonstrates their representation is false.
I think Bennett has always fancied himself the Movement Conservatives' Paul Joseph Goebbels. He was a product of academe as well wasn't he?
ReplyDeletemichael - I remember that TIAT (Tempest in a Teapot). The strangest thing about it was that when asked if they had to cut gruesomeness out to air their documentary on network TV, they said no. They were used to editing in camera, as it were, and the choice to avoid filming people dying and bodies was made at the scene with the camera running.
ReplyDeleteDidn't stop the bloviators from claiming hidden meaning and dark conspiracy from it all.
Note: did work in video for a while. Experienced news camera folk have a sixth sense (or well trained judgement) about being able to frame a scene to avoid things that shouldn't go out over the air on live TV.
Bennett is a boob. There will always be camp followers and apologists for whatever regime is in power and they are of no consequence. Bennett is guilty of nothing more serious than syncophancy.
ReplyDeleteBush and his cabal are the real criminals here. And not the "high crimes and misdemeanors" type. I mean the treasonous kind, the lifetime in prison kind of crime.
Bush's motives in this appear to be nothing more than personal gain, and he has broken the law and sold out his country while damaging our national security to accomplish his goals.
His is a textbook example of treason.
The Post is just a mess these days. Is anyone in charge over there?
ReplyDeleteAt least the NYT had the decency to do this:
For Bush and Press, Informal Talks
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE (NYT) 431 words
Published: March 28, 2006
President Bush has been holding informal off-the-record sessions with major news organizations over the last several days.
(snip)
The New York Times, which was invited to attend a session today, has declined to participate.
Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief for The Times, said in a statement last night: ''The Times has declined this opportunity after weighing the potential benefits to our readers against the prospect of withholding information from them about the discussion with Mr. Bush. As a matter of policy and practice, we would prefer when possible to conduct on-the-record interviews with public officials.''
Times editors and reporters have participated in such unreported sessions with several presidents, including Mr. Bush, over the years. These have involved both social situations and substantive discussions.
This was momentous, and shows that the NYT is getting serious about fixing their journalistic whoring during the last 5 years. Coupled with their new policy of *granting* anonimity and explaining to readers why it was granted, instead of just mentioning the sources are anonimous, there are some good changes in the grey lady.
But does the Post show a similar desire? The editorial section feels more and more like a bad college rag.
I must strenuously disagree with Mr. Bennett's comments regarding the Pullitzer prizes awarded to the reporters that revealed the activities of the NSA in conducting warrantless wiretapping. Quite honestly, the tactic of threatening reporters with imprisonment, is one of the signal characteristics of repressive regimes - the kinds of regimes that we properly oppose. The NSA's domestic surveillance activities, done in clear violation of the FISA statute, are absolutely within the purview of investigative journalism as they are the proper subject of serious debate about the very characteristics that define America as a free society rather than a country that puts efforts undertaken under the rubric of "national security" ahead of individual civil liberties.
ReplyDeleteTaken as a whole, the actions of the Administration in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, must be viewed with skepticism, not because they are the actions of any particular individuals, but because the best of people can be tempted towards totalitarianism in the name of safety. This is a real debate to be had. What is it that truly makes America what she is as opposed to the North Koreas, Irans and Uzbekistans of the world. My answer is that it is our freedoms and, most especially, our freedom to question what government officials do in our name.
The idea that terrorists thought that the country that enacted the USA Patriot Act was not conducting telephone surveilance until the unwarranted wiretapping was revealed is too laughable for words. If we continue to project our own stupidity on the enemy, our prospects are dim indeed. For our own stupidity is--apparently--boundless.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the desire to gag others is not just restricted to these conservatards.
ReplyDeleteIf you visit talkleft today, you can see self-described liberal feminists telling Jeralyn to STFU because of her posts with regard to the Duke Lacrosse team.
I am a self-described liberal feminist as well, but I don't see too much difference between Bennett and Marcotte.
Bill Bennett is always a little fast and loose with the truth. People who like to tell other people how to be virtuous often are less than fully honest themselves.
ReplyDeleteHe took a Talkers Magazine ranking list, which showed 24 radio hosts above him, and reported himself as being the #14 talk radio host in America, all because several of those above him on the list were tied with each other. So, if the Sox and Cleveland are tied for first, does that mean that whoever comes next is in second place? Well... in Bill Bennett's world it does.
As Bennett is fond of saying about Ted Kennedy, "I refuse to take moral instruction from such a person."
I apply that statement to Bennett.
What will we tell the children, I mean Wolf Blitzer?
ReplyDeleteSometimes life just forces a Godwin's Law violation on you:
ReplyDeleteLast night I saw for the first time the British WWII propaganda masterpiece 49th Parallel, filmed in Canada.
The speeches of the characters played by Leslie Howard (an intellectual vacationing in the Rockies) and Raymond Massey (slightly AWOL Canadian soldier) were eerie -- because they responded to the exact arguments being made now by Bennett and other Bush supporters. Only in the movie, of course, the arguments were voiced by a true-believer Nazi...
If they gave a Pulitzer for hypocrisy, Bill Bennett and the bloggers of Powerlie would be a shoo-in.
ReplyDeleteHehe. The narcicistic bastards read everything Glenn writes. They've seen it and this post. They're fuming and scheming even as I type.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know Powerline reads here. But lacking as they do a comments section, it isn't possible to created a public demand for them to confront the Bush statements; they can pretend not to notice what is being said at other blogs, but it is hard to ignore an inundation in one's comments section.
Blathering Bloviator Bill bennett shows the dangers of going into a battle of wits unarmed
ReplyDelete"took classified information, secret information, published it in their newspapers, against the wishes of the president, against the request of the president and others, that they not release it - they not only released it, they publicized it -- they put it on the front page, and it damaged us, it hurt us.
"How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program - so people are going to stop making calls - since they are now aware of this - they're going to adjust their behavior"
Of course the terrorists are adjusting their behavior
I hear smoke signals and 2 cups attached with string are quite the rage with al-Qaeda now
Bill, do yourself a favor, and gamble to your heart's content, as at least your pure stupidity won't be on display for all the world to see
Has anybody thought this through? If the communication has stopped between the "terrorists" and their "links" on the inside due to the exposed wire tapping, isn't the Admin calling this a success!
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that the best thing that could have happened to twart this (spurious) war on terror it would be the fear that is caused by this leak!
Bennett is a moron, plain and simple.
Does it sound like America?
ReplyDeleteWell, it sounds a lot like the vision of America endorsed by National Review back in 1994, when they were praising "the 100 best Conservative movies" where they gave the following awards:
Best Movie Critiques of Journalism. Ace in the Hole (1951), a/k/a The Big Carnival, directed by Billy Wilder. Top reporter Kirk Douglas prolongs agony of a mine cave-in victim to juice up his story.
Honorable Mention: Absence of Malice (1981), in which Paul Newman experiences the consequences of press absolutism; and Too Hot to Handle (1938), crackerjack comedy-adventure and prototypical Clark Gable film, in which he stages newsreels in war-torn China.
(also these, completely unironic:
Pictures to Make the Patriotic Blood Boil: The Hanoi Hilton (1987), in which U.S. POWs endure North Vietnamese savagery; Heartbreak Ridge (1986), in which Clint Eastwood liberates Grenada; Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985); The Deer Hunter (1979), with Robert De Niro playing Russian roulette; Red Dawn (1984); Thirty Seconds over Tokyo (1944); and Wake Island (1942).
Winston Churchill's Favorite Movie: Churchill loved That Hamilton Woman (1941), which he reportedly saw 11 times. Starring the ultimate romantic couple, Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh, this is a stirring dramatization of the life of Admiral Nelson and his mistress. Since the U.S. was still officially neutral, isolationists in Congress were enraged by the Hollywood-made, British-produced film's clear parallel between Napoleon and Hitler. "You cannot compromise with dictators," Nelson urges the cabinet. "You must wipe them out." The climactic Battle of Trafalgar, very well done, brought Churchill to tears. Inspiring score by Miklos Rosza.
[...]
Best Portrait of a U.S. Government Bureaucrat: William Atherton, as the EPA official in Ghostbusters (1984), whose mindless enforcement of the "rules" allows the fearsome phantoms to escape, wreaking havoc on New York.)
--What is Good is what serves the Country, and the Country and the Party are indistinguishable. Anything which does not bolster the Party is thus Bad and must be suppressed.
ggr:
ReplyDeletei think it is reasonable to suppose that bennett's attack on lichtbrau and risen was not just personal, spontaneous commentary,
but rather
a co-ordinated effort to blunt the media impact of their pulitzer win.
these tactics are not unsimilar in intent and consequence to tactics used by the national socialist party in germany in the 1920's and 30's,
as i commented (1:53p) in your post of 4/17 entitled
"Fighting All the Hitlers".
44 comments? Dear friends, Bennett's show doesn't have 44 LISTENERS! Please allow this hack to toil in his richly-deserved radio anonymity.
ReplyDeleteWell Glenn,
ReplyDeleteYou got the title right at least. It was a pulitzer for treason.
Says the "Dog"
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau received well-deserved (sic) Pulitzer Prizes for "national reporting" based on their (year-long-delayed) disclosure of the President's illegal NSA eavesdropping program. That award has set off a new slew of bitter commentary from Bush supporters, including Bennett, proclaiming that Risen and Lichtblau belong in prison. On his radio show this morning, the great free press crusader Bennett said: "I think what they did is worthy of jail."
This is a new low for the press.
It was bad enough when Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were given awards for publishing fraudulent "NG documents" with the purpose of slandering the President during an election.
Now, the Pulitzer board is awarding Risen and Lichtblau for violating the Espionage Act and informing al Qaeda that the NSA is tapping their calls and email.
The arrogance of the media in thinking that they are above the law which applies to all of the rest of us has reached new heights.
A few thoughts on the likes of Bill Bennett et al from some politicians who know what they're talking about:
ReplyDelete"Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government. The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country… more good than it will do the enemy [who might draw comfort from it], and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
Senator Robert A. Taft, two weeks after Pearl Harbor,
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
GEORGE ORWELL
"Politics and the English Language"
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
James Madison “Federalist No. 47"
"Naturally, the common people don't want war. But, after all it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering atNuremberg, 1946
And, of course, voters should not vote for the Democrats in time of war because that would embolden our enemies. :-)
ReplyDelete(I had to put a smiley there. Otherwise some people would think I was being serious, rather than sarcastic.)
Bill Bennett has long been the voice of conversative bloviation. I rememeber listening to him on the Charlie Rose show the night of the first Million Man March. When Charlie asked him if this wasn't a good thing, a million black men getting together peacefully, Bennett went off on a tangent that included him saying that Colin Powell should be on his knees begging the conservatives, which Charlie looked completely stunned and cut the interview. So much for compassionate conversativism.
ReplyDeletebart: Let's assume for the moment that you are right. The press has no right to report anything that does not support the war effort. Assume, however, that there's some criminality in this administration that breaks the law. Suppose they try to cover it up. Suppose that if it comes out, it might (but it's not assured) undermine the war effort. Should the press report on it?
ReplyDeleteI feel the press shoudl report the TRUTH nothing else. Simple isn't it?
ReplyDelete"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteThe very annoying thing is that Powerline doesn't have comments. So it isn't possible to confront them with that link to Glenn's compilation of Bush quotes that let the terrorists know the tools we are using to listen to them.
3:25 PM
Why don't you go ahead and email them this information...if you're lucky, you'll be graced with a profanity-laced, insulting reply.
I'm not sure whether it's Hinderaker or Johnson, but others have published on the web some of the private emails sent to them by one of these two Powerline honchos, and it's amusing to see the coarse bullying which is only faintly implicit in their more restrained public writing. Scratch the surface of a prim and proper Midwest lawyer and you'll find a screeching 12 year old hysteric.
What a bunch of quisling putzes.
CNN's Situation Room just ran their blog survey on the question of the generals' criticism of Rumsfeld. They did not show one blog run by former military that supports the generals. Anyone know of any blogs that do this? I suggest that you send it to CNN's Situation Room via their remarks page.
ReplyDeletebart:
ReplyDeleteNow, the Pulitzer board is awarding Risen and Lichtblau for violating the Espionage Act and informing Americans that the NSA is tapping their calls and email.
The arrogance of the administration in thinking that they are above the law which applies to all of the rest of us has reached new heights.
There. Fixed that for you. (TFTFY)
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeletebart: Let's assume for the moment that you are right. The press has no right to report anything that does not support the war effort.
I did not say that. The phrase "does not support the war effort" can mean anything. However, I think you can more than safely say that you at no time notify the enemy the means and methods of how we are spying on him.
Assume, however, that there's some criminality in this administration that breaks the law. Suppose they try to cover it up. Suppose that if it comes out, it might (but it's not assured) undermine the war effort. Should the press report on it?
Very good question.
