Glenn, I don't understand why the Dems don't simply hire someone like you or Jeffrey Feldman (Frameshot blog) to synthesize this message and get it out to the public. It seems fairly straight forward, on the surface: hire a good public relations/marketing manager and catapult that propaganda, only this time, it is the truth that we're slinging, not the shit that Karl rove has distributed lo these past 5 years. What is the problem here?
Truthout has an article up that American Bar Association has passed a resolution asking the President to cease the program or go to Congress to change FISA. Also, I see a UPI story that Tice is saying now that there is a 2nd program more invasive that the first warrantless wiretap. He's telling intelligence committee that they don't have the clearance for him to testify about it. Perhaps we have reached that tipping point. I got that article from Raw Story.
This is worth a call/write/fax campaign at least as much as the Alito filibuster was.
Yow -- it looks like the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to vote today! With even a few days lead time it's possible to organize a campaign but it looks late now for that committee. Where is the next point of leverage?
Is it at least worth blog diaries encouraging calls to Senate Intelligence Committee members?
12:38 PM
Anonymous said...
it would be interesting for some pollster to follow up with a few quick questions, after noting if the respondent thinks the president broke the law. "what does the 4th amendment actually say?" "does this FISA law allow the president to get a wiretap before he gets a warrant?" "do you think the president is wiretapping only terrorists?"
i'm going to guess that the more the public understands the 4th amendment, the more they'll think that laws were broken.
which would lead to the conclusion that dem's ought to go out and talk not about how the president should or shouldn't wiretap, but what the law says, and the endlessly-repeated question "why won't the president obey the law?"
Imagine what these numbers would be if Democrats were acting in unison and were taking a firm and principled stance against the Administration’s law-breaking, not just with regard to eavesdropping but with regard to their view of Executive power.
Indeed, it's time to make a wider claim: That the maladministration's arrogance WRT refusal to release documents, unjustified and unjustifiable "executive privilege", "rewriting" laws (MOU statements on signing) and such, closed meetings, misuse (nay, illegal use) of executive branch resources, etc., are all lawless, and actions taken as a whole far more indicative of a dictatorship or royal kingdom. This country isn't run by just one person, unaccountable and unanswerable to the democratic branches, and we in fact had a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of such a regime.
This of course ties in with your "Cult Of Bush" post a couple posts back, Glenn ... "the King can do no wrong" ... but we ought to say this loudly (and use the word "King" in doing so).
Cheers,
12:42 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn:
Yes. And?
Unless there's a concerted drive to hold policians like Harman accountable, how exactly will this change? By showing them poll numbers?
These people are cowed, they're living in a cycle of abuse, they can't help themselves anymore--they don't respond to reason. They've been reduced to more visceral reactions. They're terrified of the right, as you say.
Until pragmatists (not progressives, not leftists, but people of whatever political stripe who agree that Big Government should not be allowed to break the law) hold them accountable in such a way as to inspire an equal amount of fear, nothing will change. Pragmatic leaders must lead the fight to hammers these people with media and money, to reduce the smooth misstatements and kneejerk tremulousness and the vague double-speak to a couple of hard-hitting truths, and simply hammer people like Harman until not only she, but those like her, are afraid of repeating self-abusive talking points.
Did society make them do it? Oh, boo-hoo. Were they scared, is that why they broke the law? Too bad. I don't want to hear excuses, you do the crime, you do the time. Why are Republicans soft on crime, when committed by Big Government?
Unless there's a concerted drive to hold policians like Harman accountable, how exactly will this change? By showing them poll numbers?
I think the poll numbers help, but they are not sufficient.
We need to create clear, focused campaigns - and now - to make it clear to Democrats that giving the Administraiton a pass on law-breaking is not acceptable to us. One of the most important tools we have in the blogosphere is numbers - and not just numbers, but highly active and energized numbers ready to mobilize.
Hopefully, bloggers can get together over the next day or so and create a campaign designed to target a couple of key Democrats and pounding them until they agree to do what they ought to do with this scandal.
That's the kind of thing the blogosphere can do effectively, and the point of my post is that we ought to do that - here and now, with this scandal. I know some things are being talked about, planned, etc. Hopefully there will be something we can all become involved in now.
Anyone with suggestions/ideas/proposals - please contribute them. Like I said, I think the scandal is at a crossroad. It can continue to expand until it reaches a tipping point, which I think - which I KNOW - is attainable, or it can fade into the pile of previous, seemingly grave though ultimately inconsequential scandals.
How it resolves is, as I've been saying, a function of how we demand that it be resolved.
12:51 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, first I want to say you are creating a great blog here, your writing is articulate and thought provoking. Now here's some fuming.
Daschele and Harmon on MTP were pathetic. The softballs being lobbed at them by Russert were begging for definitive yeses and noes, a real missd opportunity. But, this is just one in a million missd opportunities. There is absolutely no bravery in the Democratic leadership, no conviction and of course, no strategy. They are cowardly sycophants.
>If a Democratic politician were to say that the U.S. was not winning the war in Iraq, swarms of media pundits and Bush followers would decree that Democrat to be an untrustworthy out-of-the-mainstream cretin who cannot be trusted and who Democrats must repudiate unless they want to keep losing elections<
A recent thread on Digby suddenly reminded me of what the "National Mood" wes in the run up to the war. Anyone remeber the Dixie Chicks? So a big part of the problem is that the mjajor networks have already dug themselves into the hole of supporting the war and they think its easier for them to control the public's perception than it is to reflect it.
It’s not only the Democrats who don’t understand how to frame this issue (convincing the public that the President, not only broke the law, but has an ideology of lawlessness), but the media.
For example, David Ignatius while saying that the administration “has gone to far” attributes this “arrogance of power” to a “bunker mentality.”
He misses completely the ideology of lawlessness that brought about this “arrogance of power.” He misses that the administration intentionally violated the laws because of their political views.
Until the media and the Bush opponents face this basic fact, this administration will not be held accountable, and lawlessness will become institutionalized within the Presidency.
Yes, it’s an arrogance of power, but it’s not because of a “bunker mentality” -- it’s from the basic viewpoint that Cheney has had since Nixon’s days – that of a “all-powerful” (above the laws) chief executive. We are just seeing that theory come into fruition with basic contempt for checks and balances and the rule of law.
This was planned, it didn’t come about because of 9/11 or the failures in Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc. Lawlessness is what they believe in.
It has been made possible by the rise of the religious right, the development of a right-wing media (and intimidation of the mainstream media) and the cultivation of extremist views within the Republican Party. Which, in turn, have been successful in framing this issue as not about the law, but about security from terrorism.
Yes, it’s an arrogance of power – an abuse of power - and that, I’m afraid, was the goal.
The Democrats are playing not to lose, as usual. We have to play to win.
How hard is it for every Democratic lawmaker to issue a press release that says:
"The President broke the law. He is damaging national security. Our nation is not a monarchy."
Impossible, apparently.
1:11 PM
Anonymous said...
It was so depressing to watch Harman act like a woman who just found out her husband was cheating on her but she didn't want a divorce. "It's okay if you cheat honey - just let me know when you do it, okay?"
1:12 PM
Anonymous said...
Let's change the language we're using from "the Dems need to" or "the Dems should" to "We Will."
We will contact Harry Reid's office, we will contact all the democratic leaders, we will contact the DCCC and other groups, and we will point them to your argument which is the last one that "needs" to be made because it perfectly distills the problem and demands action.
I think the Democrats real fear, is not the possible political backlash. They are afraid of what winning on the grounds that The President broke the law will mean. The Democrats have no interest in the creative destruction to politics as usual in Washington that would bring. They don't object to Bush and his policies on any political or moral groung, they object to the fact that they are not in power to enjoy the spoils. Destroying Bush and also destroying the corrupt system the two parties have worked together to create over the past 25 years does not serve thier purpose. The Democrats are not a party of opposition, they are a complicit party of collaboration.
The out-of-the-mainstream view is the one the media has depicted as being the only acceptable view - that we did the right thing in invading Iraq, that we are winning there, that questioning the wisdom of our ongoing occupation is "what Karl Roves hopes for" because it will doom the Democrats to defeat.
The Republican Mighty Wurlitzer has been pushing this myth of the popularity of the war, of the president, and of the Republican party (and its ideas) too ... for quite some time. They have the machine, and it works (just check out the True Believers in the comments sections here, for instance).
