I am tired of having this same NSA conversation—until we know all the facts (and because of what’s left of the classified nature of the program, we’re not likely ever to know all of them), we simply repeatedly rehearse argument for hypotheticals based on scenarios that don’t, to our knowledge, match any of the facts to which those involved in administering of overseeing the program has ever admitted.
In fact, the key hypotheticals being used against the program run counter to the known facts—though to be fair to critics, these hypotheticals do, on occasion, react to counter hypothetical assertions made by the adminstration, the DoJ, counsel for the NSA, the President’s war powers, AUMF statutory exemption to FISA, etc). Which is why, as I’ve been arguing (and remember, this is my sense of things: I don’t claim any special political or legal knowledge), the entire NSA dustup is a separation of powers fight—with those who dislike the President or hope to see executive powers better checked by a parliamentary-like legislature taking one position; and those who believe that the President needs, per the Constitution, to have certain war-time control of strategic military tools, including the gathering of signals intel, at his disposal where it is needed (and our enemy in this war operates at least partially from within the country) taking the other position. And I’ve further argued that the administration has taken advantage of the zealotry of anti-Bush and civil-liberties absolutists (as well as aggressive legal scholars who, like activist judges, tend to see themselves as secular philosopher kings) to coax them into making arguments that, though they may have no practical basis in fact, nevertheless conspire to make these critics look either weak or bureaucratically-constrained on national security issues. And they look this way for fear of running afoul of a statutory act that 1) may not in fact apply, under the conditions by which the program is actually being run (the standard of probable cause, however softened, still being prohibitive) 2) may not withstand constitutional scrutiny if asked to compete against Article II powers (this is the suggestion of the FISA appeals court, those like Griffin Bell who were around at FISA’s inception, and a thorough (rather than carefully excerpted) reading of Youngstown; 3) and are at the very least capable of being subject to compelling legal debate, making the charge that the President is a de facto lawbreaker a begging of the question.
In advocating for this second position—that the President was given inherent powers in war time to make certain military decision under the appropriate legal conditions (it will be helpful here to note yet again that Congress passed AUMF, that the program under question is under constant review, that the President went through legal advisor in several branches, and that the proper contingent of bi-partisan Congressional leaders were alerted and have been kept abreast of the program, about which we know very little of the particulars)—I have noted time and again to the best of my ability, and drawing on the reasoning of legal scholars who, like scholars in all fields requiring semiotic interpretation, are in constant and useful intellectual battle with those who disagree with their own readings, that—with no substantive evidence of any illegality (and hypotheticals based on asserted authority do not count, because those asserted hypotheticals are an argument for the power, not an admission of its deployment), there is every reason to believe that the President is acting within his authority, and that the worst-case hypotheticals militating against that conclusion have no standing other than as allegations based on a desire to fight a separation of powers battle that may not have anything to do with the particulars of the NSA “domestic spying” program.
I bring all this up—yet again—because it seems to me that in making these arguments, I have been consistent and honest—and up front about my reasoning. I’ve sourced my materials; I’ve given a fair hearing to my opponent; and—aside from pointing out that opponents of the program, based on what we know of it, are begging the question by assuming, for purposes of preemptory conviction, facts not in evidence—I have avoided attacking the more serious of them personally (though at times I am convinced that their unwillingness to agree even on the circumstances as I have outlined them shows them to be arguing in bad faith).
Despite all this, today I am greeted by this, from Glenn Greenwald:
We are well on our way to having exactly this sad dynamic [“the way in which this Administration so nakedly traffics in falsehoods, the susceptibility of Americans to be manipulated by rank cartoonish brainwashing, and worst of all, the profound failure of the media to fulfill its purpose of ensuring that our citizenry is informed and that the Government cannot falsely propagandize the nation”] repeat itself with the NSA scandal. Karl Rove is peddling transparent falsehoods about the scandal because he knows we have a neutered media that will simply pass them along, at most tepidly and neutrally noting that some Democrats disagree, but never, ever pointing out that the claims are factually false. If things continue as they are, public opinion polls will undoubtedly soon show that a majority believes that Democrats oppose eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and that the NSA scandal– as numerous dishonest Bush followers keep framing it—is based on a disagreement about whether we should have to “hang up” when Osama calls.
For the moment, leave aside the extraordinary arrogance of the assumption that but for those who can SEE TRUTH like Mr Greenwald and his fellow travelers, the bulk of Americans are all ignorant hicks, susceptible to “cartoonish brainwashing” and blindly loyal to a media that, evidently, is in the business of proferring pro-Bush propaganda (presumably when it is not busy leaking classified info, ginning up false scandals, or working hard to frame the public debate in such a way that the majority of Americans believe, say, an economy with below 5% unemployment just short of a disaster).
Instead, I want to focus on the bit where I am personally characterized as a “dishonest Bush follower”—the basis for the charge being, presumably….what, exactly? I have outlined the facts as fairly as I can; I have presented opposing viewpoints and attempted to rebut them; and—most importantly here—I actually believe that those who presume to stand in acontextual judgment of the legality of the President’s actions are wrong, and that in their advocacy, and given the accretion of known fact, they are assuming an almost metaphysical position from which to pass judgment.
That Greenwald wishes to call me “dishonest” is, I suppose, his prerogative; thankfully, I have left a trail of writings on the NSA subject that will allow honest readers to judge his assessment for themselves. But I will point out that, in simply choosing that way to frame our disagreements on this subject (which extends to a debate over the responsibilities of the press joined by TBogg, who from what I’ve been able to gather fancies himself a kind of cyber Lewis Black), Greenwald has surrendered any claim to the rhetorical high ground, not to mention any bit of his credibility that does not proceed from his knowledge of—and advocacy for—civil rights law (which, despite the moral weight the field has accrued, is not nearly so demonstrably righteous as it pretends to be).
Of course, Glenn is among those who believe the President “lied” about WMD—his assertion being, necessarily, that the President knew more than anyone did else that Iraq did not possess such weapons or weapons capabilities (alternately, he was able to effectively coerce, frighten, gag, or bribe his co-conspirators, and to prevent members in the Dem intel committee from going to look at the raw data for themselves), and that, with this information in hand, he hid it from the rest of us, allowed the world community to go on believing the nearly unanimous supporting intelligence, and decided simply to invade Iraq on the basis of a known falsehood (rather than on the basis of what may or may not have been faulty intelligence, the existence of which was always and necessarily compromised by the closed system through which it flowed).
And if that’s how you define a “lie,” I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised how short the walk is from such a recasting of communal signification to “dishonest” meaning something akin to “disagrees with me, Glenn Greenwald—who is demostrably smarter and more zealous in my love of liberty than are those who hold views opposing my own. Because they are sheep sucked in by a secret media conspiracy to parrot the government line”).
Anyway, as is my wont when I write this lengthy and more serious posts, I’ll leave it to you to decide who is being “dishonest” here.
But none of what Glenn writes changes the facts: George Bush or Karl Rove or Michelle Malkin or me are not the problem when it comes to how Americans decide the ultimate rhetorical outcome of questions of security and fideltity to truth; instead, it is critics of the NSA program who continue to make absolutist claims in advance of provable fact who are, in fact, responsible for the travails of Dems and progressives and a certain brand of libertarian on these issues, because they are so quick to assume the worst—and almost inveterately unwilling to allow facts to emerge without spin or obfuscation before pronouncing sentence.