To start, you cannot legally classify criminal activity, so the press in your hypothetical would probably be without legal liability for their publication.
However, what makes your hypo so good is that it recognizes that the press also has a moral obligation to its nation not to provide aid and comfort to the enemy through publications which would harm the war effort. This is not a feeling shared by much of our press.
If the President violated the law, but that violation was procedural and did not harm any of our citizens, then I as a publisher would not blow an intelligence gathering program like the NSA Program to the enemy. What possible good apart from self aggrandizement (and maybe picking up a Pulitzer) would such a publication serve?
If the President was acting illegally and harming Americans, then you go to the press.
Risen & the NYT fail in both of the measures which you offered.
The WH informed them about the legal basis for the program and the fact that both Congress and the FISA court had been consulted. Risen offered no argument in his book that the NSA Program was illegal and thus he is no whistle blower who would be immune to the Espionage Act.
Nor did Risen appear to give much thought to the harm he was doing to the war effort of disclosing this program to al Qaeda. He made the same weak argument that al Qeada must have known their phones were being tapped after admitting that his anonymous leakers told him that at least two terrorist plots had been stopped due to this program.
Risen is a criminal - period. The fact that the Pulitzer committee gave him a prize for this crime makes a mockery of the prize rather than reforming the criminal act.
The whole ME dialogue over Israel's right to exist has been confused for us. The Arab countries do not recognize Israel's right to exist until Israel recognizes Palestine's right to exist. It is a stand off. When the UN divided the land of Palestine, they mandated two states: Israel and Palestine and Jersalem as an international city.
ReplyDeleteThis was not acceptable to the Zionist Christians or Zionist Jews.
The Arabs are holding out for a Palestinian state before they recognize Israel's right to exist. And for 60 years we have been in limbo...this is also one of the reasons the UN is dismissed as relevant. It would serve everyone 's interest since the world is being held hostage to this crisis of who gets to exist as a state on the land: Israel or Palestine. Hasn't enough blood been shed...Those of us who don't have a personal attachment to the land in the ME would really like this resolved before a horrific war takes place...
Evidence that Dershowitz is a neo-con, Glenn?
ReplyDelete'Supreme Injustice' hardly seems like the work of a hardcore PNACer.
As for his idea on torture, and torture warrants, I thought those were garbare until it was revealed that we freely torture people anyway. Now I think they're utterly necessary. Saying 'don't torture' is the left's version of abstinence-only sex-ed. People will torture, and they will have sex, and we have to deal with those facts instead of putting our heads in the sand.
Bart: The NYTimes article does not do what you say it does. Since no one but the Pres. and others know what those programs do, the specifics are not even clear. In fact, the NYTimes censored itself on what it did publish, afraid that it might do exactly what you say it did.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there are plenty of sources where this information is available. There's plenty of evidence to support the view that the terrorists aren't as dumb as you and others put them out to be. Nor is there even evidence that the program(s) have even been successful in doing anything but sending FBI agents on fruitless investigations.
What you seem reluctant to admit, however, is that the brunt of the NYTimes article was not reporting on the specifics of the program but instead on calling into question the legality and constitutionality of the program.
It is this question that is of paramount importance--in wartime or otherwise. In wartime because the tendency to cut corners in the interests of expediency is so great.
I'm a bit surprised that you draw a distinction between procedural infractions and others. That is such a nebulous term that it's almost vacuous. In what sense is any Presidential action merely procedural--meaning thereby, I imagine, having no effect on US citizens?
Except that bart fails to note to the forum that the NYT witheld publication for a year because the administration argued that it would hurt "the war effort". The NYT only published the story after it got wind that it was all BS.
ReplyDeleteBart said, "If the President violated the law, but that violation was procedural and did not harm any of our citizens, then I as a publisher would not blow an intelligence gathering program like the NSA Program to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteWell Bart, The Fourth Amendment, FISA, and the general application federal and state wiretapping laws say that a warrant is necessary for a wiretap. There is a reason for this. It limits the governments control over the individual so the individual can have freedom to communicate. Now assume that the NSA is recording all voice, email, and internet activity of all of the citizens [including you] without any warrant. Would you as a publisher disclose this if the President asked you not to disclose it? Do not the People have a right to know that their government is recording them outside of the Law?
By the way, there is significant evidence that all communications are at least being monitored by the NSA.
Would it change your opinion if the Executive Branch was using the information vacuumed from the wiretaps to intimidate their opposition to shut up or have embarrassing infomation disclosed in public?
Where is the line crossed between "supporting the war" and disclosing executive blackmail?
Throughout history, despotic governments have succeeded in curtailing the press but the same argument that bart is making: it hurts our efforts to fight X.
ReplyDeleteBut the principle of a free and independent press is so fundamental to a free society, to any society, that it would take a significant argument by the government (who are asked for their comment and can make this argument before a story is run) to convinced the media to sit on a story.
But the media does listen. It's just that the reason has to be good.
Bart would have the press be simply government PR. Welcome to dictatorship.
This is the real treason. The treason against the very foundations of our government. The treason against our liberties.
The good news, though, is that bart is part of a club that will neither change its mind nor will it change the minds of others. People like a free press. They hate the idea of government censorship, particularly when it comes to the government covering up its own law-breaking.
The public knows a good leak from a bad one. It knows better than to listen to silly slanderous screams of the whiny barts. It wants "deep throats" because it recognizes that those in power have every interest in abusing it.
The NY Times is getting better. The Washington Post is getting worse, but true reporting will never end. Not until bart and company succeed in literally killing reporters.
bart: "informing al Qaeda that the NSA is tapping their calls and email"
ReplyDeleteThis is the most ignorant spewage imaginable. Back up the assertion that prior to the NYT piece, anybody living in the real world thought for a second that such groups' communications were going unmonitored.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA different Anonymous said, Saying 'don't torture' is the left's version of abstinence-only sex-ed. People will torture, and they will have sex, and we have to deal with those facts instead of putting our heads in the sand.
ReplyDeleteWe say rape is a crime. We, and most of the world have passed very clear statutes and entered into treaties that ban torture.
To say that "'don't torture' is the left's version of abstinence-only sex-ed." is like saying, "Date rape really isn't rape after all."
Torture damages the torturer as well as the victim. It serves no function except the fulfilling of the sadistic needs of some sex-criminal. Just look at the Abu Grabe pictures, they are fundamentally sexual abuse and rape. How can there be any justification for such behavior? It is simply a crime that should be punished. The torturers and their conspirators should be prosecuted. The problem is that the chief enforcer is one of the authors of the torture.
Of course we torture. Our people rape too. That realization does not justify the crimes.
Evidence that Dershowitz is a neo-con, Glenn?
ReplyDeleteThe term "noe-conservatism" is never precisely defined, but I mean it to refer to the world-view that the predominant, even overriding, political issue which America faces is the grand Threat and Evil posed by Islamic extremism, and that all sorts of otherwise unjustifiable and even illegal conduct becomes justifiable when dealing with this unique threat. A supplemental view is that Israel and the United States have an identity of interests in this grand struggle, such that enemies of Israel (especially Islamic enemies) are, by definition, enemies of the U.S., and that we should not really distinguish between the two when making foreign policy choices.
At least by that definition, I don't see how it can be disputed that Dershowitz is a neocon. It surprised some people to see him writing with Bill Bennett, but it didn't surprise me in the slightest. On the issues about which Dershowitz cares most - the War against Terror and Israel - his views and Bennett's are far more similar than different.
As for his idea on torture, and torture warrants, I thought those were garbare until it was revealed that we freely torture people anyway.
Under American law, it is illegal to use torture in any circumstance. Dershowitz disagrees with that law and thinks torture should be legally permissible and that courts should be in the business of authorizing its use. He wants a change to the current state of the law because he opposes a ban on torture.
I think Bennett has always fancied himself the Movement Conservatives' Paul Joseph Goebbels. He was a product of academe as well wasn't he?
ReplyDeleteSlots went to Williams, Harvard Law and got a Ph.D. in political philosophy from UT-Austin.
These people have explicitly set out, both legally and illegally, to create a one-party system in this country.
Karl Rove thinks that McKinley is a good precedent for creating a GOP majority for decades.
Dear friends, Bennett's show doesn't have 44 LISTENERS!
Unfortunately, he has about 2 million. We ignore him and the other gasbags at our peril.
However, I think you can more than safely say that you at no time notify the enemy the means and methods of how we are spying on him.
Too late. James Bamford has spilled the beans about the NSA twice, the first time in 1982 with his book The Puzzle Palace and the second time in 2001 with Body of Secrets.
the press also has a moral obligation to its nation not to provide aid and comfort to the enemy through publications which would harm the war effort.
The Administration has a moral obligation not to lie about the war. Note the date:
Today there are some 200,000 Iraqis who are serving in the police and the civil defense corps and the border patrol and the army.
Rumsfeld, Monday, February 23, 2004
Slots "Rule of Law" Bennett said on his Feb. 7, 2006 radio show that should the Supreme Court rule that Fredo's NSA spying is illegal, Fredo should ignore the ruling.
The term "noe-conservatism" is never precisely defined, but I mean it to refer to the world-view that the predominant, even overriding, political issue which America faces is the grand Threat and Evil posed by Islamic extremism, and that all sorts of otherwise unjustifiable and even illegal conduct becomes justifiable when dealing with this unique threat. A supplemental view is that Israel and the United States have an identity of interests in this grand struggle, such that enemies of Israel (especially Islamic enemies) are, by definition, enemies of the U.S., and that we should not really distinguish between the two when making foreign policy choices.
ReplyDeleteThat's crap, and you know better than that. Neo-conservatism predates our concern about Islamic Extremism by half a century. In foreign policy terms, I think it's best defined as the belief in the use of American force for the good in the world. Hence the neo-con support for the Balkan wars in the 90s. But if you want to use this as yet another excuse to bash Israel and American Jews, go right ahead, it's your blog.
Bennet has shilled for Moon, speaking before his front groups, helping the conservative's messiah with his plans to subvert all we hold dear.
ReplyDeleteOf course liberals are so busy chasing their tails trying to figure out where we took a sour turn, they couldn't spot an issue or the reason with both hands.
http://www.cellwhitman.blogspot.com/
By the mid-1980s, Moon’s Unification Church had carved out a niche as an acceptable part of the American right. In one speech to his followers, Moon boasted that “without knowing it, even President Reagan is being guided by Father (Moon).” Yet, Moon also made clear that his longer-range goal was the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and America’s democratic form of government. “History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him.” Moon said, speaking of himself in the third person. “That is Father’s tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population.”
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn foreign policy terms, I think it's best defined as the belief in the use of American force for the good in the world.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that's inane, and incoherent. Who could ever have a generalized view about the instrinsic goodness of American force. Was Roosevelt a neoconservative? Truman? There is much, MUCH more to how that term is used than a mere "belief in the use of American force for the good in the world."
In any event, these label arguments are dumb where the people don't agree on the definition. Whatever you want to call what I described as neoconservatism, to me, that's what Dershowitz is.
But if you want to use this as yet another excuse to bash Israel and American Jews, go right ahead, it's your blog.
Yes, I'm struggling so much with this. I can't stop using my blog to "bash Israel and American Jews," but I am trying so hard to stop. It's just really hard.
I'd love to know the last time I wrote a single criticism of Israel or "American Jews" on this blog, if I ever did. Have any examples?
Bart says that its all OK -- America was always meant to be a facist state run by dictators anyhow. And who am I to question someone that can copy and paste with the best of them?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, there is an endless source of rightwing talking points and he has an boundless clipboard...
That's crap, and you know better than that. Neo-conservatism predates our concern about Islamic Extremism by half a century. In foreign policy terms, I think it's best defined as the belief in the use of American force for the good in the world.
ReplyDeleteNeocon is an ill-defined and often misunderstood and misuded term. I'd have to agree with Glenn. Your definition is more akin to neo-liberalism, which the cons are attempting to morph into as their raison de guerre keeps changing. Freedumb on the march and all that. That's crap for you.
Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.
In the context of United States foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition. Critics define it as interventionist with hawkish views on foreign policy. Supporters define it as advocating the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.
The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism.
Modern neoconservatism is associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard and some of the foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The term "neocon", while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition.
That's necon defs from wiki...
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon
Poor Glen. Now he will have to tackle the anti-semitism accusation because he puts America before any other country, like any good American.
What needs to happen is that sponsors who buy ad. space on such programs need to be told that their product is now being associated to this blow-hard in a negative way by a consumer who is sickened by the message a person who is going to put his money where his mouth (or not put his money where his mouth is ) is and encourage all he encounters to do the same. I don't care if this retard gets a 5 share, he is going to get canned if the sponsors pull out. I have never heard the radio show but if anyone does call em out and let it be known that they advertise on the show..write those co.'s some nasty e.mails and they will get nervous after a while...