Democrats need to do two things:
1). Pick a message, simple consistent, and defencible.
2). Put together the machinery to get it out.
I think you're doing a valuable job on the first part, Glenn. Now we don't own the media, but I think we have equivalent (roughly) capabilities in the blogs, outfits like MediaMatters, and in grass-roots organisations such as MoveOn. All we have to do is to get the Democratic leadership (or lack thereof) to sign on to the program. Goodness knows, what they've been doing for a decade hasn't been working, and people need to walk up to them and tell them that ... as I did a couple of weeks ago when the DCNN called asking for money again this year.
Mainsailset - I'm a little sceptical about the two sources (Tice and Raw Story), but there have been some references to a domestic eavesdropping program and the notion that the Intelligence Committee won't investigate is, for that reason and so many others, an outrage beyond what can be expressed.
Maybe we should do something with a couple key Intelligence Committee members - maybe one or two wavering GOP members. Hopefully the blogosphere will get organized on this today and can act in a focused way.
Glenn: thanks for the response. The UPI story with Tice puts the issue up on the MSM radar as does the letter from the 500 ABA lawyers. Like you, I believe there is no one smoking gun, it's simply important to keep the issue on the radar screen and not let it lose traction.
1:34 PM
Anonymous said...
So, now I'm waiting for you guys to be clear. Who are we contacting and what are we saying?
Campaigns... which members? In your time in DC and networking on this issue, do you have a sense of who the right few Senators are to start influencing?
1:43 PM
Anonymous said...
Just wondering, but maybe the MSM will continue to give King George et. al. a pass on this and so much more, since they still have 3 years to govern.....and a completely emasculated presidency could be a real problem for the country.
bad
1:45 PM
Anonymous said...
If the democrats continue to allow Karl Rove to define their political positions, then they deserve to remain the minority party. Disgusting! Worse: nauseating!
1:46 PM
Anonymous said...
Who are these "Democrats?" We need to contact them to encourage them to stop putting their fingers in the wind and stand up for us. Or we need to get rid of them. I'm tired of Democrats that don't stand up for core principals. I want names.
regarding the public opinion myths: the PIPA report from just before the last election (the report Al Franken discusses frequently), did not only document the Bush supporters' (erroneous) views of the Iraq war.
They also showed how Bush supporters were completely ignorant of his own positions on other issues. 74% of them believed Bush supports labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, for instance. More than half thought Bush supports participation in land mines treaty, the ICC, Kyoto treaty, treaty opposing nuclear weapons testing. And they agreed with Bush for supporting these things.
yet the Dems run from these issues.
see http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf
This will work in numbers. I am trying to coordinate with other bloggers and get some information as to who the best 2 or 3 Intelligence Committee members are to target.
Give me a little time. I will post something as soon as I know. We want to pick the right ones and deluge them with demands that the investigation proceed. I think that can have an impact. And we should keep doing that. One unique value of the blogosphere is the number of highly motivated, highly knowledgeable people who are very engaged and who want to have an actual impact.
That is a powerful force and we shouldn't underestimate it. I'll post a little later today and hopefully large numbers of people can be on the same page in a way that matters today.
Do you honestly think that the Dems would pass up an opportunity to bash Mr. Bush if the polls were even remotely in their favor as you contend?
The Gallup poll is the usual poli-itorial masquerading as actual scientific opinion measuring...
To start, the polling was taken over the weekend because they know they will get a disproportionately large number of Dems that way.
Then each of the questions were only posed to a few hundred respondents, which gives you such a large variable that the poll is statistically unreliable.
You can tell the moonbat contingent is over represented when 20% claim that they have been personally wiretapped.
Then you get to the leading questions suggesting that the program is illegal.
Glenn, you were correct when you stated that these poll results were "unbelievable." Go with that instinct...
The Dems know better from their own internal polling which most likely reflects the Rasmussen polling finding 2-1 support for surveillance of telephone call between al Qaeda numbers and US residents.
That is why they have all but surrendered on this issue. Almost to a man or woman, the Dems say that they support this program.
Congress as a whole has surrendered on the FISA issue. According to the US News & WR I was reading over breakfast, Specter is drafting legislation with bipartisan support which will have FISA "review" the NSA program every 45 days. In essence, Congress has abandoned the idea of requiring warrants and is simply (and most likely unconstitutionally) delegating their oversight power to the FISA court.
1:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn,
Truly great piece. I thought this illegal domestic eavesdropping was going to be the line-in-the-sand issue that finally might sabotage the Bush presidency. But at a minimum I was convinced it would give the Beltway Dems some backbone to become a true opposition party in dealing with an extremely unpopular president. And it would give them tremendous traction going into the elections this year. Alas, I was wrong.
It's time to face up to reality. The Republicans are much smarter than the Democrats, and they expertly play the press. The Republicans are a minority party that will keep on winning and winning until a revived Democratic Party OR a new party steps up to oppose them.
We may be at our "Whig" moment with the Democrats. I'd be all for that were it not for one salient fact. By the time the new party got going and became a factor, I'd be dead. So I guess I'm left with the Democrats. But after five years of their capitulation, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect the Democrats to do anything to save the situation. They've obviously concluded that it's better to be in office with a Republican government than to be out of office with a Republican government, so they've chosen expediency over the good of the country.
The Democrats ran Anybody But Bush last time and expected that to carry the day. And it almost did! That's how unpopular Bush was. But they blew it by not capitalizing on all the failures of 2005 when the Bush presidency imploded. The Dems may eke out some meager gains this fall, but John McCain will be the next president, and absent something like a depression, I think the GOP will rule indefinitely.
So I agree with what you say, Glenn. But I just don't see any hope. I think we are well and truly fucked.
But thanks for writing you blog, though. At least when I read people like you, Liberal Oasis and others, I can dream of what a real opposition to Bush might be like.
1:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, Have you ever consided that the Mainstream Dems like the way things are going? Saying they are fearful of the RW media machine is not a good enough reason to explain the Dems inaction on this matter, as well as many other matters. They see the polls, hear the media, yet they do nothing to oppose. Ya just gotta believe they don't disagree enough with the Reps. to make it worthwhile to even FAKE an opposition.
2:02 PM
Anonymous said...
I know I am going to get bashed for this, and maybe deservedly so, but I think we need to enlist at least someone in the MSM. Keith Olbermann is doing a great job. And....I am already flinching, but Chris Matthews and his producers at MSNBC have been deluged recently, and I think he has been a real thorn in the admin's side the last few days. I think we have sent MSNBC enough comments recently to maybe have convinced them to let Keith and maybe Chris start to examine what is really happening. I think they could be convinced that they would boost their ratings by offering the progressive audience an alternative to CNN and Fox. Why not enlist them in this effort? All right, hit me.........
2:07 PM
Anonymous said...
it’s an arrogance of power, but it’s not because of a “bunker mentality” -- it’s from the basic viewpoint that Cheney has had since Nixon’s days – that of a “all-powerful” (above the laws) chief executive.
"Bunker mentality" and "siege mentality" were precisely the terms used to describe the Nixon White House during Watergate. The implication being that Tricky Dick & Co. were just an aberration on the American political scene. But the authoritarian and antidemocratic streak in modern American conservatism is not an aberration. That reactionary catchphrase "America is a Republic, not a Democracy" has been around ever since the New Deal. Judging by Justice Scalia's recent remarks, the attitude behind that catchphrase is alive and well. By "Republic" what is intended is a society based on hierarchy, deference, and (for most people)only limited access to political power. The pre-1960s South comes closest to fulfilling that conservative ideal. I hope that Glenn's posts start something bigger and more significant than another round of Bush-bashing, namely, a wider and more general assault on a contemporary "conservatism" which has long since ceased to deserve the adjective "conservative."
Elist the MSM -- absolutely, but with planning and assertiveness.
First, the message. A short, several page briefing sheet including not only the talking points, but the responses to the typical questions.
Second, the messengers. Who are the best spokespeople -- legislators like Feingold, pundits, whoever will represent the case. If some of the messengers are legislators, does Glenn or whoever have a good relationship with the staff person who works on the issue?
Third, the venues. Which columns and tv shows to appear on. Pitch the story.
2:16 PM
Anonymous said...