Ideology has blinded them to the proper method for coming to conclusions and deciding issues on their empirical merit (me, I think it possible, for instance, that the President may have broken the law; I just don’t have proof, and even if I did, I might find reason to question the law itself. Does Glenn consider it possible the President has acted within his executive power, or withing the constraints of established statute?) Thankfully, most Americans aren’t as susceptible to rank cartoonish brainwashing as those who let their inflated sense of self cloud their more sober judgments.
*****
(My previous posts on the subject are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and they contain comprehensive sourcing).
****
update: Cold Fury’s Mike Hendrix emails:
“For my part, Jeff, I’d say that any argument that depends on the notion of a “neutered media” that will “simply pass along” anything handed them by anyone in the Bush administration in a “tepid and neutral” (!) fashion is pretty damned specious, and reeks not only of desperation but of a complete and irrevocable disconnect from anything resembling reality.
“Or, in other words, it’s just another BDS sufferer baying at the damned moon […]
And here’s NRO’s Andrew McCarthy from “The Probable Cause of the NSA Controversy
“(h/t Oscar Jr):
We are either at war or we are not. If we are, the president of the United States, whom the Constitution makes the commander-in-chief of our military forces, is empowered to conduct the war  meaning he has unreviewable authority to employ all of the essential incidents of war fighting.
Not some of them. All of them. Including eavesdropping on potential enemy communications. That eavesdropping  whether you wish to refer to it by the loaded “spying” or go more high-tech with “electronic surveillance” or “signals intelligence”  is as much an incident of warfare as choosing which targets to bomb, which hills to capture, and which enemies to detain.
It was critical in the Civil War, when, by definition, it was done domestically  and without the slightest suggestion that federal courts should be involved. It was critical in World War II, when concerns about enemy infiltration were very real. And it is perhaps more critical today than during any war in our nation’s history.
Al Qaeda is an international terrorist network. We cannot defeat it by conquering territory. It has none. We cannot round up its citizens. Its allegiance is to an ideology that makes nationality irrelevant. To defeat it and defend ourselves, we can only acquire intelligence  intercept its communications and thwart its plans. Nothing else will do.
Al Qaeda seeks above all else to strike the United States  yet again  domestically. Nothing  nothing  could be worse for our nation and for the civil liberties of all Americans than the terrorists’ success in that regard. For those obvious reasons, no communications are more important to capture than those which cross our borders. Al Qaeda cannot accomplish its ne plus ultra, massive attacks against our domestic population centers, unless it communicates with people here. If someone from al Qaeda is using a phone to order a pizza, we want to know that  probable cause or not.
See also, “Intelligence Chief Defends Domestic Spying Program”, WaPo; also, here (thanks to Monica in Austin)
Jeff, even though it’s always seemed to me that the whole issue was blown way out of proportion, I’ve cited and linked your posts on the subject consistently in conversations on and off the web because of your logical and well-documented approach. Your clear-headedness is appreciated amidst the wailing of sensationalists.
I will say just three things here:
(1) In making the argument I made, I specifically referred only to your characterization of the Democrats’ position in the NSA scandal as being that our Government should “hang up” on Osama or Al Qaeda rather than listen in on the conversation.
Nobody believes that we should not be eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden. Contrary to your dishonest characterization of the position of Bush opponents, nobody believes we should “hang up” when Osama calls. That is not, and has never been, the Democrats’ position, and it is simply dishonest to suggest that it is.
The only issue is why the Administration did not comply with a law which expressly allows, as permissively as a law can permit, this eavesdropping, but instead chose to eavesdrop outside of the confines of the law and without judicial oversight.
Whatever one’s views are on that question, it is simply and objectively “dishonest” to characterize the position of Democrats (and/or the conservatives who object to Bush’s law-breaking) as entailing opposition to surveillance of the telephone calls made by terrorists. That is not any notable Democrats’ position, and to say otherwise – as you did, and as Karl Rove did last Friday – is dishonest.
(2) I do not believe, and therefore never argued, that Bush “lied” about pre-war WMD intelligence, and I believe you know this. Our debate on this issue was on the narrow question of whether those who do believe that Bush lied are, for that reason alone, fairly accused of hating or trying to damage the country. I don’t believe that’s a fair accusation, but I don’t share the view that Bush “lied” about Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
(3) I did not say and do not believe that I have superior wisdom, that those who disagree with me are “hicks,” etc. etc. I simply pointed out the astonishing and shameful fact that even 6 months after we invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans continues to believe that Saddam personally helped to plan the 9/11 attacks. I have no doubt that many of them – including many who are about to comment here – continue to believe that.
If that isn’t a tribute to: (a) this Administration’s superb use of deceitful propaganda and (b) the profound failure of this country’s media to do its job, I don’t know what is. The reason that travesty occurred is due to the same type of dishonesty that is causing people like you to mishcaraterize the position of Bush opponents as being that we shouldn’t eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, even though you know full well that isn’t what’s being argued.
Am I missing something, or has Mr. Goldstein alluded many times to believing this to be a separation of powers battle rather than “Those against the program disapprove of spying on Osama!”?
And, given the shifting poll responses changing whether the question refers to Bush or a generic Executive regarding the spy scandal, I think it is almost equally dishonest to claim that the opponents of the program are arguing entirely in good faith.
Granted, that’s another dogmatic poll-quoting exercise, so take it with a grain of salt.
Note, as of now, Mr. Goldstein has extended his post.
Jeff,
Don’t let the specious bastards grind you down. You seem to be one of the few who can initially argue in good faith, a trait Glenn G. doesn’t seem to share.
Just because Glenn’s not so hot at reading comprehension (his link to your previous post) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t keep fighting the good fight.
There are lots of people out there who appreciate hearing reasonable, informed debate. Keep up the good work.
I’m still amazed there’s this much fury over a program that pales in comparison to behavior during the last administration. It’s almost as if it’s all politically motivated.
Glenn your assertation that “The only issue is why the Administration did not comply with a law which expressly allows, as permissively as a law can permit, this eavesdropping, but instead chose to eavesdrop outside of the confines of the law and without judicial oversight” is clearly in opposition to 50 USC 1801(a), the warrantless monitoring exception. So what the NSA decides to do about evasdropping on enemy elements needs no warrant, and is subject to internal oversight only. You’ll find more info on the topic among the 27 ‘here’s at the end of Jeff’s post above.
Glenn Greenwald said “I simply pointed out the astonishing and shameful fact that even 6 months after we invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans continues to believe that Saddam personally helped to plan the 9/11 attacks. I have no doubt that many of them – including many who are about to comment here – continue to believe that.
If that isn’t a tribute to: (a) this Administration’s superb use of deceitful propaganda and (b) the profound failure of this country’s media to do its job, I don’t know what is.”
In trying to examine the logic in your rhetoric, I am struck by the manner in which you jump from unsourced assertion (your statistical reference) to a conclusion regarding administration proaganda with absolutely no supporting information. Is your argument that the only way people could have come to this belief is via an insidious government plot? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this argument?
I reject both your premise (i.e. 70% believes…) and your unsupported conclusion (the Administration used propaganda {albeit in such a subtle fashion that they left no footprints}
.
And by the way, while I didn’t and don’t believe that Saddam had a significant role (if any) in planning the 9/11 attacks, I dad and do fully support the liberation of Iraq.