ReplyDeleteBart: ...recognizes that the press also has a moral obligation to its nation not to provide aid and comfort to the enemy through publications which would harm the war effort. This is not a feeling shared by much of our press.
ReplyDeleteIf the President violated the law, but that violation was procedural and did not harm any of our citizens, then I as a publisher would not blow an intelligence gathering program like the NSA Program to the enemy. What possible good apart from self aggrandizement (and maybe picking up a Pulitzer) would such a publication serve?
If the President was acting illegally and harming Americans, then you go to the press.
Risen & the NYT fail in both of the measures which you offered.
The WH informed them about the legal basis for the program and the fact that both Congress and the FISA court had been consulted. Risen offered no argument in his book that the NSA Program was illegal and thus he is no whistle blower who would be immune to the Espionage Act.
Nor did Risen appear to give much thought to the harm he was doing to the war effort of disclosing this program to al Qaeda. He made the same weak argument that al Qeada must have known their phones were being tapped after admitting that his anonymous leakers told him that at least two terrorist plots had been stopped due to this program.
Risen is a criminal - period. The fact that the Pulitzer committee gave him a prize for this crime makes a mockery of the prize rather than reforming the criminal act.
Hmmmm.... one hardly knows where to begin.
I have a real problem with the phrase "...aid and comfort to the enemy..." being interpreted so as to mean that criticism of the present regime, er... administration, is de facto "aiding and comforting" the enemy. If the enemy were truth and disclosure of government tactics to the American people I would find this argument convincing. However, the administration is supposed to be accountable to the public, not the other way around. The enemy is supposed to be thoses forces of humanity and society which would curtail our freedoms to live, free, unfetterred, and to pursue our happiness in such ways as we choose. The enemy is supposed to be those forces who would declare that we live in freedom only at the mercy of, and only by the definition of, "the state," be that state religious, secular, donkey, elephant, or Nixon.
To suggest that there is no problem, no forseeable or legitimate concern raised by the prospect of an administration claiming wholesale and widespread authority to eavesdrop on American citizens with absolutely no oversight from any other branch of government is so extravagantly blind-sighted as to be somewhat breathtaking.
I am not convicting the administration of crimes - but it certainly raises questions which need answers and deserve to be posted in the open. What do you suppose was the motivation for the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of search and seizure? What do you suppose was the reason for the First Amendment's explicit call for freedom of the press other than exactly such a situation as this?
The fact that "two terrorist plots had been stopped due to this program" mitigates its potential illegality not at all. Does the fact that racial profiling resulted in several arrests for stolen cars and drug possession at all rationalize the fact that it is inherently illegal, immoral, and wrong to state, as policy, that driving a mercedes while being: under 30, and black, in New Jersey, is probable cause?
The convenience of this program is not under debate. There are many things that the US government could do to make it more convenient to: capture terrorists, criminals, fraudsters, and prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border. But tapping every phone conversation, putting the entire country under video surveillance, and putting up automated machine guns along the Mexican border are not solutions that I would suggest serve our country or the true desires and values of the people in it very well.
The president took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of this country. He has proceeded, for the past five years, to behave in such a way as to call into question his committment to this oath with respect to wrongful imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and a host of other principles that violate the spirit which he claims to hold dear.
To suggest that criticism of such an obviously fringe program under these circumstances is "treasonous" is disingenuous at best.
And if Al Qaeda was so stupid and incompetent as to not have figured out that we were tapping phone conversations, and we still haven't caught that shit-kicker bin-Laden, what does that say about our own intelligence and competence?
I want, desperately, to catch him and hold him responsible for the deaths of those people who his minions and himself have killed.
I want no part of that at the expense of our founding principles.
I believe wholeheartedly in the strength of those principles. I do not, for a moment, think that we cannot accomplish this mission without sacrificing them on the altar of national security. I think the real treason would be to do so.
See also Jacobinism
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_%28politics%29.
Some have called neocons neo-Jacobins. Listening to Bart defend Bush you can see why.
Sorry, but that's inane, and incoherent. Who could ever have a generalized view about the instrinsic goodness of American force. Was Roosevelt a neoconservative? Truman? There is much, MUCH more to how that term is used than a mere "belief in the use of American force for the good in the world."
ReplyDeleteNot really. The term wasn't relevant in the time of FDR and Truman. It became relevant later on, to contrast it from realists on the one hand, and liberals who, after Vietnam, believed nearly every use of force, aside from clear-cut self-defense, was inherently immoral.
I'd love to know the last time I wrote a single criticism of Israel or "American Jews" on this blog, if I ever did. Have any examples?
It's true; I haven't seen you bash Israel, so I take that back.
But American Jews, and Jewish support for Israel, and dual loyalty, AIPAC control of foreign policy, etc., is a theme of yours. Is it not? I recall your crooksandliars post defending the Mearsheimer/Walt article, and your bogus argument that the Jews have silenced all dissent by charging anti-Semitism. In responding to that, it's a lose/lose proposition because you'll point to this criticism and say, "see, you're charging anti-Semitism." But when the claim of Jews silencing dissent is so obviously false -- there was much discussion in the MSM, from Dowd, to Chris Matthews to Tim Russert, to name a few, before and during Iraq about whether we're going to war for Israel's sake because of American Jewish influence -- it stands out that you choose to forgoe your usual intellectual honesty to chase after this non-existent phenomenom.
Not really. The term wasn't relevant in the time of FDR and Truman. It became relevant later on, to contrast it from realists on the one hand, and liberals who, after Vietnam, believed nearly every use of force, aside from clear-cut self-defense, was inherently immoral.
ReplyDeleteNow that's definitely incoherent and inane, and just plain wrong. You are also contradicting yourself. Go read something intelligent and coherent about the subject. Come back later.
This really annoys me...
ReplyDelete"and liberals who, after Vietnam, believed nearly every use of force, aside from clear-cut self-defense, was inherently immoral."
Many liberals and progressives would favor an intervention in Darfur, but there just ain't any oil there. We think that's immoral.
I think it was David Friedman who said, "There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree on something, but I'm not one of them."
ReplyDeleteIt's like that with every ideology.
"...to contrast it from realists on the one hand, and liberals who, after Vietnam, believed nearly every use of force, aside from clear-cut self-defense, was inherently immoral.
ReplyDeleteI despise the framing in this comment as "realists vs liberals."
This is ridiculous. To suggest that everyone who opposed the Vietnam War was somehow opposed to "realism" is just so lazy and block-headed.
I would suggest exactly the opposite, in fact, was true. But I wouldn't call anyone who argued with me "anti-realist."
BTW - sorry for the length of my last comment.
"The NYT only published the story after it got wind that it was all BS"
ReplyDeleteThe USA Patriot Act was up for a vote the morning the story broke, I suppose it's just another happy coincidence.
Bart -
ReplyDeleteyou will not be taken seriously until you admit
a) Bush broke the law
b) terrorists knew that the CIA was capable of wiretapping before they read about it in Risen's book
It is very important that the public know that the President is breaking the law. He is, after all, supposed to be a public servant. His powers are delineated by the Constitution and the law. When he attempts to go beyond those parameters, he is acting in a manner that violates the safety and security of everybody in the country.
He has no more right to listen to random, private phone conversations than I do. And it's completely a distraction to try to pretend he's only listening to "terrorists". If that were the case, the FISA court would have happily given him a warrant to allow the surveillance. The problem is that we don't know exactly what the program is up to.
Given that he lied about the existence of the program for years, I would argue that it's reasonable to conclude that the administration is still lying about the nature of the program. How can we know that Bush is not using the NSA to spy on political enemies? The past history of Presidents pre-FISA is illustrative: both Democratic and Republican administrations used surveillance powers to tap into the conversations of political enemies without any probable cause of a crime being involved.
That kind of behavior is plainly against the intent of the Fourth Amendment.
I, for one, am not willing to concede this power to the President, especially not this particular President, who to all appearances is incompetent in any task he undertakes, other than smearing political opponents.
Loyalty to Bush is treason to America.
ReplyDeleteDon't hold your breath, Whispers.
ReplyDeleteBart reminds me of a troll named Gary Ruppert who is still posting someplace he hasn't been banned that Joe Wilson and Valerie plame will soon be indicted for treason.
I don't think either of them believe anything they say anymore than we do.
Don't hold your breath, Whispers.
ReplyDeleteBart reminds me of a troll named Gary Ruppert who is still posting someplace he hasn't been banned that Joe Wilson and Valerie plame will soon be indicted for treason.
I don't think either of them believe anything they say anymore than we do.
Bart said:
ReplyDelete"Now, the Pulitzer board is awarding Risen and Lichtblau for violating the Espionage Act and informing al Qaeda that the NSA is tapping their calls and email."
Bart, show some proof that Risen and Lichtblau violated the espionage act.
And as I have already proven to you many times the NSA is tapping a lot more than Al Qaida. Not to mention the fact that the Al Qaida would have to be a lot dumber than they have proven themselves to be if they were not aware that they were being tapped.
Where is Osama Bart? Oh yeah he's so dumb we still haven't caught him yet.
The USA Patriot Act was up for a vote the morning the story broke, I suppose it's just another happy coincidence
ReplyDeleteYeah. Kinda like them not releasing the story before the 2004 elections. I guess they really wanted to hurt the President.
[roll-eyes]
"the Dog" said...
ReplyDeleteWell Glenn,
You got the title right at least. It was a pulitzer for treason.
Says the "Dog"
You should write the pRESIDENT right away and insist that he make the Justice Department prosecute them right away.
Treason is a serious charge. What has become of this country when the Government won't prosecute someone that has committed treason. They published the article months ago didn't they?
Oh yeah, that's right, in this country you have to really commit treason to be prosecuted for it and you have to present real evidence in a real court to get a conviction
By the way, probably the best writing on the need for a full investigation of this administration by both parties, and drawing the necessary parallels with the Nixon administrationg, topped with incredibly eloquent writing, check out Carl Bernstein in Vanity Fair:
ReplyDeleteSenate Hearings on Bush, Now
The entire thing is phenomenal. But here are some random passages:
In terms of imminent, meaningful action by the Congress, however, the question of whether the president should be impeached (or, less severely, censured) remains premature. More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
How much evidence is there to justify such action?
…
Most of what we have learned about the reality of this administration—and the disconcerting mind-set and decision-making process of President Bush himself—has come not from the White House or the Pentagon or the Department of Homeland Security or the Treasury Department, but from insider accounts by disaffected members of the administration after their departure, and from distinguished journalists, and, in the case of a skeletal but hugely significant body of information, from a special prosecutor. And also, of late, from an aide-de-camp to the British prime minister. Almost invariably, their accounts have revealed what the president and those serving him have deliberately concealed—torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, and its apparent authorization by presidential fiat; wholesale N.S.A. domestic wiretapping in contravention of specific prohibitive law; brutal interrogations of prisoners shipped secretly by the C.I.A. and U.S. military to Third World gulags; the nonexistence of W.M.D. in Iraq; the role of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's chief of staff in divulging the name of an undercover C.I.A. employee; the non-role of Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the events of 9/11; the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman (whose mother, Mary Tillman, told journalist Robert Scheer, "The administration tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him"); the lack of a coherent post-invasion strategy for Iraq, with all its consequent tragedy and loss and destabilizing global implications; the failure to coordinate economic policies for America's long-term financial health (including the misguided tax cuts) with funding a war that will drive the national debt above a trillion dollars; the assurance of Wolfowitz (since rewarded by Bush with the presidency of the World Bank) that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for the war within two to three years after the invasion; and Bush's like-minded confidence, expressed to Blair, that serious internecine strife in Iraq would be unlikely after the invasion.
But most grievous and momentous is the willingness—even enthusiasm, confirmed by the so-called Downing Street Memo and the contemporaneous notes of the chief foreign-policy adviser to British prime minister Tony Blair—to invent almost any justification for going to war in Iraq (including sending up an American U-2 plane painted with U.N. markings to be deliberately shot down by Saddam Hussein's air force, a plan hatched while the president, the vice president, and Blair insisted to the world that war would be initiated "only as a last resort"). Attending the meeting between Bush and Blair where such duplicity was discussed unabashedly ("intelligence and facts" would be jiggered as necessary and "fixed around the policy," wrote the dutiful aide to the prime minister) were Ms. Rice, then national-security adviser to the president, and Andrew Card, the recently departed White House chief of staff.
poor poor Bart, still ever the bedwetter
ReplyDeleteIm a little surprised so much of the discussion here is still directed at responding to Bart and a couple others who represent that dwindling % of Americans still blindly loyal to Bush. They've made it clear where thay stand, and the tactics are ingrained by now to maintain immunity to rational criticism.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that Al-Quaida learned anything it could use (that Bush himself hadn't already revealed even moreso) has been thoroughly debunked by Glenn's excellent research into Bush's bragging about the things he's done to keep us all safe from The Enemy. These claims are absurd, and continuing to answer them is futile. The absurdity of those who say terrorists learned things they wouldn't have assumed, especially with Bush telling them so clearly what he was doing to stop them, is textbook Karl Rovean tactics to make claims so bizarre that people are caught off-guard and don't know how to respond.