This from arch-conservative Paul Weyrich is interesting. On a host of issues he thinks the Bush Admin and GOP are vulnerable. An excerpt:
And the War. The President and the Vice President insist we are winning. Perhaps we are. Again, perception is reality. The perception is that the situation is way out of control. Not only are our brave men and women maimed and killed by roadside bombs day after day but not a day goes by without suicide bombers blowing up hundreds of innocent Iraqis. Rational people are asking, "How is this governable?" Yes, we have elections and yes, voter participation has increased each time elections have been held. Yes, there now is some sort of government, if it can be sorted out. Americans are, fortunately and unfortunately, an impatient people (as opposed to the Chinese, for example, who think in terms of centuries rather than the next quarter hour).
When are Americans coming home? I surely do not wish to do anything which will further endanger our troops. However, if the perception is that their role is reduced, if Iraqi soldiers truly are taking their place, in other words, if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, Americans may modify their feelings that the Iraqi War was a major mistake. If so, Republicans may do a bit better than expected. If in the autumn we continue to hear the same new we are hearing now displeasure will be exercised at the polls.
The 49% who think he broke the law goes to 70% if the congress holds hearings. The administration knows that, which is why they are leaning so hard on Republicans to squash hearings.
I must confess that, as frustrating as I find the various faults of the Republican party, the thing that really gets my goat are the craven, spineless, quivering jellyfish we have elected as Democrats.
Paul Craig Roberts (a Reaganite National Review contributor) claims here that "the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party."
I have trouble crediting the claim, but the cravenness of the Democrats in congress raises the possibility that Roberts might, in fact, be right.
2:23 PM
Anonymous said...
Thank you for mentioning in the comments that you are coordinating with other bloggers on this. Please have them post (and you also) "we are working on a strategy - please check back soon for more". The best way to get us involved is to keep us posted - even if the post is a "check back" post we know something is happening and can begin gearing up.
Like it of not you have become the go to guy on this issue - thank you for taking is so seriously.
Rep Congress has been bought! We're hearing that last week and even yesterday there was a FULL COURT PRESS from the WH on the NSA issue - and it was reported that if a Rep member did not support the Pres on this, his financial support as well as WH support on re-election would be cut. So, once again Karl is in the driver's seat.
And there's no reason there couldn't have been a citizen campaign in the last week focused on the intelligence committee. We knew they were looking into it, that would have been a point of leverage. Legislators act more bravely when they feel they have voters at their backs.
2:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn - I agree with you that the blogosphere can keep this thing alive and provide backbone for the Dems. I just want to point out that this really reinforces the absolutely critical necessity of further development of a progressive communications and PR INFRASTRUCTURE.
When we merely "frame" issues strategically and then toss those frames into the current media landscape through the conventional channels, the frames end up mangled and unrecognizable. It's putting cart before horse given the current lack of progressive infrastructure. But if the frames arrived at a newsroom or a congressional office backed up by ten thousand emails, faxes and phone calls (from all different places) that reinforce the message, we'll start to see results.
Our challenge is basically two-fold: 1) to sort out all the disparate "interests" on the left for the sake of consistent, powerful and unified messaging (unity of message); 2) to create and develop numerous, separate, independent entities that produce and distribute properly-messaged content to media and seats of power. (diversity and multiplicity of message generators).
-Jack O'Roses
2:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, Very astute observations just like all of your other postings. This site has become my must read.
The dems have relegated themselves to being defacto apologists for this Administration by their complete and utter lack of opposition. They are a mere shadow in the political arena…wallpaper that only attracts attention when it peels or fades. It was pathetic to see both Daschele and Harmon shake their heads when the republican guests would speak, but when given the opportunity to counter, they merely simpered that the program was necessary and that problem need to be addressed. What kind of opposition is that? Where is the backbone? Daschele doesn’t even have an office to lose. Such fear of looking weak just exaggerates and magnifies their weakness. This story has had legs for two months now with little to no assistance from democratic opposition. They have no voice anymore. It is no longer puzzling why the balance on Sunday talk shows is skewed right (as pointed out by Media Matters). Why have opposition party views, if they do not clearly articulate opposition? Head shakes and smirks don’t cut it. These are public speakers with the ability to articulate an argument, yet they have allowed themselves to become the parody that they have been accused of being. Every pundit spouts on about the Dem’s lack of message, lack of unity, lack of spine…Guess what? Goebbels was right. Argumentum Ad Nauseam works. Only its not suppose to define your views of yourself.
You are absolutely right: The Democratic party needs a spine. It is disgraceful that Democrats are making a greater clamor over Cheney's hunting accident than the Bush Administration's repeated and ongoing criminal violations of FISA. No wonder these guys can't win elections.
For a brief time, I thought that Republicans might prove themselves patriots rather than partisans and insist upon accountability when the President -- this one or any other president -- breaks the law. But now it is clear that Nixon was right all along: If the President does it, it's not illegal. Indeed, today's Republican leaders are refining that crude Nixonian proclamation into a less totalitarian, more marketable formulation: If what the president does violates the law, then we'll just change the law so that it conforms with the president's conduct. Ex post facto. Disgraceful!!
I read in the Washington Post today that Republican Senators -- namely, Olympia Snow, Mike DeWine, and Chuck Hagel -- have announced that they no longer support an inquiry into whether the Bush Administration has violated (and continues to violate) FISA. Instead of an investigation, these Republican senators now call for FISA to be amended so that the Bush Administration's domestic spying program will become legal.
Think about that: These Republicans don't even know what the Bush Adminsitration has been doing, let alone whether the proffered legal excuses are vaid (of course, they aren't), yet they oppose an investigation. They don't even want to know whether the Bush Administration has violated FISA, persistently, repeatedly, and defiantly. These Republican Senators don't care whether the Bush Administration has committed crimes! Shameful!
Well, why stop there? Why limit this amnesty to FISA? Why not just go ahead and make it explicit and pass a law that says: The President can do whatever he chooses to do so long as he does it under the color of fighting terrorism. Pass the Nixon Law: When the president does it, it's not illegal. Not that the law will matter to the Bush Administration, which will do whatever it wants regardless, but the Nixon Law will allow Republicans to say to Tim Russert on Sunday mornings, "Well, no, Tim, the President is not violating FISA now that we have passed the Nixon Law." Disgraceful!
Even worse, Democrats will probably support the Nixon Law, too. You are so right, Glenn. Democratic political leaders are so weak, so timid, so cowardly that they do not deserve respect, let alone votes. The country is far far ahead of the Democratic leadership. And that makes these Democrats followers, not leaders. Shame. Shame. Shame.
2:37 PM
Anonymous said...
Jack,
Very good points, but we need someone like Dean or Feingold on the inside as a partner.
2:38 PM
Anonymous said...
I am sick of government of the Congress, by the Congress.
2:42 PM
Anonymous said...
From the news today, it seems Dick Cheney has been busy convincing Republicans to not investigate NSA further through the Senate Intelligence committee. Mike DeWine is prepared to offer a law authorizing current activities without any necessary FISA approval. Oy.
"The President broke the law. He is damaging national security. Our nation is not a monarchy."
The president broke the law, repeatedly, and repeatedly told us he broke the law, and would do so again, repeatedly.
He needs to be impeached -- and tried.
The House's prosecutorial 'discretion' needs to be witnessed by the public.
A House resolution calling for immediate hearings needs to be made every day, and the drafting of articles of impeachment needs to be started now, so there is a lot of footage of such action being ruled out of order, or shouted down on a voice vote, or going unrecognized by the Speaker.
If the President's 'justification' is sufficient, he will be acquitted in the Senate.
But the Senate needs to go on record assenting to the justification.
I want C-Span video of the Senate engaging in the Constitutional equivalent of jury nullification.
I want to watch squirming Democratic senators being forced to choose between their country and their seats.
2:51 PM
Anonymous said...
The Vichy Democrats control the party....note the Hackett removal. Hackett would have done the unthinkable and opened a debate on the issues important to US citizens whether we agree with him or not. He called Bush a chickenhawk... The media has the power to destroy anyone that speaks out against Bush. If someone dares speak against this administration from the Dixie Chicks to Harry Belafonte they are called on the carpet to do penance with Blitzer...Sawyer and all. The press and a lot of dems agree with Bush on major issues like war...and if one disagrees they will be destroyed...Even Al Gore's speech was dismissed on the wiretapping by the dems...Murtha a hawk is an outcast. You have to follow Hillary's lead or be left behind.
Glenn's arguments, well grounded, will fall on deaf ears in Congress because Rove has shut the financial door on the Rep's. So, set aside the arguments, play the Jack Abramoff card now. Public is aware that Rep's can be bought thanks to Jack. So connect the dots and show Rep's are more seduced by $ than by what's right for their country. The gun's loaded, time to shoot.