Regards,
Neil
Actually, Glenn, your comment was:
That pretty clearly states that Jeff, himself, is being described as dishonest, and not the argument he makes.
Had you stated, instead:
Then maybe your assertion that you are only referring to his characterization would have made sense. Regardless, I am not sure how calling someone dishonest or calling their arguments dishonest differs so much as to get to what Jeff is pointing out- he has tried to argue matters in good faith, rather than resorting to dishonesty.
And at any rate, merely calling someone a ‘Bush follower’ in a paragraph in which you insist people have been ‘cartoonishly brainwashed’ and then implying that everyone but you is ill-informed by the media is itself condescending and offensive.
I have no problem with you saying any of these things- if you really think them. I say nasty things all the time about people- but I mean them. But to say them about someone who has tried to engage you honestly, and then come here and claim that isn’t what you are really meaning to say seems, if you will excuse me- dishonest.
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
absurd (adj.): ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable
I’m left with inserting dictionary entries because you accuse the media of being pawns of the great Chimpy lawbreaker. Is this the same media that broke the “news” of the story and continues to cast it as “wiretapping of American citizens”? If so, I refer you to the definition above.
As there has been a remarkable lack of consensus on this matter across the blogosphere even among those with legal credentials, I still believe the legality of the President’s actions are a bit…ummm…murky. Unless you know about some court ruling of which the rest of us are unaware.
You can disagree with the latest DoJ legal characterization of the program’s adherence to exisiting law–but that does not mean your word is definitive, any more than mine is, or Jeff’s, or (insert name of your favorite Google search here).
However, you and many of your shrilly shouting compadres miss the crucial point: If the TARGET of the NSA snooping are foreign AQ operatives with those damned disposable cell phones, then Article II seems to trump your inflated concerns about the rights of Americans. I also hold that the screeching shows a vast amount of technological ignorance about our capabilities (a deficit that dwarfs your concerns about Saddam and 9/11 perceptions). This area of sigint prowess is one where we enjoy a marked advantage. So how about we not take it away, hmmm?
P.S.: Saddam not having an active role in 9/11 is not the same as no ties between the King of the Spider Hole and AQ as has been voluminously discussed elsewhere.
Well, personally I’m always highly amused when someone gets all shocked (shocked!) to learn that the US GOVERNMENT is LISTENING IN to OVERSEAS PHONE CALLS!
The horror! THE HORROR!
Get a freakin’ clue, ya dumb-asses.
Hint: Don’t call Cousin Mahmoud in Pakistan and inquire how the jihad against the evil kuffirs is going in Waziristan. You’ll be LISTENED TO! BY SPIES!
And not just ours, either.
SB: same
as it ever was
Neil – I cited the source – a USA Today poll showing 70% of Americans believe Saddam participated in the planning of 9/11 as of September, 2003 – in the post of mine to which Jeff was responding. It’s here.
John Cole – Fair enough about the “dishonest” point. I don’t think that Jeff is dishonest generally or that he argues in bad faith on the NSA issue, which is why I’ve spent as much time as I have engaging his arguments. To the extent the post suggested that Jeff generally is dishonest or argues dishonestly, I should have worded it differently. I think he is being dishonest when describing the Democrats’ position in the NSA scandal in the way he is describing it, not that he is dishonest on the NSA issue generally or as a person.
And I don’t think that everyone is brainwashed. I think that it’s a very serious problem, primarily with the performance of our media, that 70% of the country believed for almost two years something which is simply not true – that Saddam personally planned 9/11 – at a time when our Government had an intense interest in having people believe that.
That’s just crap, Glenn. Reference my earlier post.
That’s not what the polled asked. It asked if Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Here it is (link above):
That’s something you’re OK with? You think that depicts a country with a healthy media and a well-informed citizenry?
The only people I hear making the argument that Saddam had a part in 9/11 are the news media with their endless repetition that Americans believe this. The idea that 70% still believe, or ever believed, this is ludicrous, although hopefully 70% or better now believe that Iraq is central to combatting terror. I think Greenwald confuses the public’s understanding that leaders like Saddam, who have no qualms in using the powers of their state to sponsor terrorism, and who have no conscience when it comes to using WMD against both its own citizens and against its neighbors, need to be dealt with. Little men with little minds, that’s my take on the Greenwald crowd.
Most puzzling. The public is always so well-informed about everything else!
While the whole subject is a red herring, Glenn, can you actually cite any administration statements trying to tie Saddam to 9/11?
Because I can’t remember any. But do remember some statements to the opposite, in fact.
Glenn,
To use a parallel with shich you will be uncomfortable–the lack of proven widespread WMD in Iraq is indicative in polls that the President “lied.”
I answer for myself and here is what I know:
1. Every intelligence agency ON THIS ROCK believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD.
2. The ties between Saddam and AQ existed. Period.
Americans do lousy on almost any informational subject if you amalgamate the responses (our societal ignorance of geography is legendary).
But I digress–your line of reasoning does not answer whether the NSA program is legal nor does it provide the proof of some kind of grand deception of the public. This is not North Korea and we have more than one channel on the tube, radio, blog, etc. Otherwise, where would we go for Jeff Gannon cock jokes?
– wishbone…. theres nothing “murky” about the issue, unless you’re trying to find anyway you can to reframe war conditions into merely a law enforcement issue. What I find laughable is the lefts premise that acts of war are certainly “criminal”, so therfore they should be treated criminally. This same thinking of criminality, rather than war time conditions of espionage, was a keystone to the Clinton administration and look what THAT got us. By moving the goal posts, and sticking doggedly to it, we once again get to debate a specious issue, generated solely by the debating ground rules set by the opposition, if we let them. Notice that if you can get traction defining it as simply criminal “law enforcement”, then the next logical step is to use that as a proof point that there is no war. So damn transparent.
– I can’t give the particulars or proof, since I’m not a lawyer either. Just suffice it to say that it would be hard to think of something that wouldn’t be permissable in acting against our enemies, preventing attacks, and following the constitutional duties that are bedrock requirements on the part of the President, within the Geneva conventions. Certainly counter measures such as tracking and screening enemy calls is an absolute given, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is silly and suicidal.
– Once you get past the idea that this isn’t a war on criminals, but a war on enemy combatents, then the entire warrent issue looks idiotic.
TW: I hope the left is enjoying all the bad PR they’re garnering from this phoney “protecting rights” anti-Bush campaign. It will make a nice book-end pairing with their recent engagement to Usama.
There’s always the possibility the public came to that conclusion on their own—though I guess that’s more credit than Glenn could give the man-in-the-street. Considering I recall statements from the administration saying Saddam’s Iraq was not involved in 9/11, it seems hard to pin that poll on them.
Personally, I think the person most to blame for that result is Saddam himself. He kept threatening us, made no beefs about supporting terrorists, sheltered the only free member involved in the first WTC attack, gave a home to Abu Nidal, etc.
Dear Glenn,
thank you for the link…in examining the actual poll results at<a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm” target=”_blank”>
I see that the number of respondents indicating this Sadddam’s involvement was likely had actually declined from 78% on 9/13/01 to 69% on 8/11/03. If the administration was indeed engaged in propaganda, they were not very successful. The more important point remains that evidence of delusion on the part of poll respondents is not evidence of an administration conspiracy.