Rove has mastered the art of claiming the ridiculous with a straight face. The recent talk about attacking Iran is the latest use of this strange strategy. The rational response to recent developments would be a move toward accountability, as the vast majority of Americans now sees the Iraq invasion for the trainwreck of incompetence it truly is. Instead, Rove moves in the completely opposite direction, behaving as if reality is not even there. He and his followers (who have mastered the art of lock-step mimicry) pretend that the plans to invade Iran (the ones the neo-cons had hoped to employ before it became clear they were complete idiots) after successfully transforming Iraq into a Democratic Republic are still called for. This has caught everyone off guard. If Rove had tried to bail Bush out the way most sane advisors would, by some incremental move, say to build forces in Iraq to levels that might actually work, or slowly drawing them down, while admitting fault and accepting responsibility for the unnecessary death and expense, people would have recognized it as a rational response to failure. It would still have been seen for the lame attempt it was to change the subject from what deserves to be done to the folks who got us in this terrible situation, but it would have seemed rational.
By acting so irrationally, Rove keeps critics at bay. Rove's bizarre moves, like responding to critics who say we can't afford hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-cuts by asking for trillions instead, or calling a war hero/POW like Mccain a nutcase who fathered a bastard interracial child, are attempts to bring traditional discorse to a halt. Pretending a rich kid who used his daddy's connections to leapfrog over thousands on a long waiting list to secure a place in "The Champagne Unit," is secretly a military hero who can easily transform himself into a "war president," is such a stretch that people aren't sure they're hearing clearly. These recent moves to build support for attacking Iran, even as we lose our grip on Iraq, are designed to take advantage of people's faith in the basic rationality of our leaders. Irrational moves leave people at a loss to respond. The first response tends to be confusion, followed by drop-jawed disbelief. We all look at each other waiting for someone to say how nuts it all is. The right-wing propaganda machine immediately steps up to repeat the claims, whatever they are, and pretty soon a lot of sane people are scratching their heads wondering where they left the real world.
For 5 years we've had a MSM that enables this blatant manipulation. The majority of us now know that Bush backers are insane, but the MSM is still lagging as it stumbles toward righting itself after being overrun by right-wing nutwagons. I still can turn my radio dial from one right-wing freakshow to another all day long, while Air-America tries to counter that mudslide of rhetoric with a small foothold in a few spots on the dial in a few cities. The myth of the Liberal Media paints the rightwing freaks as the center, the MSM is called "liberal," and real liberal thought remains the province of the blogosphere. Imagine how small Bush's core would be with even a slightly more balanced media.
Anyone who still maintains blind loyalty to Bush in the face of the umitigated disaster of the last 5 years of insanity is incapable of rational response. I love Unclaimed Terrirory for it's ability to speak what most Americans now think in the face of a lap-dog MSM and a right-wing media machine that has no left counterpart. What's amazing is that most Americans have seen through the lies of the Bush loyalists, even as attempts by the MSM to reclaim its position as watchdog are labelled treason by these mouth-breathing wingnuts.
The pathology that allows blind worship of a poltical figure is a new development in American life. It's small but vocal and amazingly loyal. It doesn't seem to be focused as much on the figure of Bush as it does the vague clubbishness of right-wing media. The pundits at FOX are so obnoxiously self-righteous that they appeal to a certain white American predominantly male scared of the rest of the world kind of ignorance. I try to wonder what it would take to make me pledge myself to a political group at the expense of rational thought, but it's a thing i can't get my head around. I don't get it and it amazes me anyone can be blind to their own hypocrisy to such a level that they can make statements like Bennett's without their head exploding. But I read bart's repetition of the standard right-wing talking points every day here and I realize even intelligent people can slip into a media-driven coma. The reality presented on right-wing outlets, repeated here by bart and a few others, is so different from the reality the rest of us see, its hard to understand how one who held the minority view wouldn't question the fact that the claims s/he is making are so conveniently consistent with excusing failure on the part of the current administration. When you have to assume everything you see that indicates how badly things are going in Iraq is somehow mistaken, while trusting the govt to suddenly never make a mistake as it takes unprecedented power for itself to imprison, torture, and spy on Americans (it deems a danger to itself,) while it conflates attacks on it's particular political position with attacks on America itself, I'd think one would start to question the ardentness of one's faith in such a govt. I know I would. But there's the difference.
Sayeth bart:
ReplyDeleteNow, the Pulitzer board is awarding Risen and Lichtblau for violating the Espionage Act and informing al Qaeda that the NSA is tapping their calls and email.
This particular, oft repeated canard simply defies common sense. Should forensic police dramas be chastised for informing would-be criminals that DNA and fingerprints can link them to a crime scene? By what logic would one conclude that terrorists would have cause to fear wiretaps where they did not before, given that the report claimed only that wiretaps were being issued without proper review, as opposed to at all?
As for the definition of neo-conservatism, I prefer the definition used by Stefan Haper and Jonathan Clarke in their book, "America Alone." The three themes they claim unite neo-conservatives:
1. A belief driving from religious conviction that the human condition is defined as a choice between good and evil and that the true measure of political character is to be found in the willingness by the former (themselves) to confront the latter.
2. An assertion that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it.
3. A primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests.
They also note that neo-conservatives "disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Dparment and conventional country-specific, realist, and pragmatic analysis. They are hostile toward nonmilitary multilateral institutions [read: the UN] and agreements... They are fortified by international criticism, believing that it confirms American virtue."
I think that this serves as a good working definition of neo-conservatism: it is certainly better than anything David Brooks has to offer.
"the undistinguished gentleman"
ReplyDeletedistinguishes himself in my eyes with his useful definition of neo-conservative.
that the definition includes a reference to religious foundations of belief seems especially appropriate from what i have observed.
thanks
Armagednoutahere:
ReplyDelete[standing up]
[clapping]
That was an amazing bit of writing. Possibly the best post this blog has had yet. I'm saving it and emailing it if you don't mind.
About "neo-conservatives." I reject much that I read about them, because it is short on memory. I don't know how old everyone here is, but I came of political age in the 70s; by the end of that decade one was hearing all about this exotic new creature, the neo-conservative. And they had zero to do with Israel or Muslims.
ReplyDeleteA magazine I took then, The American Spectator, in 1979 ran an article: Who are the Neoconservatives?. If there was one over-riding theme, it was that the neocons felt the Democratic Party had been taken over by McGovernites, and had abandoned Truman, Johnson, and Scoop Jackson's Cold War foreign policies. They were different from old-line conservatives in that they embraced Social Security, collective-bargaining laws, and other typically Democratic domestic polices. Altho they were not crazy about social engineering and the sexual revolution.
Anyway, they were not all Jews, and they did not, when they first emerged and for some time thereafter, have much if anything to do with policy toward Israel or Islam. They may have evolved toward that, but it is simplistic and historically ignorant to think that is all they are or have been.
armagednoutahere:
ReplyDeleteyour analysis of rove's political/media dance is right on the money.
it's nice to see rove's deceit described in print.
my own view is that rove's monomaniacal focus on the "political base" has destroyed the bush presidency.
if there is a wizard of oz in the bush presidency,
and i think there is,
(hint: it's not bush; he's too oblivious to reality)
it's that vindictive little atwater clone whose name sounds as if he might be one of j.s. bach's bastard sons -
--karl christian rove.
How do we know it damaged us? Well, it revealed the existence of the surveillance program - so people are going to stop making calls - since they are now aware of this - they're going to adjust their behavior . . . .
ReplyDeleteWell, we obviously can now suspend Bush's secret unlawful surveillance of US citizens... it is no longer needed.
HWSNBN lies his a$$ off:
ReplyDeleteIt was bad enough when Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were given awards for publishing fraudulent "NG documents" with the purpose of slandering the President during an election.
Lying is a sin, you know.... But any means to the end for our resident troll HWSNBBN.
Cheers,
Rove has mastered the art of claiming the ridiculous with a straight face. The recent talk about attacking Iran is the latest use of this strange strategy. The rational response to recent developments would be a move toward accountability, as the vast majority of Americans now sees the Iraq invasion for the trainwreck of incompetence it truly is. Instead, Rove moves in the completely opposite direction, behaving as if reality is not even there. He and his followers (who have mastered the art of lock-step mimicry) pretend that the plans to invade Iran (the ones the neo-cons had hoped to employ before it became clear they were complete idiots) after successfully transforming Iraq into a Democratic Republic are still called for. This has caught everyone off guard.
ReplyDeleteI think that the saber rattling about Iran is just that. Hot air. It inflames and frightens the Iranians and distracts the American population.
Rove has mastered the art of claiming the ridiculous with a straight face. The recent talk about attacking Iran is the latest use of this strange strategy. The rational response to recent developments would be a move toward accountability, as the vast majority of Americans now sees the Iraq invasion for the trainwreck of incompetence it truly is. Instead, Rove moves in the completely opposite direction, behaving as if reality is not even there. He and his followers (who have mastered the art of lock-step mimicry) pretend that the plans to invade Iran (the ones the neo-cons had hoped to employ before it became clear they were complete idiots) after successfully transforming Iraq into a Democratic Republic are still called for. This has caught everyone off guard.
ReplyDeleteIt's a small victory, but it's the beginning of a trend... Olberman's show has been kicking ass on CNN, up there with Hardball, while O'Reilly is Bleeding viewers. I think most of O'reilly's viewers are people who hate him and use him for material, anyway... MSNBC is going to repeat Countdown a third time the following morning after Imus...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/counting_down_again_in_the_morning_35514.asp
You can track the numbers here if you want...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/
Sorry,
ReplyDeleteI was responding to David's comment on that last post...
As an aside: Is it just me or is the MSM grotesquely out-of-date? Take CNN, for instance. Now that the NeoCon movement is past its prime CNN decides it need to bring in conservative blowhards like Bennett, presumably to peel away some of FOX-NEWS' audience. And then there are CNN's silly internet segments, which seem to serve no other purpose than to show how hip CNN is, that, you know, they really get the internet thing.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteWhat you seem reluctant to admit, however, is that the brunt of the NYTimes article was not reporting on the specifics of the program but instead on calling into question the legality and constitutionality of the program.
Actually, the NYT did not present anything close to a case of illegality in their article.
I'm a bit surprised that you draw a distinction between procedural infractions and others. That is such a nebulous term that it's almost vacuous. In what sense is any Presidential action merely procedural--meaning thereby, I imagine, having no effect on US citizens?
Easy.
For the sake of argument only, lets assume that FISA constitutionally applies to the NSA program and the President violated this law ay failing to get warrants for surveillance of enemy communications, but the NSA Program does not target American citizens and the only people prejudiced by this violation of FISA is the enemy. There is no moral grounds for the NYT to blow the cover of this program to the enemy.
On the other hand, if the President was violating the law by targeting political opponents and other Americans he thinks are subversives like JFK, Nixon and Clinton, then the NYT should most definitely publish this news.
celo said...
ReplyDeleteExcept that bart fails to note to the forum that the NYT witheld publication for a year because the administration argued that it would hurt "the war effort". The NYT only published the story after it got wind that it was all BS.
The NYT did the right thing by withholding publishing this story.
They crossed the line by publishing in order to beat the release of Risen's book on the subject.
The NYT should have told Risen they would fire him if he published this book and continued to withhold this story. There was no other compromise of this program except for Risen and the NYT.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWell Bart, The Fourth Amendment, FISA, and the general application federal and state wiretapping laws say that a warrant is necessary for a wiretap.
You are wrong and have no legal authority for this position. If you have any new arguments or authority, I am willing to listen, but this subject has been debated thoroughly here.
In re Iran, possible retaliation against American civilians: Because the US govt. risks Americans' lives, we do not need to recognize their power.
ReplyDeletePrecedent: [ Click ]
This government intends on playing brinkmanship, exposing Americans to the threat of lawful retaliation. There's no reason we should cooperate with our own destruction.
Tell your friends: We can quit working until they agree to talk. What they're doing is illegal -- and there's no reason we should agree to support the illegality.
Tell the American government to stick it. You will not expose Americans to this kind of insanity. Spread the word! We’re not going to cooperate with our destruction.
whispers said...
ReplyDeleteBart -you will not be taken seriously until you admit
a) Bush broke the law
b) terrorists knew that the CIA was capable of wiretapping before they read about it in Risen's book
I could give a damn about whether you take me "seriously."
I have shown you how the NSA Program was perfectly legal. You have no legal authority to the contrary to show that FISA is constitutional when applied the the NSA Program. If you refuse to accept the law because it does not fit your preconceptions, I cannot help you.