I only recently started reading your excellent blog, Glenn. I grew up deep in conservative religious republican country (Oregon), and I have to say, these people are not protecting core Republican values. As a woman of color, I register independent because I have seen a complete breakdown in Republican and Democratic values. The two parties are chasing one another to the right, largely because the Church (under various denominations) has been an effective organizer and moral lightening rod in these relativistic inclusive times. From my perspective, the most effective way to galvanize people to action is to reiterate the principles in the Constitution itself. The Republican party has been able to rally people around the concept of Patriotism, and most of Bush's core don't analyze the manner in which this patriotism is being practiced. It's the bible cloaked in the flag, and Democrats haven't been successful in mobilizing their own religious leaders nor in calling Republicans to the carpet for this intermingling of church and state.
As non-Republican progressives, liberals or conservative democrats (and moderate Republicans for that matter) it's urgent that we call cultural icons out in support of these values which we all share as Americans. This isn't really a party issue, and to frame it as such reduces it to the same dynamics which thus far have led to Bush's victories-by-default. I say call out everyone -- Intelligence committee members, educators, prominent artists, athletes (remember Ali during the draft?), religious leaders, mothers, fathers, teenagers, young adults (MTV, anyone?), advertisers. The advantage of the blogosphere is it's reach into every facet of life. If every blogger sat down and thought about the leaders in his or her industry, the tastemakers, and forwarded a cogently stated argument about why constitutional principles are good for our American Democracy, and this were followed up with a few willing religious leaders who opened the floor to discussions of accountability, integrity, and personal responsibility and then the press continued to problematize everything (good, bad and ugly because that is precisely what makes for a strong democracy), then I think we can capitalize on and focus public opinion.
I disagree with posters who counter your statistics on Bush/wiretapping legality -- it's not relevant to the discussion of whether or not we, as Americans, believe in the idea of "liberty" at all costs -- even our liberty and freedom to pursue our interests free of government scrutiny.
Focusing on people in Washington doesn't really work. That's been the issue for Democrats from the beginning. When Senators and their campaign managers on the ground begin to the feel the heat with their home base, then like cannons on a battleship, they swivel and take aim at the problem. Opinion articles published in local papers in the so-called "Red States" that de-polarize the issue and make it about basic American values and focus our attention on corruption in politics, corporate influence on the executive structure (because, let's face it, Cheney's makeover of the executive branch brings it in line with corporate management practices minus the board of directors), and the fact that most Americans are not doing appreciably better, and in fact, can look forward to doing appreciably worse (look at interest rates on savings and bonds)would be the most effective way to open a foothold for local candidates to challenge the GOP status quo. Local races are won locally (duh). Having participated in local political races for federal office, candidates are always forced to deal with issues that are raised by local opinion makers, civic leaders and community members. If Senators or their staffers hold town hall meetings, these issues need to be raised -- what are you, Senator, doing to protect my 1st and 4th amendment rights? I'm scared of Al Qaeda but I don't want to wake up and find out the FBI is at my door because my internet connection was hijacked, or my kid had to do a paper on the middle east.
I think the GOP did an excellent job last time of making federal elections locally relevant and until and unless the democrats find a way to do that, to involve average voters in discussions about what they want their country to be about, how they interpret their rights and freedoms, then it's status quo. Their is no real justice as long as people believe they can preserve social peace. That's a lesson that has been pounded home for people of color in this country. So, on-the-spot townhalls and church-led discussions about these principles may stir up that social peace enough for folks to reach for Justice, Liberty and the American Way....
2:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Glen,
Couldn't agree more. Some comments:
1) Almost anyone, except the most extreme of Bush apologists, who continues to look at the legal issues will see just how weak the Bush legal argument is. Those poll numbers will continue to move to reflect that fact as people are educated. I'm no lawyer, but the way I see it, Glen, Orin Kerr and Epstein have thoroughly eviscerated the arguments I've heard from the right.
2) The Epstein piece in the WSJ a couple of days ago probably opened alot of conservative eyes. And that probably isn't reflected in the polls just out.
3) Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the Bushies themselves even believe their own legal arguments. It seems they are doing all they can to make sure those arguments never have to be tested in court. If possible, that would be the path to a slam-dunk win on the issue -- have a court rule definitively that Bush is breaking the law. Dems should push for that, not for some legislative adjustment that gives Bush an easy out. (Supreme court would be best. Would love to see how Roberts and Alito would rule.)
4) This should be a great issue for Dems, and a tough one for Repubs. But, astoundingly, the media's conventional wisdom is just the opposite. How can that be? This is a perfect examplar of the theme that should be the key for Dems in the fall: That "this" (civil rights abuses, failing war on terror, failing war in Iraq, failing marks on homeland security, Katrina, huge deficits, terrible domestic legislation, widespread corruption, political meddling in science, etc, etc.) is what single-party rule give you. This is what lack of checks and balances gives you. This is what a congress that doesn't know the meaning of the word "oversight" gives you.
It should be very difficult politically for any Republican to have to admit that he made excuses for this Administration's law breaking.
3:04 PM
Anonymous said...
I blame the so-called "moderate" and "maverick" Republicans. People like Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, Collins, and few other *even* less reliable non-entirely-insane conservatives who are rolling over for Bush.
I blame them - along with Democrats who can't figure out that opposing a 40% president should be a 60%-approved position or that a bumbling megalomaniac is the best person to trust with these powers (though the less powerful, the better, I suppose) - because *they* are the swing vote.
The problem is, they don't have the guts to stand up for the Constitution, or themselves, or the rest of the political system, because if they do, Bush will be pissed. And maybe still in power. If they don't, they can claim, "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, it's not a Constitutional crisis, because we're the political oversight, and we said it's okay." Democrats, even united, don't have the power to thwart Bush. Only Republicans can. And they won't, or at least, haven't. I don't know if that's worse than watching them fail; this way, at least we can *pretend* we don't live in an authoritarian police state.
Joe Lieberman on Sean Hannity's show, telling the world that the Democratic Party has been captured by far-leftists and is weak on defense and that Hannity's a really great guy. You can almost hear them swapping spit.
With a dem like Lieberman we will have one party rule....
Only difference I can see between Jack Abramoff paying Congressmembers for influence/votes and Karl Rove is that Jack as a lobbyist did it as incentive vs Rove promises to open the pursestrings and support as reward. Either way, Reps's are accepting payment for their vote.
3:08 PM
Anonymous said...
Ah, Lieberman. Never afraid to stand outside the tent, pissing in, and complain to his friends in the other tent how much it smells in ours. "You know," he says to them with a wry chuckle, "because they let people piss in it! Can you believe them?"
3:09 PM
Anonymous said...
Streamlining the effort to win over particular Senators is certainly one way to go about it. Absent that, I think there's still a chance for this scandal to become huge. Glenn posted numerous times as to why he thinks that there are other programs not yet disclosed. Gonzales conspicuously uses limiting language every time he talks about eavesdropping, limiting it to what the President disclosed in his radio address. It might be easier to create pressure to find out the answer to this very limited question -- do other programs exist? -- than to pressure fearful Democrats into doing what they've been too scared to do for five years. And the result could lead to a bombshell.
3:15 PM
Anonymous said...
Explanation for Democratic and Republican silence on this issue. There could well be blackmail afoot.
I am not one of the tinfoil hat crowd but if you read the history of Rove via Atlantic Monthly, it is not hard to believe that NSA spying has really been used most frequently on the politicians of both parties and media personalities/executives. Nearly everyone has a skeleton in his closet that he would not like to have exposed. Rove has never been shy about exposing and even manufacturing skeletons when it is in his/Bush's interest to do so. These guys are all politics all the time.
Joe Lieberman on Sean Hannity's show, telling the world that the Democratic Party has been captured by far-leftists and is weak on defense and that Hannity's a really great guy. You can almost hear them swapping spit.
We have one party rule now Mary. Every source of federal government power is held by Republicans. The majority of state houses and governorships are held by Republicans.
One day maybe you will figure out you are the problem men like Joe Lieberman are the answer.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. Thats you Mary.
....Oh wait I know you don't think they party has gone far enough to the left yet. If we can just get to the left of Mao we will win in a landslide! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
as our party chairman would say.
3:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Thank you so much for stating the case for aggressive action against the Adminstration on domestic spying. I hope this piece is distributed to all Democrats in Congress. I'm starting again with my emails. This is just too important to cave in on. If the Democrats don't think it's important to make a stand on this assault on the Constitution, then what in the world is there left worth fighting for?
I honestly think this is one of the best Comments threads I've ever had, if not the best. Superb comments all around and I think it's because people really believe that we can have an impact on this issue and that it's only we who will force a real resolution. Just a few specific comments:
Dewar - "oh, and can you tell us why you don't trust Tice?"
I'm sure you've heard all the speculation about him. I don't necessarily believe it, but I also don't disbelieve it, because I don't have any information to know. Until then, I don't think we should hitch our wagons too extensively to Tice, since we don't know what he really is and we don't need to since we have so much else. They are very good at destroying messengers. Why give them a target like that?
Via - 'Why not enlist them in this effort? All right, hit me......... '
While there are days when I believe that the blogosphere is our only hope - because our other institutions are so decayed, stagnant and obsolete - we should and must work with and use any instruments we can, including journalists, inside-DC people, friendly politicians. That was a lesson I learned when I was just in DC - there are allies to make there who have some influence and who will help. We need to cultivate every weapon possible.
Jack O'Roses - Our challenge is basically two-fold: 1) to sort out all the disparate "interests" on the left for the sake of consistent, powerful and unified messaging (unity of message); 2) to create and develop numerous, separate, independent entities that produce and distribute properly-messaged content to media and seats of power. (diversity and multiplicity of message generators).
I couldn't agree more. The problem is, unlike the mentality of the Bush follower (generally speaking), most people don't necessarily want structure or organization. It also is contrary to the spontaneous, unchartered spirt of the blogosphere. But people more than anything else care at this point about winning, and we need to have some way to focus and organize all of this energy so that it's not scattered but effective.
All I can say about this is that I agree 1000% with what you said and there are people trying to do this. They are at different levels of development but it's too necessary and obviously effective for it not to be done. There is already more coordination among blogs and their readers in the last month (you've see it with things like the Wash Post/Abramoff stuff, Chris Matthews, even smaller incidents like WalMart and Kate O'Bierne's book). I think that will only increase as people realize that we need to work in a coordinated way if any of this is to really matter.
Film Diva - This isn't really a party issue, and to frame it as such reduces it to the same dynamics which thus far have led to Bush's victories-by-default."
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I believe that this is a real bridge-building issue. Not only would it not make Democrats look weak and unpatriotic (like those always-fearful, always-losing Democratic consultants whine that it would), it would do the opposite - Democrats would look strong and patriotic by standing up for our constitutional principles without regard to the political consequences, something people want to see from Democrats but haven't for so, so long. There is NOTHING partisan about concepts like the rule of law, opposing an unchecked Executive, etc. To the contrary, it goes to the core of American values and that's why so many people across the ideological lines are galvanized by this issue.
3:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, good that you go back to rallying people to DO something instead of just arguing against 'the other side'. Too bad that the degree of cowardice within the Dem side is proving to be unsurmountable. The Dem's are Bush's best friends! Zero guts. I still hope that someone like Feingold will find his spine, but you know what? I'm not holding my breath.
Are you faxing this to senators? Please tell me you're faxing this to senators.
3:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Why not simply *assume* there are other programs (first rule of espionage and paranoia: there are *always* other programs)? Start asking questions about them. See what happens.
We have one party rule now Mary. Every source of federal government power is held by Republicans.
In the last 3 out of 4 Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate for President received more votes than the GOP candidate. The only exception was 2004 - when the Democrats nominated the most politically inept figure ever - and still almost won.
The grand failure of every person and movement is always hubris. Republicans have convinced themselves of this bizzare myth that they command this huge electoral majority and that George Bush has won two consecutive landslides and the whole country with the exception of a few fringes is behind him. That is all myth.
And nobody is urging the party be more liberal. The issue is whether they stand for anything, whether they fight for principles. In the Ohio Senate primary, most people in the blogosphere love Paul Hackett and are furious that the nominee will be Brown, even though Brown is far more liberal than Hackett. They love Hackett for the same reason they love the pro-life Harry Reid, and the anti-gun-control budget-balancing Howard Dean - not because they are liberal (they are not), but because they are not intimidated or frightened by anything.
People are looking for Democrats to have a spine, not a specific political ideology.
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously?
That's our message. That's the short, pithy way we attack. As Katherine says, when the Administration says they can detain whoever they want, torture whoever they want, spy on whoever they want, do and say and lie about whatever they want -- most people say "Well, they don't really mean that."
But they do.
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously?
That's the message.
3:53 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn said: "Hopefully, bloggers can get together over the next day or so and create a campaign designed to target a couple of key Democrats and pounding them until they agree to do what they ought to do with this scandal."
Please tell that to Jane and ReddHedd at FDL. They have become obsessed with the Cheney shooting incident and have not mentioned antother story in 4 days.
The time is wasting. FDL was instrumental in the campaign against Alito. I truly believe had the campaign started a lot earlier, we actually would have won.
Now the same thing is happening over there. Jane and Redd are both fantastic writers and highly motivational. It is a shame to see time slipping by when we should all be doing something NOW.
3:54 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn -
Thank you. And you can use your blog to try to help Russ Feingold to maintain a filibuster of the basically-unrevised-since-December's-filibuster P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, when the cloture vote comes up sometime this Thursday or Friday in the Senate.
Russ Feingold just laid it out on the Senate floor, and he covered ALL the bases. NO Senator has an excuse for not understanding what is at stake, in detail. Feingold has done all their homework for them. [His comprehensive statement is available on-line.]
After the Hackett hatchet job by the corrupt core of the Democratic Congress, uproar better be ensuing in the Democratic caucus today, or soon. If Feingold is the next "sacrifice" to the gods of fear by the DSCC/DCCC fraudsters, I'm not sure there will be any turning back for the Democratic Party.
Which, although perhaps the best thing for our country considering how we've been trying to fight with one hand tied behind our backs in our struggle against Executive Branch lawlessness thanks to the Congressional Democrats, ought to make the "leadership" think twice for once.
The reality is, however, that Senator Chuck Schumer from New York (and other Democrats like him) is right there with Bush: Schumer says that if he had it to do all over again, knowing what he knows now [at a $100,000 a MINUTE clip], he'd STILL vote TODAY to invade Iraq.
Schumer says that if he had it to do all over again, knowing what he knows now [at a $100,000 a MINUTE clip], he'd STILL vote TODAY to invade Iraq.
Rob Corddry : Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists -- he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face.
4:05 PM
Anonymous said...
I just have to post this, since last week sometime a commenter who didn't like my views on leftists and stuff told me to go back to lewrockwell.com -- notwithstanding that I'm not that kind of libertarian.
Earlier Gussie wrote: "Until pragmatists (not progressives, not leftists, but people of whatever political stripe who agree that Big Government should not be allowed to break the law) hold them accountable in such a way as to inspire an equal amount of fear, nothing will change. Pragmatic leaders must lead the fight to hammers these people with media and money, to reduce the smooth misstatements and kneejerk tremulousness and the vague double-speak to a couple of hard-hitting truths, and simply hammer people like Harman until not only she, but those like her, are afraid of repeating self-abusive talking points."
As I see it that is just what the republicans are doing - Rove is the coordinater, EVERYTHING, goes through him, Norquist has his job, as well as Abramoff and all the others including Bush and Cheney - power is what they are about fueled by the myopic blind belief that the USA must lead the world to a new way and therefore can do no wrong. Every comment I've read here is spot on and I would add to that what we - progressive blogistan - are struggling with in bringing the truth to light and exposing the damage this dangerous cabal has done and will continue until brought to check is the spinelessness of the opposition party - as I see it it's "their town" - the Harmon's and Daschele's and Russerts and Mathews'and now Clinton's (Emmanuels). The democrats need to learn from the republicans - everyone is on the same page and if you get out of line you will pay - the republicans make examples out of their own to prove how serious they are and so Collins and Chafey and Specter know better than to step over the line else they get their foot stomped and lose a place at the trough. Again I see it as both parties know the rules of the game and play by them - Ted Stevens was a backbencher from Alaska for 20 plus years but now holds the purse strings of the nation and is one of the wealthiest Alaskans - you think those poor schlups in Alaska don't know this? yet they keep sending him back. He gained his wealth while he was a congressman and senator - not high paying jobs I might add - so he got it, clearly, by dipping into the pot - and while one party takes their wheel barrows through the front door of the taxpayer funded honeypot the minority party slips through the stage door with a laundry bag - both do not leave empty handed and so if ya wanna play with the big dogs ya hafta roll over once in a while and show your belly - otherwise you'll end up back here with the rest of us and in CEO identity america - the one with the golden parchute wins and gets invited to all the right parties. Who, in our celebrity conscious culture, wants to hang out with their family back home over the holidays when we could be in Aspen with the stars? Branding and Marketing are our politics - power and money our god. And that is what we are fighting - have you noticed that some of the more left blogs are getting more power and influence? and they are tempering their responses to some of these scandals? True Glenn, what you say we need to do, but I see it we need to enlist the strong dems like Murtaugh and his "Band of Brothers", Hackett included, to take up your challange - but Hackett is a loose cannon, not to be trusted to go on MTP and color within the lines. And the DLC plays the game as well as the old college republican Rove-Norquist-Abramoff-Reed mafioso - they kneecap their own first.