Regards,
Neil
From the WaPo story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5) about the WaPo poll about which the WaPo story gives darn few details:
And,
Hmm. Seems to me Mr. Bush was pretty explicit that while Iraq was a state that supported terrorists, that was allied with al Qaeda, and that had WMD, which points might be argued, he didn’t actually imply that Iraq was behind 9/11 or even shared in responsibility for it beyond the general responsibility that any terror-supporter would.
Then again,
(Boy, if Donna Brazile says it…) And,
And,
And again,
So who, exactly, was repeating something ad infinitum in the hopes that it’d become “gospel truth”? The best quotes the WaPo could come up with to demonstrate this supposed rhetorical link are pretty lame (or maybe it’s just that the brainwashing didn’t stick in my case), but the quotes they could come up with about Democrats claiming that Bush created the rhetorical link are absolutely clear. Hmm…
TW: It’s getting kind of thick in here.
Your last sentence in the above quote contradicts your first sentence. You pretend not to claim superior wisdom, yet you make the assumption that ‘many who are about to comment here’ are a bunch of witless yokels!
What transparent condecension. I can only imagine the elitist bullshit you spew when your with your friends after a beer or two.
This may come as a shock to your tender psyche, but perhaps, just perhaps many of those who comment here are better informed and have a clearer view of events than you are capable of, with your evident limitations.
Jeff’s posts on this subject have been some of the clearest and most carefully considered of any that I’ve read ANYWHERE.
Dick Cheney peddled the debunked tale of the meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta. They constantly said talked about the need to invade Iraq in order to “go on the offense” against the “terrorists” (I’m aware that’s not technically the same as saying that Saddam helped plan 9/11, but it was certainly misleading in light of Bush’s recent admission that the vast, vast majority of people we are fighting in Iraq are not terrorists at all).
I’m not going to say that the Administration came right out and said that know that Saddam planned 9/11, because they didn’t say that. Cheney’s statements came close, but what they did was constantly phrase their advocacy of the war in a way that rhetorically conflated 9/11 and Iraq.
And the proof is in the pudding. Americans in vast numbers believed something was just simply false. How do you think they arrived at that conclusion? They impliedBecause I can’t remember any. But do remember some statements to the opposite, in fact.
If the NSA ever becomes as intrusive as the IRS I’ll start worrying. Funny the left doesn’t mind all sorts of invasions of privacy when it comes to regulating business and redistributing income.
More importantly Jamie/Neil/et al,
What the hell does that have to do with the elgality of the NSA program? The more I read this thread the more light-year-across leaps of logic there are in Glenn’s assertions.
I think we would have all remembered the moment when Dubya said “Saddam wrote the check for Mohammed Atta” just like that awful “Mission Accomplished” moment.
Greenwald is getting close to this edge.
Too right, wishbone, and I humbly beg your pardon for responding at unreasonable length to an effort to hijack the thread.
TW: I’m feeling rather sheepish at the moment, though not really in that “blindly following the sheep in front of me” sense.
FYI, Andrew C. McCarthy has a new piece on NRO today that may be of interest.
– Why is it so important for the left to deny Hussein was a rabid supporter of terrorists? Could it be they need that denial to lend weight to their “needless war” screed?
– I seem to recall Saddam publicly bragging about sending 30K to each of the “bombers” in the “heroic war against the Zionists”. There are instances of harboring Al Qeada, allowing training camps to be established in Iraq, when the heat was too much in Afghanistan.
– Maybe an argument could be made that Saddam wasn’t the leading supporter, but he was certainly a player in the overall mess, and to argue so hard counter to the facts, reveals more about the lefts agenda, than the realities of the WOT.
Mr. Greenwald, have you bothered to read one word or take in one iota of information since September 2001? Repeating and repeating false conclusions made by uninformed and partisan hacks, lazy reporters, or our enemies, is not conducive to truth. Because you aren’t smart enough to hear Saddam’s name and Al Queda’s name in the same sentence and understand two different points about the same, doesn’t mean the rest of us are that stupid or that careless or that irresponsible in our conclusions.
*sigh*
At least it’s clear where you’re coming from. MY GOD!!! THE ADMINISTRATION SAID 9/11 SHOWED THE DANGERS OF IGNORING THREATS!!! THEN THEY MENTIONED SADDAM!!!! CLEARLY THEY’RE BLAMING SADDAM FOR 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeff,
Is this correspondent *really* worth your time?
I mean, he floats a line like “Dick Cheney peddled the debunked tale of the meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta,” gliding over the fact that this meeting in not debunked, merely doubted (made empatic by stamping their little feet) by our crackerjack, Wilson-sponsoring CIA.
Until you mentioned him couple weeks back, I never hear of the fellow. My life is not improved, nor my critical faculties expanded, by the new awareness.
Cordially…
Glenn,
I’ve noticed that the Left tends to think of a ‘debunking’, especially that which is against Republicans or supports Democrats, as being a permanent, never-to-be-revisited issue.
The date of your ‘Cheney – debunking’ article is Tuesday, September 16th, 2003
If memory serves, subsequent reporting on the Atta/Iraq link debunks the debunking which serves as the crux of your argument.
Quick question: Do you consider your facts as being ‘locked-down’—there is no Atta/Iraq connection? Or are you open to reconsidering the facts you use in your arguments?
Also, Jeff includes this:
I checked, those links contain the following:
1. The Ghost of Richard Brautigan cooking a lamb stew.
2. a five word or less review of “Under the Rainbow”
3. a post involving a dolphin wearing a pea coat
4. a mash-note to Lauren at Feministe concealed as a critique of identity politics (too many ‘x’s’ and ‘o’s’ to be chance)
5. Bingo!
6. some nice pictures of Satchel lifting a 40lb dumbbell.
… and so forth.
Saddam 911 poll:
9/13/01 ….. 78%
10/24/02 … 71%
2/6/03 …… 72%
8/11/03 ….. 69%
The belief that Saddam was involved with 911 was highest IMMEDIATELY AFTER 911.
The only people I hear making the argument that Saddam had a part in 9/11 are the news media with their endless repetition that Americans believe this.
Major news media are certainly the only place I’ve ever heard any assertion that anybody at all believes in Hussein’s direct involvement in planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. Yet I’ve never spoken to a single person who believes Hussein was behind the attacks. And I live in a hick town in a deep red state. On the other hand, I imagine Pauline Kael would have had some pithy comment to put me in my place.
(3) I did not say and do not believe that I have superior wisdom, that those who disagree with me are “hicks,†etc. etc. I simply pointed out the astonishing and shameful fact that even 6 months after we invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans continues to believe that Saddam personally helped to plan the 9/11 attacks. I have no doubt that many of them – including many who are about to comment here – continue to believe that.
If that isn’t a tribute to: (a) this Administration’s superb use of deceitful propaganda and (b) the profound failure of this country’s media to do its job, I don’t know what is. The reason that travesty occurred is due to the same type of dishonesty that is causing people like you to mishcaraterize the position of Bush opponents as being that we shouldn’t eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, even though you know full well that isn’t what’s being argued.
As with every post or comment I’ve read over the last 2+ years that makes a similar argument, it is completely link-free. What a surprise.
Near’s I cun tell, the problem’s Boosh ‘n’em ain’t makin enuff effert to reach out to us dumbasses, sose the dimmercrats is pist cause they got stuck with us.
Iraq and 9/11 are conflated with the use of terrorism as a strategy as the common demoninator. Given Saddam’s open support (material as well as rhetorical) to terrorism, this is hardly “propaganda”. From the perspective on 12 September 2001, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were at least two pea pods in the same garden.