You have no evidence the terrorists knew that the NSA was monitoring their communications. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary since the NYT source knew of two terrorist operations stopped by the program and the WP later revealed that the program identified at least ten targets per year for which the Administration gathered enough evidence to receive FISA warrants.
You folks need to back up your arguments with EVIDENCE. Just because you say something does not make it true.
Gris Lobo said...
ReplyDeleteBart, show some proof that Risen and Lichtblau violated the espionage act.
The NSA Program had the highest classification the government bestows.
Risen, Lictblau and the NYT were told of this classification and the program's legal basis.
These perps were told not to publish this information to the enemy.
They intentionally violated the Espionage Act by publishing this information.
Open and shut case.
Bart -
ReplyDeleteyou will not be taken seriously until you admit
Give me a break -- BART ACTUALLY CREATES MORE COMMENTS HERE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAN GLENN!!! AND HE IS NOTHING BUT A "COPY AND PASTE" TROLL!!
All the morons that think they have to get up on little soapboxes and put in their little 2 cents worth on inane, off-topic, right-wing talking points...
This might as well be bart's blog!
I understand some not wanting to let untrue, illogical topics be accepted as true, but GET A GRIP!!!
Bart has an endless clipboard and you look like an idiot encouraging him to dump more and more off-topic crap into the threads.
I am sure he laughs his ass off at the way he dominates the board here - it is getting disgusting.
But it isn't bart that is actually the problem....
He is just copying and pasting stuff into the thread...
Many contributors have corrected you numerous times for your declarations and it is tiresome.
ReplyDeleteNot half as tiresome as all the little soapboxes that engage him -- essentially making this his blog.
Our "copy and paste" troll must check back regularly and laugh -- the morons are taking the bait again....
Back to the freeper Website, he fills his clipboard with more lies and off-topic talking points.
Snickering to himself, he dumps then back in the thread... It is so easy... It is so mindless...
And the results are so satisfying...
Another discussion about the chimperor is derailed as the "copy and paste" troll assumes control of the dialog on an otherwise well done blog.
He laughts at the morons that play his game and clicks away to anther site.
Oh he'll be back... he'll be back alright, because the morons can't let his lies fall down on their own lack of merit.
And life is good for the troll... yes, it is very good...
"Hypatia" writes: "A magazine I took then, The American Spectator"
ReplyDeleteAnd I was reading it at the same time, completely for the entertainment of reading R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr's comic skewering of the then power structure, which was of course dominated by the Democratic Party. But power structures change, as history teaches us. But The American Spectator, and especially, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr's articles, never changed in target, even as the so called Republican Revolution devolved into a unanimous onanistic adulation over the ritualistic oppobrium due to the exposed adulturous recipient of voluntary blowjobs. So American Spectator was apparently bought. As, apparently, are "Hypatias" opinions.
I'm getting really tired of being lectured on ideological/constitutional morality by a person who is directly responsible for Bush the Fascist's reelection, who has bought forty years of propaganda as a gift provided by ideological godhead(s), exactly as the same as the biblical scripture that gives her pause as she contemplates her close relations, the fascist antiabortionists, and lords it over everyone else here because Alito has yet to sell out.
Yuk.
morlock writes: But The American Spectator, and especially, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr's articles, never changed in target, even as the so called Republican Revolution devolved into a unanimous onanistic adulation over the ritualistic oppobrium due to the exposed adulturous recipient of voluntary blowjobs. So American Spectator was apparently bought. As, apparently, are "Hypatias" opinions.
ReplyDeleteNone of that has anything to do with what I wrote, but as it happens, and as I have written here, oh, 8 million times, I quit the publication when it went insane with Clinton hatred in the early 90s.
Now, any remarks about my observations about neocons being a 70s arrival?
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteJust read the link you provided that detailed how Bush himself has revealed details of eavesdropping on the terrorists. Not too long ago I ran across another source describing this "secret" program. It was in a story in CNN.com's archives from Oct. 8, 2001.
The link is here.
The relevant info is this:
The proposed PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act would provide investigators with more flexibility and greater access to high-tech tools to pursue wiretaps of mobile phones, interception of e-mail messages, and monitoring of Web surfing and other PC-based communications.
A few minutes ago I sent a note to Mr. Bennett alerting him of this revelation. I asked for a response...probably will not get one.
"Hypatia" writes:
ReplyDelete"Now, any remarks about my observations about neocons being a 70s arrival?"
Hmm:
"I reject much that I read about them, because it is short on memory"
Without, of course, any hint of what that memory might be. I leave your words to vouch for you.
Risen, Lictblau and the NYT were told of this classification and the program's legal basis.
ReplyDeleteBy whom and why were they told?
These perps were told not to publish this information to the enemy.
By perps you mean perpetrators? That would be the people who leaked the classified info to the press.
They intentionally violated the Espionage Act by publishing this information.
No.
You mean "They intentionally violated the Espionage Act by LEAKING this information to the press."
Open and shut case.
Would that we could do that with your mouth.
bart said...
ReplyDelete"Gris Lobo said...
Bart, show some proof that Risen and Lichtblau violated the espionage act.
The NSA Program had the highest classification the government bestows.
Risen, Lictblau and the NYT were told of this classification and the program's legal basis.
These perps were told not to publish this information to the enemy.
They intentionally violated the Espionage Act by publishing this information.
Open and shut case."
ROFLMAO and you call yourself a lawyer?
Furthermore, there isn't a jury in this land that would convict them, regardless of the law or the jury instructions. I'm sure Bart is familiar with the term, jury nullification. I think he is probably a law student or a hack lawyer like the tools at powderroom. If OJ can get away with murder, these reporters would get an award. Bush on the other hand, just wait till we get that little cretin in the dock.
ReplyDeleteROFLMAO and you call yourself a lawyer?
ReplyDelete3:13 AM
You'd be surprised how many total hacks just do evictions, shit like that, Gris Lobo. But he's probably just a jailhouse lawyer. He's a Republican, ain't he?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
Just read the link you provided that detailed how Bush himself has revealed details of eavesdropping on the terrorists. Not too long ago I ran across another source describing this "secret" program. It was in a story in CNN.com's archives from Oct. 8, 2001.
Don't forget about the ignorant, loudmouthed bonehead who bragged about NSA's ability to triangulate an exact location on OBL's Sat-phone so that he stopped using it...
Did they try him? They should have.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYou'd be surprised how many total hacks just do evictions, shit like that, Gris Lobo. But he's probably just a jailhouse lawyer. He's a Republican, ain't he?
I was thinking he ought to put that license back in the Cracker Jack box he got it out of. :)
hidden imam writes to Glenn: But if you want to use this as yet another excuse to bash Israel and American Jews, go right ahead, it's your blog.
ReplyDeleteThat is so outrageous a comment. Glenn never bashed Israel, and he never bashed American Jews.
You know that and we all know that you know it so your attack on Glenn is as transparent as it is pathetic.
BTW, as I am sure you also know, recent polls reveal that a neither a majority of the Jewish people in America nor in Israel itself support the neocon agenda about which Glenn writes.
Very recently I have come to the conclusion that everyone is being "gamed" in this country in a different way than most would suspect.
If this is a right conclusion, then it follows that the members of AIPEC are themselves being "gamed" by their own leaders like the Indian tribes Abramoff lobbied for were themselves being "gamed" by Abramoff.
It's never the "people" in a country who are the problem. It's always the leaders, and the leaders do make strange bedfellows which is what I am coming to believe is happening now. I suspect the "leaders" in Iran and the "leaders" in America are in fact sitting on the same side of the table (or should I say gas pump) along with the "leaders" in Saudi Arabia, Isreal, ad nauseum, and all having a pretty good laugh....
Put a few ham actors (Bush and Amadinjehad) in front of the cameras to mislead and stir up the public and laugh all the way to the bank.
They should laugh at how stupid people are and willing to swallow nonsense and that includes almost everyone including me.
Birth of an Empire is a review of Fools' Crusade, a book by Diana Johnstone in which she debunks all the popularly held myths about the war in the Balkans and our government's role in it.
You say that the neocon agenda is "best defined as the belief in the use of American force for the good in the world. Hence the neo-con support for the Balkan wars in the 90s."
The case that this serious and meticulously documented book lays out suggests that the wars in the Balkans are hardly an example of "the use of American force for good in the world" and this would be just another indictment of the neocon's expanionist world view.
armagednoutahere writes: What's amazing is that most Americans have seen through the lies of the Bush loyalists, even as attempts by the MSM to reclaim its position as watchdog are labelled treason by these mouth-breathing wingnuts.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point. As frustrated as I have been with how easily people including myself can be duped each day by ever more sophisticated ploys, it is still true that Americans are admirable people whose basic decency empowers them.
That anyone would be able to see certain truths despite how much world class propaganda is thrown at them from all sides by everyone including the media is indeed a tribute to the American people and their ingrained belief in justice and their compassion for other human beings.
These perps were told not to publish this information to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteSpot on analysis there. The enemy, of course, being the American public.
Yet another dumb and dishonest WP editorial this morning. At least Laird and Pursley signed their names to the piece of tripe they produced.
ReplyDeleteThey start from the clearly fallacious premise that this is the first time these generals have made their opinions known -- that they should have spoken up through the chain of command in the Pentagon while they were on active duty.
Except they did. And they made it clear that they had done so when they finally spoke publicly.
And when they did follow the usual channels, they were treated like idiot stepchildren by the arrogant civilian leadership at the Pentagon. A leadership that has demonstrated an indifference bordering on contempt for those who are risking their lives for this country every day, the uniformed soldier. Not to mention the Iraqi civilians who are the "collateral damage" in this criminally mismanaged war effort.
And so we have another editorial that simply ignores inconvenient facts (which I guess is only marginally less awful than "A Good Leak" which actually misstated facts to make its case.
(Cross-posted at the WP blog)
The above post is mine. For some, I keep getting shown as anonymous even when I put in my name.
ReplyDeleteAJ
bart: Actually, the NYT did not present anything close to a case of illegality in their article.
ReplyDeleteWell, they're not lawyers, they are reporters. What they did do was to present the information in such a way as to raise questions of legality and constitutionality. The case for these must be made by lawyers and prosecutors.
You and I, of course, will disagree about whether the information presented indicates illegality. I would argue that Feingold's and others' reactions--including the lawyers on this list--indicate that the Times was correct in reporting on this program.
Unless you want to put yourself out as a constitutional expert on the level of a Geoffrey Stone and others who decried this NSA program, you must at least admit that there's enough smoke in the Times' NSA story to call for further review.
Bart: [Hypothetically]... the NSA Program does not target American citizens and the only people prejudiced by this violation of FISA is the enemy. There is no moral grounds for the NYT to blow the cover of this program to the enemy.
I will probably get n trouble for saying this, but I think that illegal and unconstituitional is still illgeal, whether it targets us or them.
This is a moral issue for at least the following reasons:
1) It's hypocritical to bruit about the world how you're a nation of laws, but those only apply within the borders of the country;
2) ends do not justify means; anything wrong is simply wrong, whether or not it applies to enemies of friends;
3) it sets a dangerous precedent for further and worse abuses, whether of friend or foe; this follows from the notion of the well-known ethical principle that practice inculcates an ethos and abuses of that ethos tend to undermine the ethos;
4) it is anti-democratic because the basis of a democratic society is the principle that everyone must follow the rules no matter whether they are expedient or not to one person's or group's interests.
Much like Iraq, we must trample our liberties in order to make them better.
ReplyDeleteanon: They start from the clearly fallacious premise that this is the first time these generals have made their opinions known -- that they should have spoken up through the chain of command in the Pentagon while they were on active duty.
ReplyDeleteExcept they did. And they made it clear that they had done so when they finally spoke publicly.
I am not sure why this little tidbit from the news is not getting more airplay:
A military assessment of the Iraqi insurgency in late 2004 concluded that it had the active support of millions of Sunnis who rejected the legitimacy of a US installed government, according to Lt Gen John R Vines, who led all coalition forces in Iraq from January 2005 to January 2006.
That analysis conflicted with the view of Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, who believed the insurgents represented only Saddam loyalists and foreign jihadis and could be defeated by a combination of force and free elections.
Vines' revelation thus provides the first serious evidence of past differences between the US command in Iraq and top US policymakers over the nature of the insurgency and what to do about it. [my emphasis]
What this does seem to show is that generals did disagree with Rumsfeld, they were right, and that Rumsfeld did not even listen to his commanders in the field.
it is anti-democratic because the basis of a democratic society is the principle that everyone must follow the rules no matter whether they are expedient or not to one person's or group's interests.
ReplyDeleteSo you agree, then, that it was correct for the House to impeach Bill Clinton and wrong for the Senate to decline to remove him from office. After all, Bill Clinton did (as he admitted) commit perjury and (as the Bill of Impeachment specified) obstruction of justice.