I love my country but distrust my government. However, it is always the role of the loyal opposition to provide a check on the unrestrained power of the party in office. If the Constitution has been violated, certainly we must prosecute. But most of what I see is rabid Bush-bashing and transparent parochial politics.
Mr. Greenwald's passion is not to articulate Conservative values, but rather to smear Republican leadership and media personalities who are articulating those Conservative values. Apparently he feels the dhimmicrat party is an under-achiever in the area of Bush-bashing and America-hatred, so he is helpfully providing some assistance. However, the difference between constructive and destructive criticism is crystal to all. The wild popularity of such a RINO, with liberals on this site as with those who giggle with delight as they listen to Air(head) Amerikka, is no mystery.
When I go to a football game, I respect the opposing team and its fans. I will boo when by team performs poorly and cheer when it doesn't. But I have no regard for a fan with such dearth of loyalty that he switches sides and roots for the other team just because those around him do. Similarly, I have no respect for a fan who demands that the referee penalize his team for a missed holding call. Liberals may deem this courageous and consistent...I have a different word... *spit*
Frustrated reading many of these comments because they just lead back to more TALKING, to one another! I'm putting it on the table that every blogger send out an opinion piece to their local leaders, church and paper regarding what we want our America to look like. Do we still care to uphold the truths espoused in the constitution? Until there's a clear view on what we are actually discussing, devoid of partisanship, it's all more of the same "my poll said blah blah blah" "well, MY poll said blah blah blah!" The reason the Founders were able to have a clear vision of what America should look like, is because they were united against what they DIDN'T want. Let's break out the window cleaner and polish the glass so that we can all get a look. I'm writing an essay over the next few days on what it means to be an American from the perspective of someone who grew up in a Marine Corps household. I've had American values drilled into me since birth and I'm disgusted that Bush is polarizing the military against average Americans practicing their 1st Amendment rights and using our intelligence infrastructure to trample all over our 4th amendment rights.
Dictatorships start here -- with the support of the military, a willing populace, and the gradual erosion of democratic principles like the separation of the executive branches (hello, election 2000 which as far as I remember was decided by the Supreme Court in the biggest display of judicial activism to date). Many of the events we have been witnessing over the last few years create fertile soil for extremism to sprout on, and that's scary.
New Orleans is calling in international monies and ideas because we are failing them, we probably need international monitors during our next election cycle, and more vociferous attention being paid to the incredibly bad job the Senate and Congress are doing of oversight in the name of bi-partisanship. Anyway, I'm ranting, I apologize Glenn, but this comment thread is fantastic, it keeps sucking me in.....
4:29 PM
Anonymous said...
Excellent points from Glenn and in the comments. The Democrats aren't losing on the issues, they're losing because they lack the courage to take stands on issues. They are badly in need of a leader. Howard Dean can only do so much. They need someone who can keep them together, and they need to speak for principles. They are far too obsessed with image and poll standings, and they are completely cowed by Republicans and the media. If a third party comes along that is unafraid to take a stand on principle that is remotely close to representing my beliefs, they have my vote, whether they have a chance of winning or not. If they can show the Dems that standing for something, rather than "playing not to lose" (as someone astutely put it here) can win them enough votes to make a difference, maybe it will rub off. My anger at Ralph Nader diminishes with every example of Democratic cowardice.
4:33 PM
Anonymous said...
FreedomFan writes: Mr. Greenwald's passion is not to articulate Conservative values, but rather to smear Republican leadership and media personalities who are articulating those Conservative values. Apparently he feels the dhimmicrat party is an under-achiever in the area of Bush-bashing and America-hatred,
Well, that's all special. You aver to know Greenwald's true passions, and think he is "smearing" media personalities who articulate conservative values.
Ann Coulter articulates conservative values when she repeatedly "jokes" longingly about the murder of Supreme Court justices -- by terrorists, even? Who knew?
As for "dhimmicratic"party, that is sheerly juvenile.Perhaps you'd be happier at LGF?
4:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, I share your frustration. I think you described the Democrat leaders accurately, when you use words like, mealy-mouthed, reluctant, and tepid.
Democrats need to always reject the Republican frames. I can't count the number of times when the Russerts, Matthews, and Stephanopalai of the world, have repeated GOP frames and talking points. I would suggest that Democrats instantly reject those, and articulate the Democrat frames.
I have actually changed a few minds by using the following argument.
Democrats support spying on potential terrorists. No Democrat is against spying on terrorists, and anyone who says that is being dishonest/lying.
The real issue is that no man or woman is above the law.
If a President believes they are above the law, then they are no longer a President, but they are a dictator or a King. This concept is easy for the average voter to understand, especially those who are not political junkies.
I like asking Republicans, "If Hillary were President, would you want her to be above the law"?
I also agree with the others who suggested a coordinated effort between the bloggers and the Democrats. Maybe when they realize we got their backs, then they might not be so mealy-mouthed, reluctant, and tepid.
Liberty is attacked on a broad front, through our executive branch'sand in our legislative branch's acquiescence. By explicitly expanding the scope of government intrusion through the renewal of the Patriot Act or by implicitly avoiding a bloody fight on the constitutionality of NSA surveillance, Congress is complicit in the loss of our liberty.
There is a sad inertia in politics where once things are set in motion, the citizen gets rolled over.
Just to follow up on some of the comments earlier . . . there is a sense that the Cheney story is dominating the news right now and that, as minor as it may be in one sense, it has the potential to do real damage. It is very difficult to work on other issues, this line of thinking goes, in an environment where all the media oxygen is being sucked up by the Cheney story.
I'm not saying I agree with that view - I don't (I think the NSA story is of much greater importance than the Cheney story on every level), but it is true that the media seems to be paying attention primarily to Cheney right now (it's a story they can understand and it feels scandal-ish) and there's no point in trying to divide everyone's attention.
This is not the last day of the NSA story, obviously. There are plenty of other pressure points that will be needed and we will do that. In the meantime, Thersites has compiled an excellent list of contacts for members of the Senate Intelligence Committee with contact information.
I think it makes sense to contact all of them with whatever e-mails or faxes you want demanding that they conduct a real investigation into the operational aspects of the Administration's warrantless NSA program. I intend to. Those faxes and e-mails do get heard and read and even 100 or 1,000 can make a serious diffence in how someone perceives public opinion and how they vote.
5:36 PM
Anonymous said...
I have an idea for what we should call any legislation to give Bush, retroactively, the legal cover he seeks.
Yesterday when I read that Chuck Hagel said he wasn't interested in a "punitive inquiry" a little bell went off in my head. That's what Republicans are going to be calling a real NSA spying investigation; the principle is that we can learn all about the program as long as the President is exonerated.
The Republicans should eat every quote they ever made about the Lewinsky scandal right now. There was a collection on Daily Kos with the same idea.
So let's hear from Chuck Hagel the hypocrite, then:
"There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"
And Frist as well:
"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
The Cheney shotgun in the face shooting allows for more of this talk too. Why wasn't Dick questioned that night? Breathalyzed? Well, it's because there are two standards of justice: one for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, and one for everyone else.
I think this is why FDL is hitting the Cheney story so hard; the victims of wiretapping are faceless and nameless. The Vice President gave a face and a name to "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others": Whittington. It's all the same issue, about breaking the law, accountability, and coverups, with one major difference: there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever for shooting a man in the face while hunting birds.