Thus, your “argument” that the Administration tied 9/11 and Iraq together is more than a little specious. Add in the poll change noted by Neil S, and your “argument” is wishful thinking at best.
Yup, you do view that 70% as hicks, don’t you? Simply because we don’t see the world as clearly as you do.
TW: later, as in alligator.
Well, whenever I hear “cartoonish brainwashing” or ”staggeringly dishonest”, Greenwald certainly leaps to mind. His tactics are as transparent as they are tiresome – he consistently accuses his opponents of the very same sleazy tactics he uses himself – to wit, lies and dishonest distortions, and the laughable position that only he “understands”. I can’t see why you keep wasting time on this pretentious asswipe, Jeff – there are many other more interesting lefties, some of whom are not quite as in love with the scent of their own flatulence as Greenwald.
Dick Cheney peddled the debunked tale of the meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta.
I hear the flapping of wings.
Bumper: If you’re speaking of the Atta-in-Prague meeting debunking, you may recall how it was debunked.
The FBI has informatin that somebody–presumably Atta–was using Atta’s cell phone in the US at the time. Weak, but most useful.
The Czechs stand by the story, and there are other circumstantial pieces.
What a pity we couldn’t listen to it to know for sure.
– What I want to know is when is Usama going to help frame the Democratic platform for 2006/2008. Looking forward to his meets with Hillery and Dean to discuss a party plan, and give a keynote address at the DNC or Press club. Maybe a few articles for Daily Kos, face time on CNN, interviews on NPR/PBS, all before a sweet book deal with Regency press.
– The Left needs to firm up its positions, commitments, and common cause with their newest leader. He might change his mind. You know how fickle terrorists can be.
TW: Can you say the words ”major embarrissment” and use them in a sentence kids?
Dick Cheney peddled the debunked tale of the meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta.
First, it was the hicks. Now, the Czechs. Who will be next to be excluded from Mr. Greenwald’s Gnostic Society of Know-It-Alls? I tremble in anticipation.
Yup.
Jeff G:
This is not a dishonest claim. For one thing it’s a IF statement. For another, hanging up in that situtaion was SOP in the Gorelick wall days.
Currently with a legal wiretap on the local crime boss the FBI can monitor a call to the out of state hitman, alias Lefty Icepick, without also having a warrant on Lefty. If it were proposed that FISA type rules should apply …
(1) No monitoring without warrants for all other parties
(2) 72 hour retro warrants allowed “in emergency”
(3) Probable cause for retro warrant needs to be independent of monitored content
That call to Lefty would be off limits and getting a warrant to monitor Lefty might not be possible. That implies “hang up”.
Thanks Richard – I went back and check the MediaMatters archive on the Atta/Prague issue.
They’re an odd fact-challenged bunch over there.
One ongoing problem with The Left is that the Bush Administration’s actions wrt Iraq and the Great War on Terror always make more sense than any alternative plan.
The further complicating factor for MediaMatters and Greenwald is that the explanations given at the time and subsequent are more persuasive than the counter-arguments made.
.
If someone from al Qaeda is using a phone to order a pizza, we want to know that  probable cause or not.
Well, Mr. Bushlicking McCarthy, wasn’t it Martin Niemoller who once said, “I wasn’t a pizza artisan, so I did nothing.” ????? Well? Huh?
Dishonest. Deceitful. The tree of liberty shed a few leaves today, thanks to Mr McCarthy’s liberty leaf blower/sucker. Shame on you, Bush lackeys. Shame on you ALL!!!!
Perfect – Dan Brown’s got the major plot device of his next book now!
Or J.K. Rowling, maybe.
d’ya know, i had this same argument with greenewald at his place and i had it again yesterday with Darksyde at dKos. It’s eerie.
the major points seem to be–
1. there is actually no terrorist threat.
2. GW is scamming us into believing there is a terrorist threat.
and 3. we are function-choose-one-or-more(stupid, uneducated, dishonest, retarded, simple, biased, programmed) enough to continue to believe in terrorists even after the leftists employ their best arguments to convince us otherwise.
The reason this is basically ineffective, is that the average american voter–
1. does believe in terrorists,
and 2. becomes somewhat resentful when greenewald and darksyde begin to call us stupid, uneducated, dishonest, retarded, simple, biased, programmed, etc., because we are unable to grasp the brilliant logic and ellocution projected by greenewald et al. Darksyde even went so far as to impune my education and question whether i was competant to read a graph in Euclidean space. Well, i am quite at home in Euclidean space, and Minkowski space as well, and the graph was basically irrelevent to our argument. Ironically, it was a graph showing radical increase in terrorist attacks–BUT!!!! terrorism is not a threat? I am not sure what that was meant to prove.
not to mention, terrorism has the top rank in the latest what-do-americans-fear pew poll (35% of respondents as opposed to 12% for bird flu/pandemic, the next highest) so this meme complex virtually assures that the democrats will not regain their hegemony in any upcoming elections.
i think…if they really want to win…they should at least pretend to believe in terrorism, however unconvincing their beliefs may seem.
After the poll numbers provided by Boris, anything the rest of us might try to add is just gilding the lily. Pwn3d!
– How about John Grisham – “The (star) Chamber”
<blockquote>After the poll numbers provided by Boris, anything the rest of us might try to add is just gilding the lily. Pwn3d!<blockquote>Let us not forget that we are continually reminded how Americans’ support for the war is seriously on the wane—at least part of which, one suspects, Dems citing these old polls would attribute to Americans NOT thinking there is the direct connection elitist cite as proof of our collective cartoonish brainwashing.
The question becomes, at which point to we believe in the intelligence of the American people. Or is this simply ANOTHER example of Glenn, et al, preparing to argue that only their tireless efforts to deprogram the masses of Spam sandwich eaters has made the requisite difference. And so you know—that Christ for THEM!
The former director of the National Security Agency defends the NSA program.
Check it out: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf
– In the case of the left, when eagles fly out of Deans ass. Red Staters, and/or anyone residing in gun rack flyover country, are simpleton dupes, to be rhetorically fleeced, and vote gamed.
– For the Reps, its an oft voiced faith in the electorates good sense to see through partisan lies, and vote their conscience and values.
– Could it be….. might it possibly be, that difference tends, in some mysterious way, to effect the results at the ballot box?
“From each according to their gullibility…. Too each according to his sloth…” – the Leftist manifesto
TW: “Water is not the same as oil”
Nishizono, don’t forget! Although there is no credible terrorist threat, we’re losing a war to them, and terrorism has exploded worldwide since Chimpy McHitlerburton cowboyed into Eye-rack.
Sheeple.
Jeff, why do you refuse credit the administration’s own descriptions of the program? Both General Hayden and the President himself were very clear today about what the program entails. It involves intercepting international communications between people in the U.S. and people abroad. Hayden said:
The President, the Attorney General, General Hayden, they’re not speaking hypothetically. They’re talking about a real program that is actually being conducted right now. And they’ve admitted that the interceptions at issue are the type that would (absent the AUMF) require a FISA warrant. If you don’t believe me, please go read the text of General Hayden’s remarks today.