I am sure, given your high standards and evident rectitude you'll agree that justice was not served in the case of William Jefferson Clinton
The NY Times is on the record saying that they witheld the story because they were told the program was legally maintained. Then the NY Times said they found out that there were significant problems, and the administration was misrepresenting its case (big surprise).
ReplyDeleteFrom anonymous at 10:10AM:
ReplyDelete"After all, Bill Clinton did (as he admitted) commit perjury and (as the Bill of Impeachment specified) obstruction of justice."
If I recall correctly, President Clinton was ultimately exonerated of the charge of perjury and the whole 'obstruction of justice' angle was so weak on the evidence provided that the Senate had nothing to work with.
I suspect (sadly) the same kabuki shadow-dance will play out with President Bush, should it ever get to that point.
From anonymous at 10:10AM: "After all, Bill Clinton did (as he admitted) commit perjury and (as the Bill of Impeachment specified) obstruction of justice."
ReplyDeleteBesdies the data provided by yankee, I do not think that the case against Clinton passed the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criteria. Prevaricating to save your family from the ignominy of actions that you committed is surely a matter of personal moral lapse which does not rise to the level of actions affecting the welfare of the nation, as I believe the phrase about high crimes and misdemenaors connotes.
Cynic,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Asia Times link. Vines is walking a fine line there since he is still on active duty but the message is very clear...except to the willfully blind like Laird and Pursley.
I been hearing forever from friends who are in military families that the disconnect between the military and civilian leadership at the Pentagon is huge.
AJ
Bart said, You are wrong and have no legal authority for this position. If you have any new arguments or authority, I am willing to listen, but this subject has been debated thoroughly here.
ReplyDeleteThere is legal authority for the proposition in my earlier post where I wrote, "Well Bart, The Fourth Amendment, FISA, and the general application federal and state wiretapping laws say that a warrant is necessary for a wiretap."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has succinctly set forth the legal and factual basis for the proposition that Bush has acted illegally when he authorized the NSA monitoring that is apparently monitoring all domestic communications. I direct you to paragraph 73 of the EFF Complaint.
I also suggest you read the following statutes and the cases that follow them.50 U.s.c. §1809",18 USC §1809, 47 U.S.C. §605(a), 18 U.S.C §2702 as amended .
The simplest interpretation of these statutes is that domestic communications cannot be monitored except under court supervision and anyone who monitors or discloses to any other person the fruits of a monitoring commits a felony.
Notwithstanding the Gonzales excuse that the Unitary Executive is above the law, the Fourth Amendment and the provision in Article II, §3, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" requires the President to abide by the Laws passed by Congress. If he orders domestic wiretapping in violation of the statues referenced above, he has committed a felony. The statutes as passed by the People, acting through their Congress have not apporved any exception that allows the Executive Branch to violate the statues without running afowl of the criminal prohibition on domestic the wiretapping laws.
One thing I would like to point out and it is a simple thing that seems often overlooked in the present period of debate; it is that when a statute is amended, the changes in the amendment, coming after the passage of the original statute, control the interpretation of the statute. Historically, when the Constitution was ratified, it was ratified by the States contingent on the passage of the Bill of Rights. The concern was that the Constitution as originally passed did not protect the individual. The Bill of Rights was passed as a direct limitation on the "Unitary Executive" in Article II. Gonzales's arguments concerning the "Unitary Executive" fails on Fourth Amendment issues because the Fourth Amendmen operates as a limitation upon the power of the Executive to invade the rights of the individual.
Others may differ, but I have been a lawyer for nearly 31 years and I think that my interpretation is more sound than Gonzales's. If our Republic is to survive, the efficacy of the Bill of Rights and the concept that the President shall "take Care" that the Laws be faithfully executed must be preserved. If the "Unitary Executive" concept wins, there has been a silent coup and the President is now Dictator.
I hope Congress and the Courts will preserve the efficacy of the Fourth Amendment.
Bart, spend some time reading about the history of the Bill or Rights and read some statutes and cases and you will see dragnet domestic spying is, indeed, illegal.
About Bart
ReplyDeletea different anonymous said, "Give me a break -- BART ACTUALLY CREATES MORE COMMENTS HERE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAN GLENN!!! AND HE IS NOTHING BUT A "COPY AND PASTE" TROLL!!?
I'm glad Bart is here. Bart is giving those who acturally believe in our Republic a great sounding board and an opportunity to document why we think we are right.
Perhaps, Bart will seriously consider our arguments and begin putting them on the right wing blogs to troll there.
Anyway, lots of people are reading this because its a good thread and some may see the risk of a silent coup and be more diligent in their private efforts to preserve our indivitual rights in the face of the challenge from the torturers and authoritarians.
Bart, keep thinking.
If I recall correctly, President Clinton was ultimately exonerated of the charge of perjury...
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. Clinton admitted he lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition and was subsequently disbarred because of the perjury charge.
Russell Tice is reportedly one source for the NYT story, it seems he has been seeking publicity for his various employment related grievances since 2003.
ReplyDelete4th Amendment concerns might explain why former President Clintons plan to intercept 1% of all domestic communications (relying on permanent wiretap ports that were required to be installed at all major telephone hubs by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) was stopped by Congress in 1995.
To my knowledge, no one in Congress is suggesting that the Bush administrations use of the NSA for terrorist surveillance violates the 4th Amendment, or that it should end.
Bart said, "These perps were told not to publish this information to the enemy.
ReplyDeleteThey intentionally violated the Espionage Act by publishing this information.
Open and shut case."
Bart also said, "On the other hand, if the President was violating the law by targeting political opponents and other Americans he thinks are subversives like JFK, Nixon and Clinton, then the NYT should most definitely publish this news."
Now Bart, if the facts in the EFF Complaint are true and the President is targeting everyone, with surveilence and the NYT editors knew it and strongly believed in the Fourth Amendment and that the surveilence is illegal, is it still an open and shut case?
It seems to me that while we need to use good police tactics against another terrorist attack, we lose what we stand for if we cease to insist in this time of stress to remember that our freedom exists because we are a nation of laws. If we step outside of the law, the terrorist really have succeeded.
Stated differently, are we so cowardly that we would escape from our freedom to insure our insecutiry? If we escape Law, we will never again be either secure or creative.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAfter all, Bill Clinton did (as he admitted) commit perjury and (as the Bill of Impeachment specified) obstruction of justice.
"Look! Over there! It's Clinton's PENIS! Clinton's PENIS made me do it!!!"
Clinton did not "admit ... to commit[ting] perjury" (nor did he need to). If you're talking about his statement worked out with Ray, that was quite carefully worded from a legal perspective.
Nevertheless, even the Republican controlled House rejected 2 of the 4 impeachment articles, and neither of the two remaining article even mustered a majority (much less the 2/3 required to convict) in the Republican controlled Senate. Then keep in mind, criminal charges (which is what you're talking about here) require unanimity (rather than just the say-so of unscrupulous Republican politicians) for an actual conviction in criminal court.
Cheers,
The Fly said, "To my knowledge, no one in Congress is suggesting that the Bush administrations use of the NSA for terrorist surveillance violates the 4th Amendment, or that it should end."
ReplyDeleteIf you watch Congressional hearings or read the Congressional Record, you will see that Spector, Shumer, and many, many others see the Fourth Amendment as the issue.
The issue on the wiretapping is the continued existence of the Fourth Amendment. That is what the dispute is about. The question is whether the government can ignore the Fourth Amendment or not.
Does the Unitary Executive set fourth in Article II of the Constitution prevail over the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, or not? That is the question.
The answer we as a nation give will determine whether or not our democracy will survive or whether we now have a dictatorship unlimited by the Bill of Rights.
We are in the midst of perhaps one of the most dangerous Constitutionals crisis as we have ever had as a nation.
Bush is on the side of dictatorship and he is relying on the cowardice of modern America to win for his cronies.
Clinton did not "admit ... to commit[ting] perjury" (nor did he need to). If you're talking about his statement worked out with Ray, that was quite carefully worded from a legal perspective.
ReplyDeleteAs I suspected, Arne, you're simply a rank hypocrite. You carefully pick and choose the "legal perspective" you wish to adopt based on your own political leanings.
I hope the readers of this blog will take notice and weigh your opinions accordingly.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteBart, spend some time reading about the history of the Bill or Rights and read some statutes and cases and you will see dragnet domestic spying is, indeed, illegal.
You don't understand. HWSNBN thinks that "dragnet domestic spying, IF DONE BY "COMMANDER CODPIECE" DUBYA, is, indeed, legal." Sorry you didn't see that Constitutional Codicil in there. OTOH, if you review the archives here at UT, you'll see plainly HWSNBN thinks that even consensual sex is a serious matter worthy of impeachment, nevermind that there was a war on at the time. Now do you understand? Of course, HWSNBN is a LIAR himself as I noted above (which, accordng to MRPC 8.4(c), is grounds for discipline, so feel free to contact the Colorado bar if you are so inclined).
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. Clinton admitted he lied under oath in the Paula Jones deposition and was subsequently disbarred because of the perjury charge.
Some accuracy, please??? Clinton didn't admit lying (which, FWIW, is not the crime of perjury [18 USC 1621]). Even his statement worjed out with Ray said something to the effect of his trying to walk a fine line, and that now he believes he might have crossed over and that some of his statements may have been false. Unfortunately for the RW foamer brigades, it's the belief that what you say, when you say it, is false, that makes for the crime of perjury. (As a side note, I'd point out the curious fact that a perjury prosecution is technically possible for a statement that is actually true, if you want to take the statutory language literally). If he thought he was not making false statements at the time, it's still not perjury. And that's not even considering the additional requirement of the perjury statutes that the statement be "material" (one of the three essential elements of the crime, to be determined by a jury; see U.S. v. Gaudin).
As to the disbarment, no, his license was suspended (and has since been reinstated). By a partisan Republican ArkBA committee after every Democrat on it had recused themselves. But for the mealy-mouthed 8.4(c) Rule, a rule that HWSNBN violates on pretty much a daily basis here, so if you think that lawyers who lie ought to get disbarred, contact the Colorado bar and get them working on HWSNBN's case here and bring some integrity back to the Colorado bar.
Cheers,
"The Fly" said:
ReplyDelete4th Amendment concerns might explain why former President Clintons plan to intercept 1% of all domestic communications (relying on permanent wiretap ports that were required to be installed at all major telephone hubs by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) was stopped by Congress in 1995.
Nope. There was a squabble by the phone companies as to how much capacity was needed. The original rules treated every community across the country the same, and looked at the capacity requirements of the areas with the most crime the same as rural Vermont, for instance. The new rules recognise that not every community (and every carrier) has the same ... ummm, "demographics" ... and that the capacity needs were far overstated). Capacity costs money, and the phone companies didn't want to spend it. But you're bat-s*** insane to think that Clinton wanted to tap 1% of the U.S. population all at once. The idea in the CALEA law (hardly a creation of Clinton) was to make sure the needed capacity was there, with some overhead bandwidth for growth, future needs, etc., ongoing.
A FYI, the ports aren't "permanent". The issue is capacity (trunks, datafill provisioning limits, etc.). At any time, there's only a couple thousand actual taps going on across the country, and most of these are "trap'n'trace" wiretaps, not Title III warrants with a warrant and voice content delivery, so to be perfectly honest, the 1% figure was way overblown (and hardly a requirement of Clinton personally).
Cheers,
As to the disbarment, no, his license was suspended…
ReplyDeleteThis is a lie. Clinton was disbarred for five years in Arkansas. Then he was Disbarred from the Supreme Court, and given 40 days to appeal the decision. Before he was permanently disbarred from the SCOTUS he resigned from its bar.
You are a complete hypocrite. On one hand, you rant and rave about President Bush’s legal maneuverings regarding the NSA controversy, characterizing them as “illegal,” and then spend paragraph after paragraph using typical Clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is” logic to defend Clinton, an admitted perjurer and liar who was impeached.
At least be honest about the disbarment…or are you going to deny that Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court?
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteAs I suspected, Arne, you're simply a rank hypocrite. You carefully pick and choose the "legal perspective" you wish to adopt based on your own political leanings.
Huh? Care to explain how you think I'm a "hypocrite"? (I won't go so far as to accuse you of "lying" in saying so) I'm not spewing any carefully adopted "legal perspective"; I'm simply saying what the law is. You can be sure that Clinton's lawyers looked over the statement he made, and as I pointed out in a subsequent post, the alleged "perjury" ignores an essential element, in addition to the fact that Clinton's "admission" was a statement that in the brilliant light of hindsight, he admits that some of his statements might not have been true, but also claims that he was trying to stay within the bounds of the law at the time (while obviously not trying to help the Rethuglican inquisition that was out to "get" him, or at least to embarrass him politically). But as I pointed out, it's the belief of the affiant that is important (just read the damn law, 18 USC 1621), not the actual truth of the matter.