The Cheney story is the NSA story, just with shotguns and white guys instead of computers and brown guys. Democrats should tie them together at every opportunity.
5:54 PM
Anonymous said...
what shargash said at 2:23PM.
Why have the majority of the bloggers not mentioned or dismiss this possibility?
Why are we quick to brand the Democrats spineless when it could be a simple case of blackmail and them going along to maintain their jobs?
With all the evil and dirty dealing the Bush administration and the neo-cons have engaged in, why is it not logical that they have the goods on spouse-cheating, homosexaully-closeted, porn-surfing congresspeople?
Can we just allow that they have this country and our representatives by the proverbial balls?
I am just tired of reading the same indignation and name-calling.
When someone starts a fund to begin doing covert surveillance of the powerful neo-cons, let me know. I have some dollars for you.
5:55 PM
Anonymous said...
Thanks, Glenn!
5:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Great post, Glenn. The Dems are making the Conservative myth that they appeal only to the fringe true by having these tepid views on the Administration's policies and scandals. Most Americans are far more anti-Bush than the leading Democrats, so the Party is effectively marginalizing itself by taking these half-hearted, centrist views that few Americans identify with and even fewer respect. That's one of the major handicaps of this two-party system, and as good a reason as any why voter turnout remains so low in this country.
6:10 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn - What do you do with the argument that while what you say is true of the country as a whole, the competitive states and districts - which the Democrats must win to take back the Congress - are more conservative, so the Democrats must sound more like Republicans in order to win them?
The Republicans can only pray that prominent Democrats continue to attack the president for listening to ocnversations between al Qaeda operatives overseas and their American agents. This would be a prescription for a Republican electoral triumph this November.
Perhaps Glenn Greenwald is, in fact, a stealth Rovian operative working to undermine the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be surprised if his soporific blog entries, always too long by orders of magnitude, contain secret instructions to various Rove agents. This is, as we members of the VRWC know, standard operating procedure.
What other explanation is there for a move that would almost permanently sink the party into oblivion? Why else would he attempt to persuade real-life politicians, who are almost to a man bailing out from this disaster of an issue, to persevere? How else to explain how anyone could advance the insane idea that our mortal enemies should enjoy the protections of our Constitution?
More of the defeatist, "DNC can't do anything." The DNC is irrelevant. The States can force the Congress to deal with this.
We're supposed to be free of unlawful Government conduct
The States can compel Congress to face this issue, and not cower to the White House non-sense. Here is what you can do: Click -- Call your State legislators and have them discuss this issue, and issue a proclamation calling for Bush's impeachment. There's nothing the President, RNC, or Congress can do to stop this process. Here's how it works: [ Click ]
Tell your friends -- click the link -- send it around -- let people know: If Congress and the White House don't want to do their jobs, and get a real accounting for these violations, the States are prepared to move and force them. Tell your friends, stay determined, and stand your ground!
6:16 PM
Anonymous said...
Most of you will write this off as yet another tirade from a cultist member, but the biggest point & mistake made, that Democrats miss completely is that they have no publicly perceived values. Sure anyone of you can list some talking points of what you are for & spend several hours listing the Bush Administrations’ faults (your favorite past time), give me thousands of examples of how I’m wrong, call me names, tell me I’m fascist & then claim that those that support the Republicans are cult members. How has that translated in to votes for you so far? Winning many elections? Passing any legislature? Gaining any real strength in polls? How did your prevention of Roberts or Alito nominations go? How’s the NSA investigation going?
The strength of the Republicans & most especially this administration is that like them or not, you know where they stand on the big issues. Support them of not, their agenda… you know the one that was advertised from the beginning is the one they are going to pursue. Sure Bush isn’t a true conservative you’ll retort & that’s proof he’s bad, stupid or evil, but he has placed 2 justices on the court & one’s the Chief Justice – there may be as many as 2 more placements before his term is over & what can you do about it? Not a damn thing & you know it. They are going to pick judges that appeal to what Americans truly want, those that follow the law & are, by-the-way, overly qualified for the job. So good luck w/ that filibuster or your usual plastering comments of being racist, hater of women, closed minded, etc. What if he actually nominates Janice Brown, are you sure you want Biden & Kennedy questioning her on national television? How much longer do you think that the African American community, totally ignored by the Democrats in representation or political positions, are going to stand by while Bush places yet another self-made Black in a very high & public position, all the while Steele & Swann are running as Republicans? Bush has gotten the tax cuts he promised, tried tackling Social Security (was blocked, but he tried & the American people know that & know where the Democrats sit or stand in SOTU terms), brought about tort reform, etc, etc. He has gotten his way period & called the shot before hand. He has taken every little snipe offered by the Left, attacks by terrorists, natural disater or quips from leaders of other nations on the chin & is still standing & getting his way. He is Babe Ruth & the Yankees & the Democrats are a whiney version of the Bad News Bears, but the truth be told they won’t come together at the end & put up much of a fight – that’s Hollywood, this is reality.
What has the other side done? They have called him names, called him stupid, proclaimed he is incompetent, insisted that he is evil & demanded impeachment. Their entire platform is Bush based or rather, anti-Bush based. Sucking it up or writing your Senators & Congressmen, or demanding change, seeing & seeking conspiracies in everything the Republicans do or mistake they make, does nothing but strengthen him & the Republicans in general. Sure his numbers are very low, similar to how the world’s view of America changed after the Soviet Union collapsed – everyone hates the front runner. But come on, there isn’t even another challenger in the same race. Democrats are the moral equivalent of the Eastern Bloc countries, except that now those countries are very pro-American & pro-Bush.
Why is it that no matter how low Bush’s poll numbers go, the other side never really gains that much? Notice that while his numbers plummet, the numbers for Congress & the media plummet even further?
The Democrats’ last Presidential candidate’s foreign policy basically boiled down to “well, it’s like their’s, but better” or “I’d do the same thing, but bring in more people in to help.” - all of the while failing to recognize that the other countries that backed out had vested & financial reasons for doing so – or my favorite statement “go to my web-site.” What was the address again, oh yeah, www.stillacrappysenator.com or www.2ndplace.com.
It’s funny, but most Democrats bring up or seem to count on the fact that if they bring someone in that has perceived similar values like the Republicans, that those that straddle the fence will come to their side. Has it crossed your mind that if Bush was a better public speaker or was some how less divisive or even better looking, how many of those that voted for Kerry would have voted the other way? Look at how their moderates are treated. Lieberman, the Democrats’ previous Vice President Candidate, is almost a leper for telling the truth about Iraq or for trying to cross the aisle to get something done. Save your the war isn’t going well tripe, because amazing enough, the majority of the troops actually doing the fighting believe otherwise & I for one will take their opinion everyday of the week before the likes of Pol Pot Durbin, Kennedy, Sheehan, Kerry or Clinton. How was Hackett treated? What do polls in Afghanistan or Iraqi say?
You know, I have always been registered as an Independent & was raised to vote for the person who I believed was best suited for the job & I’ll tell you straight up that I am going to register as a Republican the next chance I get. For every fault I find w/ the Bush administration & there are many, there are at least 20 for the Democrats’ response, manner & lack of solution.
The point is, that by following this path Democrats are not only going to lose more elections, they are losing support from educated, politically aware voters like me. Any gains made will be related to people’s perception of Bush’s personality, not the Democratic platform. Call me all the names you want, argue w/ my points until the next losing election, but it is true & if you are truly honest you’ll admit it. There is a saying that was popularized by Jim Rome’s sports talk radio program that totally applies here, “SCORE BOARD!” And the Republicans are going for the shutout, while the Democrats are still trying to figure out how to play the game. Good luck Bears, you won’t have me rooting for the underdog on this one.
Sincerely, Chimpy McHilterBushBurton mindless, nazi-like drone cult member rethugican Freeper racistfollowers Right wing nut wing nut hater of women, children & puppies koolaid drinker whose vote counts the same as yours w/ the exception, my side is winning.
I think the polls indicate how contentious the midterm elections are going to be this year. As for the NSA program: To me, this is setting the stage for Bush & Co. to declare martial law/a dictatorship. Only someone that can argue that a warrantless eavesdropping program is legitimate and legal is someone who is looking to become a dictator. (See Hitler and Nazi Germany). Hopefully, the American people and the rest of world will recognize the this potential in the nic of time to stop it.
How else to explain how anyone could advance the insane idea that our mortal enemies should enjoy the protections of our Constitution?