Your agnosticism here is ridiculous. It’s cop out and you know it. The only fact that is relevant to the legal questions here is whether or not the communications of U.S. citizens within the U.S. are being intercepted without a warrant. And they clearly are. This is not hypothetical. It is not even in dispute. So stop pretending that we don’t have enough facts to assess the legality of the program. We do. We know that the warrant procedures of FISA are not being followed. So the only question that remains is whether or not the Bush administration has some sort of statory or constitutional authority to ignore those warrant requirements. That’s a purely legal question, and the answer to it depends only on public documents (the constitution, statutes, case law, etc.).
So stop the head-in-the-sand routine. We have more than enough information at our disposal to reach an informed opinion about whether this program is legal.
I certainly cannot communicate as eloquently as Jeff and some others do here but my take on Greenwald, et al and I might add certain ideologues on the right and some so called libertarians is that they take a position immediately (even prematurely) on some issue and then attempt to weave a narrative to strengthen and bolster that position, while simply failing to acknowledge any competing facts or arguements that have merit.
Many on the left believe that Bush was not the real winner of the 2000 election and therefore anything he does is illegitimate. Many believe that any war is wrong and the war in Iraq was doubly wrong therefore any narrative must fit their position. The goalpost is constantly being moved. Remember the prognosticaters on the Left that said we could have 100,000 casualties, then later said that there would never be elections, then later said that the factions would not compromise and form a government and are now saying that there will be civil war after we leave so we might as well leave now. Success in Iraq does not fit with their staked out position, therefore success in Iraq must be denied – it’s not real.
If Greenwald was given complete access by NSA, briefings by legal talent at DOJ, DoD, CIA & NSA and could observe the program in progress, he would still write that it was illegal. He would claim that surely information was withheld from him and he was given a “dog and pony show” because they certainly not admit that they were performing illegal acts!! You see, the NSA program being legal, reasonable and necessary does not fit into the narrative he has woven to bolster the position he has already taken.
monica, domo arigato gozaimasen.
everyone should read every word.
i especially loved the whistleblower question.
Now do you see why the NYT leakers were not NSA? (well, mebbe one, triple-chinned russ tice, disgruntled and fired ex-NSA employee).
that was most habinar.
I’ve noticed that Mr. Greenwald and most on the left support all their arguments with factoid, not fact.
The sixteen words stuff. “It is a fact,” they howl, “a fact…” except the Brits haven’t backed away from that bit of intelligence yet, and no one has proven them wrong.
“Joe Wilson debunked…” they rage, except it turns out Joe Wilson strengthened the case for war.
“The Attta meeting never happened…” they froth, except the Chzeks still stand by the story.
“Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism…” they bellow, except we’re finding as Saddam’s own documents are exmained (Thank you Stephen Hayes) that Saddam was involved in the training of terrorists.
Now each of these factoids recieved some play in the MSM, but certain membrs of the MSM, duty bound by their profession, have pointed out that the factoids in question aren’t exactly…well, true.
That leads to left position number two. The media is in Bushitler’s pocket. Why? Becuase some of them have noticed the above stated fatoids aren’t true, the bastards.
Actually they call them far worse than bastards. Just ask the Washington Post, who had the temerity to point out, quite factually, that a couple of Democrats benefitted from Jack Abramov’s largesse as well.
This is all part and parcel of the claims by DarkSyde that it is empirical fact that Religious Americans are just like the Taliban, and it shows a certain brittleness that’s very frightening.
The left, Mr. Greenwald included, have to make the world a certain way. And will create any sort of artifice to make it so. They are incapable of processing information that goes against their pre-conceived mind set, which is why they stop with factoids, and never proceed to facts. Which is why Red Staters are empirically the same as the Taliban. (Even though no Lutherans that I know of have flown a plane into a skyscraper.) Which is why George Bush obviously broke the law. (Even though their is no consnesus on that matter by legal experts.)
They simply, either by choice or infirmity cannot process facts. Every time they open their mouths they prove it. And thus prove they should not possess high office.
– Didn’t I read somewhere that Bush isn’t seeking a third term?…. could have swore I did…..
– When I watch one of these “give and non-takes” on the part of the left I get this image of a video of a spec of a guy on a snowmobile looking up at a 100 foot high wall of snow, rushing down the mountain toward him at 150 miles an hour…(and a small voice wafts up through the rumble of the avalanche)….”You know… I’m thinking this isn’t going to be a good day for snow mobiling….”
And here comes Anonynous Lib in the Bullshitmobile to use the royal “we” and clear up this whole misunderstanding.
Your parentheses are showing.
Followed by…
So the legality is clear except…it’s not.
Just make sure you don’t send the knick-knacks flying off the coffee table as you chase your tail, AL.
Someone MAKE IT STOP!!!
AL – I refuse to intertain any further debate with you until you respond with a viable way to all the things, “facts” not suppositions and conspiracy theories, that you and your Komrads have been taught in visiting Jeffs blog….
– Lacking that your tireson repititions, and specious arguments are a waste of time….
Since there is an AUMF, the question is moot, the program is legal.
So why the beef?
Robert, please tell me you’re not really that slow (same goes for you, Wishbone). I added the parentheses so that I would not be accused inaccurately paraphrasing the administration’s position. The administration claims that the type of surveillance they are doing would normally require a FISA warrant, but because of the AUMF, it no longer does. That’s THEIR position. I do NOT think the AUMF gives the president that authority (and by the way Senators McCain, Brownback, Spector, and Graham–all republicans–are on the record agreeing with me). So no, Robert, this is not a moot question. It is THE question. And it’s a purely legal one that in no way depends on any information we don’t already know.
I’d respond if I had any idea what this sentence meant.
Anon. Liberal quoted Hayden, but must have missed this part:
So the most senior and experienced NSA counsel—who almost certainly know the facts in a way that we don’t—all think the program is legal.
And I’m shocked, shocked to discover that people in the Legislative Branch want to claim power and authority at the expense of the Executive Branch—even when they belong to the same political party. I’m far less shocked that AL wants to ignore the CRS report which, even with its institutional bias, could not conclude that the progarm was illegal without knowing the details of the program.
RLS, do you have any idea how ironic it is for you to be accusing someone of not accepting facts because they don’t fit into a pre-existing narrative? I think that beautifully describes your position, as well as that of Mr. Goldstein. It doesn’t seem to matter how many people state publicly that the Bush administration’s legal justification for the NSA program is weak. It doesn’t matter what the Congressional Research Service says. It doesn’t matter what Senators McCain, Spector, Brownback, and Graham say. It doesn’t matter what Grover Norquist or any number of other diehard conservatives say. None of that matters because everything Bush does MUST be “legal, reasonable, and necessary” and anyone who says otherwise must be some Bush-hating moonbat liberal.
There is so much head-in-the-sand denial on this issue. In every post Jeff insists, despite all the public statements and reporting, that we don’t actually know that the surveillance at issue is the type that implicates FISA. That kind of agnositicism can only be explained by a deep-seated need to believe that Bush acted properly here.
I was originally willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t believe me, read this initial post on the matter. But now I’ve had a chance to familiarize myself with the administration’s arguments. I’ve read their white paper. I’ve listened to what Gonzales and Bush have to say. And it’s pretty clear to me now that the administration is on very tenuous legal ground. Their arguments for the legality of this program are incredibly weak. Why else do you think so many conservative pundits and politicians have openly questioned the administration’s position?
If you want to believe that this is some scandal invented by lunatic Bush-haters, go ahead, but you’re only fooling yourself.