Cheers,
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou are a complete hypocrite. On one hand, you rant and rave about President Bush’s legal maneuverings regarding the NSA controversy, characterizing them as “illegal,” ...
Huh? Yes, if he's violating the language of FISA, it is illegal. What's your difficulty here?
... and then spend paragraph after paragraph using typical Clintonian “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is” logic to defend Clinton, ...
Where have I done that? As an aside, I'd not that the (in)famous Clinton quote "what the meaning of 'is' is" was a perfectly accurate thing for Clinton to say (and was actually helpful to his perse... -- ummm, sorry, "prosecutors" -- in letting those dullards know that there was potentially a difference as to the present state of affairs and the past state of affairs as to the subject of their inquiry.
You think I'm getting "legalese" in my "interpretation of the law? I really don't give a damn what you think the law should be (just as I don't gave a damn what Dubya thinks the Constitution should say). We have to work with the laws as written, and with the cases that have interpreted those laws. Bronston defines what the responsibility of the deponent is, and Gaudin makes clear the materiality requirement. Argue with them, not me.
... an admitted perjurer and liar who was impeached.
I dispute the "admitted" (and for reasons I have explained; refute them if you can, but don't carry on in "argument by repetitive assertion"). As for impeached, I'd note he was also acquitted. In the words of Rehnquist (for whom the words must have choked in his throat): "Not guilty".
At least be honest about the disbarment…or are you going to deny that Clinton was disbarred from the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court has rules that automatically disbar anyone whose license is suspended. No formal disbarment proceeding were done there. The only such proceedigns done were the ArkBA's proceedings, carried out under the auspices of a Republican-only committee. But if you want to get all "rule'o'law" on me here, surely you're in favour of getting HWSNBN disbarred in Colorado for the evident falsehood he committed above (I refer to his claim that Rather and Mapes got a prize [note that HWSNBN carefully says "prize" and leaves off the fact it wasn't a Pulitzer] for their NG story. In fact, their Peabody was for the Abu Ghraib story, as is evident with a minute's worth of Google).
So, are you with me? Time to petition the Colorado bar for HWSNBN's disbarment?
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: As to the disbarment, no, his license was suspended…
This is a lie. Clinton was disbarred for five years in Arkansas.
From your(!!!) link:
"In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine.
Going to continue to beat a dead horse?
Going to petition the Colorado bar to get HWSNBN tossed?
Cheers,
arne langsetmo wrote:
ReplyDelete"A FYI, the ports aren't "permanent". The issue is capacity (trunks, datafill provisioning limits, etc.). At any time, there's only a couple thousand actual taps going on across the country, and most of these are "trap'n'trace" wiretaps, not Title III warrants with a warrant and voice content delivery, so to be perfectly honest, the 1% figure was way overblown (and hardly a requirement of Clinton personally)."
A careful reading of the EFF v. AT&T suit and a following of the links at the EFF page implies that the taps referred to in that suit are not CALEA taps, instead it is a diversion of the entire light-data stream to the NSA at virtually all domestic hubs. This is something very different from narrowly defined legal wiretapping, It appears to be a dragnet grasp of control over all communications, domestic and international, email, phone, wireless, and data.
The technology is available to intercept, monitor, record, sift, and store everything. The question is are they now doing it? And, if they are, what are they doing with the information?
FWIW, the treason wasn't committed by the New York Times. The terriss were tipped off to the NSA surveillance program three years earlier, on Alias.
ReplyDeleteWe have to work with the laws as written...
ReplyDeleteYes, and the laws as written make it a criminal act to lie under oath to a federal grand jury, and to lie under oath in a deposition in a civil case. The laws as written also criminalize the obstruction of justice in regard to subornation.
Why are you a hypocrite? You are a hypocrite because you excuse Bill Clinton's real criminal acts, undoubtedly done against the legal advice of his attorneys, while you condemn the president for following the sound advice of his legal advisors regarding his authority to conduct warrantless surveillance.
The Supreme Court has rules that automatically disbar anyone whose license is suspended.
Why can't you just say "Yes, you're right, Clinton was disbarred for lying in his Paula Jones deposition and for lying to a federal grand jury."
But if you want to get all "rule'o'law" on me here, surely you're in favour of getting HWSNBN disbarred in Colorado for the evident falsehood he committed above...
You want to disbar someone for "lying" in the comment section of a minor blog on the Internet? Are you nuts?
Please let us all know when you've written the Colorado bar with your accusations. Also, please let us know when Bart sues you for slander and defamation of character and when you are bankrupted by the resulting settlement against you.
There are some great comments here this morning. The Anonymous post at 10:36 am in particular I want to thank that person for. I'm not a lawyer, (but some of my best friends are lawyers--hardy har) but I used to publish law books in the 90s when case law on CD ROM was vogue, and I used to write headnotes as those were proprietary. Anyway, I do know good lawyering when I see it and that was FANTASTIC. From now on any time Bart suggests otherwise, there's the answer.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bart, I have mixed feelings about all the posts but they do seem well-written and representative of what goes on in the right-wing tunnel, so I agree with whoever it was that said they think he's doing a service here--though I understand the anon who is particularly bugged. But wasting time is wasting time, and pointing out others' waste of time is another of the same, as is this, then, I suppose.
But Bart seems intelligent, and I do see a glimmer there. I do recognize lawyering, again, and Bart is doing his best with what he has to work with. I imagine he sees the the limits there. But I guess I want to ask him why he thinks its still useful to do it. Seeing your guy getting hammered makes the lawyer in you want to step up and defend, but who are you defending? The anon who reminded people that Clinton broke the law betrays a problem on the Bush loyalists' side, and gives a clue to who/what it is you really are defending.
They always do that. When they get pressed on Bush's failure, they remind us that "Clinton got impeached! Take That!", and expect they've punched you in the gut with The Wisdom. It's because they feel punched every time Bush takes a blow, and they project that. But the relationship we have with Clinton is the healthy kind where you don't pledge blind loyalty. Insults to Clinton do nothing to those who don't have your kind of loyalty to a Fearless Leader. Insult away, he dserves it. But we don't care. Most Americans felt like a Board of Directors assesssing a CEO with a minor legal problem. He might be an idiot in his home life, but look at the numbers. Clinton was brilliant with basic management, and boy do we miss it. Most Americans couldn't give a fuck who gets a blow job and if he lies about it to save his ass.
Anon who hates Clinton betrays a kind of loyalty to a political figure that is new and especially unhealthy. Anon who hates Clinton listens to the same people Bart does, and has been had in the same way. Their loyalty, weirdly enough, isn't really even to Bush--it's to a group of right-wing talking heads who've taken over political discourse for the last 15 or so years.
The worst thing we ever did was get rid of The Fairness Doctrine. Rush and the gang immediately jumped on the air with talk of straw men who worship democrats and love liberals and say ridiculous things. Bart and Anon who hates Clinton were fooled by old fashioned con-men. 15 years of listening day and night to talking heads spouting absolute bullshit has created a little army of loyal right-wingers who think they have an enemy out there in over half the country. But those straw men don't exist.
Like I said, we all have a healthy relationship with our politicians where we hold them accountable if they really screw us (as Bush is trying now) but if a guy has the economy at full tilt and the whole world respects us and he keeps us out of wars and balances the budget and life is just good in America, we just don't care. You guys have launched fullscale war against everything Democrat or Liberal, and been convinced by liars that somebody out there loves them like you all love your Fearless Leader. It just doesn't exist. Other than some fringe environmental groups we all pretty much disagree with, there just isn't a rabidly loyal liberal following of Democrat pols. In fact the real libs voted for Nader and pissed off most centrists. In fact, there just isn't any group that matches the one Rush Limbaugh has told you is out there. You have been had. And its turned you into blind folowers of whatever the right-wing talkers tell you every day. You've gone forth and done battle and gotten "your team" in complete control, and it's been unmitigated disaster.
I didn't vote for Bush, but after he won i had high hopes. Evn when he went into Iraq, I assumed we'd get the same level of management we got from his Dad, and we'd at least reap the benefits of another well-prosecuted militry adventure. I',m against that kind of thing as a rule, but it has a positive realist advantage to it that i won't deny. When it's handled well. But thses guys have actually reversed the benefits of the First Gulf War, when the Arab world was convinced we really had an awesome military they didn't want a piece of. I had to admit, after that war, the burnings in effigy quieted down cosiderably. then Bush The Firts raised taxes when he saw it had to be done, and bit the bullet. Thats the kind of political difference Americans are used to. I disagree with a lot of what I read here, but if it's well reasoned and well presented, i can live with it. Politcal disagreements are part of good govt. Don't you follow that many here actually voted for Bush. But they didn't buy into the FOXNews Reality where there's a War On! A War On Terror, a War on Christmas, a War on Christianity and a War On Everything White and Wholesome in the World. Somewhere theres a mirror group that loves Liberalism and Democrats as much as you love Bush and right-wing talk. It must be DEFEATED and political disagreement in America MUST BE CRUSHED!
But it doesn't, and we don't.
What we do love is Freedom, Democracy, The Constitution, etc etc etc. Remember all that stuff? We don't love warrantless wiretaps and idiotic wars against countries that didn't attack us and friendships like Bush's with Saudis who did.
It's time to reassess your loyalty Bart. The Liberal Democrat Enemy you've been told is out there is a figment of right-wing imagination. Your loyal;ty to Bush and Republicans is a different animal from the kind of healthy relationship most Americans have with our pols. As your defenses get more and more thin, and the disasters at home and abroad become more dangerous (have you really considerd what an attack on Iran might trigger), even you bart, must have some small question about the Neverending Love Sean Hannity has for Republican politicians. Its unparalelled. And its got you saying that its OK for the govt to listen in on Americans without warrants. I refer you to the anonymous at 10:36 again. What you're talking about requires a kind of loyalty to "your team" that has you lawyering for abject failure and potential dictaorship. But its OK with you if its a "good dictator" who follows FOXNews precepts. I know you think your doing a service to Bush, but the jig really is up in America.
I have a good friend who listens to Rush limbaugh and FOXNews and O'Reilly and Hannity and every other right-wing yakker he can tune in to 24 hours a day. A few years ago I actually worried because quite a few Americans were spewing that garbage and I started to wonder what had happened to sanity here. But my faith in rationality lately is being restored as Americans turn away in droves from the disaster they've been handed by those talking heads. Does it occur to you those right-wing talkers get paid millions of dollars by those tiny few who actually do benefit from those freakshow policies?
When radio and TV first came along, they presented a whole new ballgame of potential Orwellian control, so those sane people in power at the time imposaed strict regulations. If somebody had unregulated access to such a powerful medium, many americans would be had by the shysters that would crawl out of the woodwork. Then some rich guys decided it was hightime to dump The FaiRness Doctrine and out popped Rush Limbaugh. Political discourse is now a steaming cauldron of horseshit and a whole reality has been created out of whole cloth that a still considerable number of people believe is actual. Now we don't have anywhere we can turn to get 'the way it is" at 6pm every night. In fact Walter Cronkite is now a Lying Liberal who you've learned was working for The Liberal Cabal all along. The Liberal Cabal we all secretly love like you love right-wing radio and television. The one Rush Limbaugh has been saying for 15 years that you can't compromise with, you have to defeat them utterly. Them. The Liberals. The Democrats. The Enemy.
My buddy still listens to Rush, and he still tells me The Wisdom all the time, but it doesn't worry me anymore. He's one of a few still clinging to the world of right-wing reality. But I still like the guy, nutwagon he is. Somehow Americans have managed to see through it as the disater looms. Hopefully they won't start WW3 to keep their hands on the controls. And hopefully the votes will get counted accurately this NOV, because their time is up. You still belive in that don't you Bart? Or is vote-rigging Ok in the War in Dems?
Rush would do it.
Anal Mouse writes:
ReplyDeleteYes, and the laws as written make it a criminal act to lie under oath to a federal grand jury, and to lie under oath in a deposition in a civil case.
Golly! You think there might be a difference between the two in terms of gravity of the offense?
Armagednoutahere knocks another one out of the park. You need your own blog, dude.
ReplyDeleteIt's free.
Thanks for adding more detail arne and anon.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that it's technical capacity to wiretap 1% of domestic communications that the FBI sought in 1995. Still, back then it seems like a major change in policy for entirely domestic surveillance.
Yes, it appears that the NSA has always had far more surveillance capacity than domestic law enforcement ever did. Primarily for foreign intelligence gathering rather than domestic spying.
Perhaps two entirely different systems, but I wouldn't know for certain.