– I just watched Matlin diembowel Estrich on H&C over the non-existant “”domestic wiretapping” meme. Time after time Mary said its not a domestic program, but a narrow program used on known or suspected Al Qeada agents, and time after time, like the dutiful Liberal she is, Susan just kept robotically restating “but….but the Congress….”. I’m so tired of the constant idiotic willful ignorance on the part of the Marxists,its time to just switch on the ignore sign.
Please, Karl. Did you actually read the CRS report? I have, and while it stops short of stating unequivocally that Bush overstepped his authority, it comes pretty damn close. The CRS chose to use measured and diplomatic language, but it’s clear from the report what they think. Because the authors of the report are not privy to classified information, they cannot *know* beyond all doubt that the type of surveillance at issue is the type that requires a FISA warrant. But since the administration has admitted that it is, this is a fairly safe assumption. And it’s the assumption the CRS makes.
I meant to say “it’s the *only* assumption the CRS makes.”
I was watching portions of the CSPAN coverage of a talk given by a deputy director of the NSA defending the program.
It was bizarre to see a complete nutjob find his way to the microphone – complete with anti-Bush admin slogans on his t-shirt – and demonstrate what complete nuts the Democrats have become. To support his lunatic raving disguised as a question, he made repeated references to Conyers’ joke basement “hearings” and Al Gore speeches. Misrepresented the entire NSA program as spying on “millions” of Americans.
Gee, where would he have gotten such ridiculous claims? Why obviously from the Democrats’ repeated use of the “domestic spying” meme.
And Greenwald has the unmitigated gall to repeat the long discredited claim that the Bush administration is misleading people into thinking that Saddam planned 9/11? Well, I guess when partisan hydrophobes think that bile substitutes for deep thought, its easy for Democrats to ignore that they are doing irreparable harm to our national security.
But I won’t ignore it.
AL,
You pursposefully ignore the fact that there are just as many experts, some of them life long democrats who believe the NSA program is perfectly legal and proper.
Then you state, that it is a settled matter that no one diagree with you, save for brain dmaged people. Well, the facts just don’t show that.
But that’s the left’s problem. It simply cannot fathom any disagreement, nor the existence of any fact that does not prove its fantasies.
You believe that there is no war on terrorism. That instead, GWB is the most loathesome creature every to walk the face of the earth and the most god awful disaster the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the dinasaurs, or maybe even Bannannarama.
No occurence, not the murder of three thousand of your fellow citizens, not the beheading of hostages, not the bombing of subways in London, not the the arrest of people boarding air planes with bombs in their shoes will convince you otherwise.
Your reponse to any thing that falls outside of your dream world is to stick your hands in your ears, hop up and down and babble, “Everyone agrees with me, everyone agrees with me, everyone agrees with me.”
Well everyone does not agree with you, outside of Osamam Bin Laden, who seems to be using the same talking points.
The facts aren’t clearly on your side, in fact, they’re not on your side at all. They weren’t about Katrina, they aren’t about Iraq, they aren’t about the NSA. Yet instead of adjusting for reality you scream louder. And you accuse the MSM of being right wing lackies, all the time ignoring the fact that everytime the MSM has followed your line they have been marginalized and embarassed (Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, the bogus story about unguarded WMDS, the willful ignorance about Christmas in Cambodia, the Koran flushing incident that wasn’t and on and on and on.
And people like Jeff, who say listen, I’m perfectly willing to believe the President broke the law, show me a victim, them you call stooges of the Bushhitler regime. I’m sorry, you’ve burned all your crediblity. You’ve used up all my patience. You no longer seem rational to me. Long story short, you are not believable. You’re talking…no one is listening. You’re cutting, we ain’t bleeding. You are wasting your breath.
There is no longer anything you can say or do to mitigate all the out right bull crap you have tossed. There is no hope. You will not be believed. You are not a reliable witness. Understand now?
Corvan,
Nice rant. Unfortunately, I don’t think any of the things you write, nor do most liberals for that matter. You’re attacking a caricature of a liberal constructed by people who have nothing better to do that demonize those who disagree with them. You clearly don’t read my blog or even the other comments on this site. In fact, I’m surprised you can read at all. But you do deserve credit for one thing. I’ve never seen someone pack more wingnut cliches into one post. Impressive.
As for this:
I’m not ignoring anything. In fact, in a recent comment I suggested that some of the other commenters here should pay closer attention to the few legal experts who actually support Bush’s position, like Cass Sunstein, because at least then they’d know what arguments to make. It’s simply not true, though, that “just as many” experts support the president’s position. The fact is that very few attorneys who don’t work for the administration have publicly expressed support for the administration’s legal position. There are a few, but they are significantly outnumbered, and even they admit that it’s a difficult question.
Well, who the fuck can argue with the Amazing Kreskin? It’s clear as thick mud what they think. I’m amazed that you haven’t channeled how they feel too, you know, deep inside, in the center of who they are.
You still have not proven that FISA is applicable. Jeff’s point is that as a separation of powers issue, the executive supercedes FISA in any case, or that it may dependent on information not available to any party right now.
But go ahead and make an ass of yourself, AL, by insisting we need court orders to conduct overseas intelligence on Al Qaeda members.
Like Pres. Bush said, “If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?”
BTW, AL, the Democrats in Congress have stated that there is nothing wrong with the program, but that it is just a matter of Presidential overreach, and that he could have just come hat in hand to Congress, they would grant it.
That’s a hell of a drop kick to your scandal. Sorry about your pet issue, really am.
AL,
“very few attornery’s who don’t work for the administration…” You just put your hands over your ears and said “Everyone agrees with me,” again. There are more than a few and you know it. Or at least you would, if you bothered to amass a fact or two before you put pen to paper.
“nor do most liberals…” Have you been to DU? Have you been to KOS? Did you read any of DarkSyde’s posts? Have you even read Glenn Greenwald? Have you paid any attention to Micahel Moore at all? Did you notice that Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic national Convention? Did Howard Dean become Chairman of the Democratic National convention by accident?
Once again, you flatly state something that is not true as fact. Then you pretend that this reliance upon out right flasehood should not hamstring your point.
At this point I don’t know whether you can no longer recognize the truth, or whether you just don’t like it much. Either way, the result is the same. Nothing you say merits any attention.
”You’re attacking a caricature of a liberal constructed by people who have nothing better to do that demonize those who disagree with them.”
Buddy, we didn’t lift a hammer. You’re a one man Haliburton.
TW: “Provided”. An observation provided free of charge – from somebody who constructs useful things for a living.
Yeah, who the fuck you guys think you are? Trying to argue your own belief like that matters or something!
As opposed to attacking a caricature of a scandal constructed by people who have nothing better to do that demonize those who disagree with them.
Heh. Heheheh… Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Cass Sunstein, the same twit that wants a New Deal on Speech?
Of any ”legal expert” in your docket, AL, one who cannot read nor understand the importance of the First Amendment doesn’t appear on my short list.
And quoting a jackass that wants to circumscribe your civil liberties to fucking speak, for the love of God, man!, in an argument ginned up in [faux] anger over civil liberties is the most deeply ironic thing I’ve ever heard.
Vercingetorix, don’t you get it? This is the scandal. Bush’s critics (at least his serious ones; politicians, pundits, etc.) aren’t troubled by the program per se. What bothers them (and me) is that Bush decided that a duly enacted statute did not apply to him. Instead of going to Congress to get the statute amended or repealed, he simply asserted that he had the authority to stop following the law. That’s why we’re concerned. And you should be too. The theory of executive power being used to justify this program is extreme and is subject to no logical limiting principle. I know you implicitly trust George W. Bush to use that power wisely, but can you really say the same thing about all future presidents?
Your comment only exposes the fact that you are ignorant about the basic premise of this debate. You don’t even know what the opposition is concerned about, which means you haven’t been following the news that closely or even reading the comments on this blog.
What bothers them (and me) is that Bush [Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon] decided that a duly enacted statute did not apply to him. Instead of going to Congress to get the statute amended or repealed, he simply asserted that he had the authority to stop following the law.
Thanks for the briefing on the Executive Branch’s position on The War Powers Act. And your concerns are duly noted.
BMoe: suh-lice!
Instead of going to Congress to get the statute amended or repealed
Is that what SCOTUS does when congress overreaches judicial constitutional power?
Nope. They disregard, declare unconstitutional, and provide legal arguments for congress TO LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKE.
Oh My God there’s absolutly NO LOGICAL LIMITING PRINCIPAL TO THAT KIND OF POWER !!!
Ironically, AL’s “scandal” and “concern” are apparently the same as my husband’s: that while Bush can be trusted not to overstep (which AL of course notes that only some of us believe), can future presidents?
Unfortunately, there’s no way to legislate in advance the way an executive and CiC must respond to a threat to national security in wartime. Or for that matter in peacetime. Even if such legislation were appropriate.
Why so many people take it as given that FISA is just as applicable today as it was almost thirty years ago, and these thirty years particularly – know anybody with a cellphone in 1979? – is beyond me. And those who do admit that it might be outdated counter that Bush ought to have gone to Congress to amend it, which of course wouldn’t have alerted anybody that there might be a reason for him to do so. And of course the CRS report – the Congressional Research Service report – could be counted on to give a balanced view of separation of powers and how they apply in this situation…
Sorry, AL, but you already fired your ‘ignorant’ arrow: You’re not getting it back.
Because it doesn’t, not in the case of intelligence on enemy agents overseas during war. That would fall directly under the executive branch which has full constitutional authority to deal with, and treat, foreign powers. The executive briefed Congress on it, like they should have. If FISA is constitutional, and it may be as it has not been challenged seriously, it doesn’t necessarily apply in wartime.
Couldn’t be simpler, but I guess you have to make it hard.
Guess what? Any US administration can imprison and try enemy agents, they can interrogate them, they can kill them, and they can ‘eavesdrop’ on them. They can do in Germany, they can do it in Iraq, they can do it in Peoria, IL, because we happen to be at war [which they declared, btw].
The very, very best case you’ve managed to make is that there is gray area around the executive powers that need to be codified by the legislature, that if only the President said “mother may I…?” That might be, but it is hardly a scandal. And that’s still your very best shot.
AL,
Greg Nixon, a poster at KOS…just like John Kerry, is leading a protest march in NY today. He wants America to realize that 9/11 was a Bush Administration conspiracy. Thge protestors are going to attempt to arrest Rudy Guilianni at the close of the demonstration for being a part of the conspiracy.
“nor do most liberals…” my sweet bippy.
Now, now Corvan. We KNOW that Kos Klowns aren’t really umm, “mainstream” Democrats, and have little bearing on who wins the nomination.
Which is why Kerry, who still has presidential aspirations went and talked to them.
The theory of executive power being used to justify this program is extreme and is subject to no logical limiting principle.
Really?
No checks?
No logical limiting principle?
Program review every 45 days, Attorney General sign-off, FISA Court Re: Sealed Case, multiple Congressional briefings, ad nauseum ad infinitum…None whatsoever?Y’okay…
Wow, Corvan, your logic skills are impressive. Because some commenter at Kos said something and because John Kerry also once commented at Kos and because John Kerry is a liberal, therefore all liberals (including me) believe 9/11 was some Bush administration conspiracy. I believe the term for your argument is “guilt by association” (and a pretty amateur job of it too).
Don’t you find it embarrassing to write stuff like that?
Tongueboy,
Do you know what a principle is? I said there was no logical limiting principle. To rebut this you offer a list of actions the executive branch has taken which supposedly act as safeguards to abuse. But my point was that their argument doesn’t require them to take such measures. If the president has the exclusive constitutional authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, despite the existance of a law making such surveillance illegal, these safeguards you describe are completely voluntary. The theory of executive power being proffered by the administrations does not have any logical limiting principle. If the president has unreviewable discretion in this area, he can do whatever he wants, can’t he? What’s to stop Bush or some future president from doing away with these last remaining safeguards? I guess we just have to pray that our presidents choose not to abuse their power.
Don’t you find it embarrassing to write stuff like that?
I imagine it is less embarrassing to point it out than to support it. The Democratic “Big Tent” seems to appeal to all manner of political factions, anarchists, radical feminists, communists, socialists, and racialists, with the conspiracists and the now lucrative pool of ex-felons now in Maryland. Corvan’s attempt, however ham-fisted, still points out that liberals don’t censure their own or their fellow travelers.
Guilt by association is fair game if you don’t contend with your own radicals. If you don’t discipline your ranks, we certainly will.
Kerry writing for Kos, the Democratic presidential nominee for God sakes, is about on par with him writing a piece for Pravda. Game on.
Well, if I were Markos I’d be embarassed to have a po-faced loser like John F’in Kerry show up on my blog to bloviate. It just kills the whole tone, y’know?
Sure it does. It’s the Constitution.
FISA is not part of the Constitution; that’s what you seem to not understand.
This is so stupid. Do you really want to be associated with the wackjobs on the far right? The bigots, the fundamentalist loons, the people who think the Clintons murdered Vince Foster and any number of other crazy conspiracy theories. Please. There are plenty of crazy people on both sides. The few right-wing blogs (like this one) that are willing to allow comments invariably end up with a lot of really crazy sounding ones, just like the left-wing blogs do. But trying to paint everyone with one brushstroke by pointing to someone who holds a incredibly marginal position is just stupid and petty. It’s not fair game. It’s a cheap dodge. If you want to argue with me, address things that I have said, not things that some nut I’ve never met once said in the comment section on some other blog.
You guys on the left seemed to have cornered the current market of nutjobs–we kick ours to the curb.
What part of the constitution? And who has the power to see that the limit is enforced? If this is the realm of exclusive executive authority, then Congress is powerless to do anything. And since the program is secret and not subject to judicial oversight, it’s hard to see what judiciary can do to make sure the surveillance complies with the 4th amendment (that was the purpose of passing FISA after all). So we’re left with a situation where the president has unreviewable authority.
AL,
For God’s sake: Let It. Go.
Congress can cut off funding for nigh on anything, anytime it wants. See War, Vietnam. And even you point to the presence of the AUMF. I’d refer you to the DoJ white paper, but since it is hostile to your viewpoint, it’s just part of the Bushie conspiracy to ignore the law by, you know, using legal reasoning.
I also note the observations of others here about “big tents”–noticed anyone giving a welcoming embrace to Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, or David Duke around these parts? As nikolai said, we are more than harsh when it comes to moonbats.
Your silence in respect to the obvious nutters on parade in New York today is telling.
What are you talking about? I believe I called the person “crazy” and said he held an “incredibly marginal position” not shared by any intelligent liberals. Do you even read my posts before commenting?