President Nixon, as I understand it, employed the FBI for his domestic wiretap snooping, not the NSA. However according to one website [see link below] British NSA operator interviewed on CBSNews "60 Minutes" in 2000 claimed the NSA was used to snoop on Senator Strom Thurmond. I have no idea how one might verify the claim, but here's how the transcript posted there reads in part:
"KROFT: (Voiceover) One of the few people to acknowledge that they have listened to conversations over the Echelon system is Margaret Newsham, who worked at Menwith Hill in England back in 1979. She had a top secret security clearance.
KROFT: And it was definitely an American voice?
Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that was distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom Thurmond. And I go, 'What?'"
Let's see, 1979 would be after FISA was signed by then President Jimmy Carter. Hmmm.....
Sorry about the long post. I tend to get rambling at times. And too lazy to proof.
ReplyDeleteThe worst thing we ever did was get rid of The Fairness Doctrine.
ReplyDeleteSo, let me get this straight. You want some government committee to decide what is “fair” in regard to broadcast programming and then compel broadcasters to reconcile the supposed imbalance somehow? Aside from the dubious constitutionality of this idiotic idea, the result is likely to be endless lawsuits from all sides of the political spectrum, and the result of that will be the disappearance of political speech from the public airways. If this is your goal you will fail.
Rush and the gang immediately jumped on the air with talk of straw men who worship democrats and love liberals and say ridiculous things. Bart and Anon who hates Clinton were fooled by old fashioned con-men. 15 years of listening day and night to talking heads spouting absolute bullshit has created a little army of loyal right-wingers who think they have an enemy out there in over half the country. But those straw men don't exist.
Yada. Yada. Yada. Talk about straw men! There are hundreds of talk-show hosts in scores of broadcast markets, and it is the marketplace of ideas that has resulted in the majority of those talk-shows featuring conservative or libertarian hosts. If your leftist and liberal pals can’t compete for listeners, don’t blame the disappearance of the “fairness doctrine.” Blame their ideas.
You guys have launched fullscale (sic) war against everything Democrat or Liberal, and been convinced by liars that somebody out there loves them like you all love your Fearless Leader.
What a stupid remark. Grow up. There is no “full scale war against everything Democrat or Liberal.” No one is “convinced by liars.” Your reality is a cartoon reality. People listen to Rush, and Hannity, and Bennett, and Ingraham, and Prager, and countless other conservatives because they agree with what they say. They are sick of doom-and-gloom liberalism, sick of bashing the military, and sick of Bush-haters.
And hopefully the votes will get counted accurately this NOV, because their time is up.
You’re counting your chickens a little early here chum. My guess is that by November the President’s numbers will be much higher, and the Republicans will remain in control of both houses of Congress. What are you going to say then? I suppose you’ll claim that the election was stolen. Elections have been stolen in the United States in the past, yes, but the thieves have always been Democrats, not Republicans (Lyndon Johnson in 1948, Kennedy in 1960, Mayor Daley in Chicago again and again, etc., etc.).
So in November of 2006, when once again the Democrats go down to ignominious defeat, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteA careful reading of the EFF v. AT&T suit and a following of the links at the EFF page implies that the taps referred to in that suit are not CALEA taps, instead it is a diversion of the entire light-data stream to the NSA at virtually all domestic hubs. This is something very different from narrowly defined legal wiretapping, It appears to be a dragnet grasp of control over all communications, domestic and international, email, phone, wireless, and data.
Quite true. I was responding to comments by "The Fly" concerning alleged Clinton desires to wiretap one in a hurnder people. He's simply wrong.
The ATT situation seems to be a bit different (both in magnitude and in implementation).
As it stands, the CALEA act requires that the phone companies provide wiretap feeds to LEAs ("law enforecement agencies") when such are authorised by law. In practise, such authorisation consists of wiretap warrants (backed up by probable cause) for Title III, and court-issued subpoenas for "trap'n'trace" type information. The only information that phone companies may provide (with some rare exceptions for testing of the equipment) is that duly ordered by the wiretap warrant. The feds come to the phone company with warrant in hand, and the phone company provisions the warrants and sets up the delivery to the LEA's CF ("collection function", generally a Penlink/Lincoln box, or a JSI box). In the ATT case, it sounds like (or is alleged that) the phone company delivered all communications en masse to the NSA equipment, with the NSA folks deciding what to filter, who to listen to, and such. That's quite a difference (and in fact, not legal under either CALEA or the FISA act).
Cheers,
anonymous:
ReplyDelete[Arne]: We have to work with the laws as written...
Yes, and the laws as written make it a criminal act to lie under oath to a federal grand jury, and to lie under oath in a deposition in a civil case.
Nope. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1621-23 (The Perjury Chapter of the U.S. Code). And if that's not enough to tip you off, try reading U.S. v. Gaudin.
Why are you a hypocrite? You are a hypocrite because you excuse Bill Clinton's real criminal acts, undoubtedly done against the legal advice of his attorneys, ....
You assume facts not in evidence (and as I've argued, some of your facts are in fact simply wrong). I can't be much of a hypocrite on this charge when I don't think that Clinton violated the law.
... while you condemn the president for following the sound advice of his legal advisors regarding his authority to conduct warrantless surveillance.
I'd quibble on the "sound advice" had I the time or inclination. But I'm free to think (as do many others here) that as a matter of law, Dubya's violating the laws (and strangely enough, Dubya has pretty much admitted that he's going contrary to the FISA act). Dubya's justification is to claim that there's some 'higher authority' he's following (when he's not busy claiming that the AUMF says precisely what it doesn't say, as Glenn has laid out so well for you), namely that the Constitution also says what it does not say. The latter is a rather slim reed to hang his case from, but if he were in fact serious about it, he'd have gone to court and let the court decide. That he has not done, and it's been suggested by many that the main reason he hasn't is that he'd get slapped silly if he did.
One thing you can't dispute is that the only law we have that talks about wiretaps says that warrants are required. Something to think about, eh?
[Arne]: The Supreme Court has rules that automatically disbar anyone whose license is suspended.
Why can't you just say "Yes, you're right, Clinton was disbarred for lying in his Paula Jones deposition and for lying to a federal grand jury."
Because the pro forma disbarment from the Supreme Court bar was not an actual disbarment proceeding. When I said he wasn't disbarred originally, I was referring to the Arkansas proceedings which suspended his license.
You want to explain why you disputed my claim he'd been suspended by citing a link that used those very words? Are you stoopid, or do you just play such on the Internet?
[Arne]: But if you want to get all "rule'o'law" on me here, surely you're in favour of getting HWSNBN disbarred in Colorado for the evident falsehood he committed above...
You want to disbar someone for "lying" in the comment section of a minor blog on the Internet? Are you nuts?
No. And I never said such, did I? But if you weren't such a hypocrite, you'd be screaming for such, wouldn't you?
Please let us all know when you've written the Colorado bar with your accusations.
I have no plans to do so. I'd rather shame HWSNBN by pointing out his many lies. But, to be honest, if we were to disbar every lawyer that ever told a lie, there wouldn't be anyone left to write our wills....
... Also, please let us know when Bart sues you for slander and defamation of character and when you are bankrupted by the resulting settlement against you.
If HWSNBN had any balls and your lack of sense, he'd try it. But he's a bit smarter than you, and knows that even the Mighty HWSNBN, Defender Of The Just And True (And Dubya, Also) On The Internet, can't just make sh**e up and walk into court without getting slapped silly by real judges. Although if he cites dicta in sny cases he tried, they may still have their fun with him....
Cheers,
"The Fly":
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that it's technical capacity to wiretap 1% of domestic communications that the FBI sought in 1995. Still, back then it seems like a major change in policy for entirely domestic surveillance.
Not at all. CALEA was passed in response to changing technology. With the advent of mobile telephony and other modern telecommunications technology (call forwarding, etc.), it was no longer possible for the gummint to just go put in a "wire tap" (literally) on the local telephone pole themselves. Now, they needed the co-operation of the telcos, and that's what the CALEA act was all about. The capacity issue was just some numbnutz not doing a really good sizing job, and neglecting to look at the costs and the realistic requirements. As I said, the original capacity requirements were much too high, and this fact was recognised and cured subsequently. And even as it stands (at least in the last couple years, where I got some idea of surveillance DB size), the required capacity is far above what's being used ... or will be used in the forseeable future, assuming no grand changes in wiretap policy or laws. There's plenty of "headroom" even with the reduced capacity requirements.
But that's all beside the point that your original assertion about Clinton was a steaming pile.
Cheers,
Oh how they squawk when you hit them with the truth.
ReplyDeleteSo in November of 2006, when once again the Democrats go down to ignominious defeat, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves
howls anonymous.
You’re counting your chickens a little early here chum says anonymous as if in answer to himself.
The worst thing we ever did was get rid of The Fairness Doctrine.
So, let me get this straight. You want some government committee to decide what is “fair” in regard to broadcast programming and then compel broadcasters to reconcile the supposed imbalance somehow? Aside from the dubious constitutionality of this idiotic idea, the result is likely to be endless lawsuits from all sides of the political spectrum, and the result of that will be the disappearance of political speech from the public airways. If this is your goal you will fail. Anonymous goes, showing absolutely no understanding of what the Fairness Doctrine was, or how it worked or that it worked for decades until the rich guys who put Rush on the air decided they'd never get their agenda through if they had to let someone have equal time to answer every single lie and mistatement they needed to make to have any success. No lawsuits, no confusion, no govt committees involved, and it worked exactly the way it was intended. If someone wanted to make a bogus claim, someone who disagreed got equal time to answer it. Right away. Not years later in books trying to stem the tide of lies, like has to be done these days to have any chance to keep thses liars honest.The FD kept people from being able to lie to the public without getting nailed instantly. Now you and the other 20% of the public who still back Bush strongly believe all the horseshit they've filled your head with. Your the people the FD was designed to protect. The ones who are so susceptible to con-jobs you can't be trusted to keep your eye on the ball without help.
Yada. Yada. Yada. Talk about straw men! There are hundreds of talk-show hosts in scores of broadcast markets, and it is the marketplace of ideas that has resulted in the majority of those talk-shows featuring conservative or libertarian hosts. If your leftist and liberal pals can’t compete for listeners, don’t blame the disappearance of the “fairness doctrine.” Blame their ideas.
Wrong again. The opportunity for anyone willing to spew right-wing bullshit to be given a radio talk show is the fault of Clear Channel and FOXNews, who make no secret of their desire to keep Republicans dominating the conversation. If you're willing to toe the company line, take a spot on the 24 a day right-wing snowmachine. If you're liberal, go away, please. And don't call in cause we'll turn your mic off.
I listen to those shows for laughs, and because they're the only thing offered in almost the whole country, and I don't believe a word they say. Neither do the majority of listeners who laugh along like I do. Do you see where Bush support is down to 20% and falling fast? Thats you and the few left who don't have the capacity to spot horseshit when its shoveled at you. Even here where we don't have anything but right-wing drivel all day long on the radio Bush and his shitshovelers are only able to muster a meagre 18% behind The Fearless Leader. Most people see through their crap. You don't.
You guys have launched fullscale (sic) war against everything Democrat or Liberal, and been convinced by liars that somebody out there loves them like you all love your Fearless Leader.
What a stupid remark. Grow up. There is no “full scale war against everything Democrat or Liberal.” No one is “convinced by liars.” Your reality is a cartoon reality. People listen to Rush, and Hannity, and Bennett, and Ingraham, and Prager, and countless other conservatives because they agree with what they say. They are sick of doom-and-gloom liberalism, sick of bashing the military, and sick of Bush-haters
Anonymous here does exactly what I say he and his right-wing clack always do, even as he denies he's doing it. Bizarre. But spotting hypocrisy is not in their capacity. Lying about it comes like breathing to them.
I look forward to hearing from you this Nov.
Now go turn on your radio and get your new instructions.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"My guess is that by November the President’s numbers will be much higher, and the Republicans will remain in control of both houses of Congress.
So in November of 2006, when once again the Democrats go down to ignominious defeat, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves."
Don't forget to turn your nightlight on.
Shortly after the Prizes were announced, I posted this satire, Let us praise a few Pulitzers. Anticipating exactly this kind of reaction from the right, it's composed in the voice of a supercilious conservative who's angered over the award given to Risen and Lichtblau. I have to admit, though, that Bennett presents a more credible simulacrum of virtuous indignation than I could hope to achieve with my little fiction.
ReplyDelete"My guess is that by November the President’s numbers will be much higher, and the Republicans will remain in control of both houses of Congress.
ReplyDeleteSo in November of 2006, when once again the Democrats go down to ignominious defeat, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves."
This comment is the kind of thing the Resolute Fantasy World post was talking about.
Fox News: Bush at record low 33% approval
Note to DIEbold and the GOP and the scumbags on the SCOTUS:
Next time you try thwart democracy in America by fiddling with elections, try and install some competent puppets or you will all find yourselves dangling from the end of a rope from the nearest tree. No wonder they want to eliminate trees from the landscape.