Because this part:
and their American agents.
means that they merit the protections of our Constitution.
US citizens have rights under our Constitution, even if the executive branch asserts without evidence that they are an enemy. I realize that you hate this idea, and that you gleefully shit on command all over the ideals of the Founding Fathers, because "your side" gets to "win." But some of us actually care about America over Party. But that's what Mr. Greenwald's Cult of Bush / Cult of Party posts have been about. Who cares about our Constitutional principles and the rule of law, as long as we can win? Heck, Mr. Greenwald has even astutely addressed the whole idiocy of the meme of "continued complete irrelevance" of the party that won the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections, and lost the last one by a squeaker. My God, could the repudiation of the Democratic Party be any more definitive?
And here's good ol' "Pol Pot Durbin" pmain again:
my side is winning.
Yup, yet again, that's all that matters. Good grief, this President's base isn't just theocrats, it's kindergarteners.
Based on Glenn's update and in reference to the Digby comments(which I wholeheartedly agree with as well as Glenn's posts): At least it was a party line vote with all the Dems voting for more information. It's a start.
Does this mean that I can stop paying taxes now? If the IRS isn't funded legally, how can its actions be legal? Sort of a "fruit of the poisonous fiscal tree" argument...
While Glenn cites CNN, USA and other polls to support the view that Americans are actually opposed to Bush policies, I’m afraid that Bush supporters with the help of Fox News have their very poll that – or so they claim – proves just the opposite.
This Fox poll is being cited as showing that “By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States. Furthermore, six in 10 say they are personally okay with the NSA monitoring their international telephone calls.”
AJ Strata has a round up of right-wing thought on this phenomenon, and dishonestly concludes, “As it became clear FISA was stonewalling the same kinds of leads that would have prevented 9-11, any politician worth their salt was not going to stand against Bush’s decision. The media was played by PR experts - and duped.”
This is why the moderate Republicans are caving to Cheney on this issue, says the right-wing meme, it had nothing to do with the heavy-handed tactics or threats to withhold campaign funding etc. No, it’s because the American people want to reward Cheney by giving them legal carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Of course, there is no evidence that allowing warrantless wiretapping would have prevented 9/11, we don’t have the capabilities to translate all the calls we monitor – that has been proven in the investigation.
And if a poll was conducted regarding the issue of “breaking the law” the results would be quite different.
Yet, this viewpoint is now a “fact” or at least a Fox Fact – and this is a huge problem. It used to be that political opponents argued their positions from the same facts. Now the authoritarian cult has its own facts, and absolutely no qualms about being totally dishonest.
These distortions have been intentional and very effective. And, quite frankly, I don’t have a clue how to deal with this phenomenon. I wish I did.
And man, I really wish Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom had never invented the term "Chimpy McHitlerburton". He really embarrassed his fellow liberals with that one. And all the variants occurring at timblair.net and redstate.org? Tim Blair is an avowed Trotskyist, and notice the "red" part in "redstate", indicating Communist = liberal sympathies. Plus, observe how it's been invoked in this very comment thread at Mr. Greenwald's blog! Leftists just love that term. Me, I prefer "President Bush" or "George W. Bush," as in,
"President Bush admitted to violating a federal statute, and vowed that he would continue to do so,"
or,
"George W. Bush has replaced a defanged secular despot with an unstable Iran-friendly Islamic state,"
but I'm not particularly leftist, so it doesn't count.
And the ugly american was obviously too busy searching Daily Kos for occurrences of "McHitlerburton" to catch all the Daily Kos "Draft James Webb" diaries. Oh, well.
Film Diva: "The reason the Founders were able to have a clear vision of what America should look like, is because they were united against what they DIDN'T want. Let's break out the window cleaner and polish the glass so that we can all get a look."
** my reading of history is that the founders did have a clear vision and it was basically what we have - the haves taking from the have nots and working together on ways to keep the rest of us out and not share power - we send the money, they decide how it's spent - there really isn't any democratic representation here, hasn't been for a while, the last outsider, barely let in was Clinton and he was trailer trash and treated as such and to make their creds more bonafide Hillary and the ex-president moved to upper class New York and now sup at wall street/east hamptons tables - I don't get invited there and probably you don't either - that third voice, which I think is being talked about, is the one that needs to make itself heard - how does that happen?
** pmain you start by saying...
Most of you will write this off as yet another tirade from a cultist member, but the biggest point & mistake made, that Democrats miss completely is that they have no publicly perceived values.
and end it with...
Sincerely, Chimpy McHilterBushBurton mindless, nazi-like drone cult member rethugican Freeper racistfollowers Right wing nut wing nut hater of women, children & puppies koolaid drinker whose vote counts the same as yours w/ the exception, my side is winning.
*** and everything in between is repeating the catechism - A+ - in 1969 I made a choice to serve my country - afterall it had helped my family out with that AFDC Social Security program, and kept us together and I assure you that my father's children have payed way more back than he took out - my friends at the time chose college, they didn't understand why I would sign up and volunteer for an elite unit, train to serve my country volunnteering my life instead of having fun and getting in on the new craze of peace, drugs, sex, rock and roll - I returned in '73 without having served in VietNam but serving 2 years out of country - I believed in Nixon, that the president wouldn't lie, my friends mocked my naivete, I voted Nixon, Ford, Reagan twice, Bush - then the first gulf war happened and I couldn't believe how the president was lying us into that and was disgusted at our actions and careless attitude to another human's suffering and agonizing death - "The Highway of Death" was butchery of the most highest and modern degree - and since the end of that fiasco over 200 thousand service men and women have suffered with some disease or illness or have died - During thte buildup I happened to tune in to a Pacifica station and they were playing a talk that Noam Chomsky had given explaining it all from his perspective and in '92 i pulled the lever for Clinton, then after the sell out of '94 stopped supporting both parties.
You may see this site as all dems all the time - I don't - I see it as speaking truth to power. If what the president is doing is lawful why won't he share what he has with congress? Why does Cheney and Bush continue to stonewall a republican congress when they try to follow their constitutional duty of oversight? Why does the president have the secret service restrict dissenters to caged "free speech zones"? These aren't just democrats bringing this up - and now with prominant republicans speaking out why not listen to them? I suggest that you visit Counter Punch, read Paul Craig Roberts, Znet, read Robert Fisk, Alternet, and follow some of the links there. I've been a listener and reader of many alternative news sites - Glen Greenwald speaks to me in a voice I can understand - I may not agree with everything he writes, but hey it's his site and if I was that easy to get along with .... Move away from the spot your standing on and try a different point of view. And my friends of that early era? They think and argue as you do - yet their sons and daughters enjoy the pampered life beyond college and would be shocked at any uncouth suggestion that the put down their beers and bongs and serve.
7:16 PM
Anonymous said...
Democrats are weak on defense and trying to scream louder and stomp their feet harder will only make things worse.
Glenn is dead on wrong on this issue. It is the executive branch's authority, not the judicial or legislative to run foreign/domestic surveillance. Period. You can cry until the cows come home that Bush broke the law. Until you can show a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision otherwise, the American people by a majority believes it is the president's constitutional duty and the Congress does not the will to change it.
It is just one more step in wrong war, cut and run, give terrorists rights, don't protect the citizenry attitude that makes the democrats weak, weak, weak on national defense.
And what do you get from Glenn? He asks "What are you afraid of." We are afraid of people like Glenn Greenwald. We have the strength and intestinal fortitude to run a war and protect the citizens and know that if the government oversteps our rights, we will take care of that. We have nothing to fear except weak-kneed appeasing liberals.
In the last 3 out of 4 Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate for President received more votes than the GOP candidate. The only exception was 2004 - when the Democrats nominated the most politically inept figure ever - and still almost won.
You really had to stretch for that one didn't you Glenn?
Bill Clinton never won a majority if you remember (although he may have if Ross Perot didn't run).
The truth is Republicans have held the presidency almost exclusively since the 60s with Clinton being the exception. He was a very moderate Dem if you recall.
and to use a similar tactic as Glenn. GWB lost the popular vote yet won the electoral vote over Al Gore in one of the closest elections in American history. The nation was severely divided over the court case, had a major attack against it, entered into an unpopular war and yet 4 years later GWB received more votes than any President in history and beat a bona fide war hero by 3 million votes.
Why? you say Kerry was an inept loser. Well you put him in the primary.
I say it is because the party moved farther to the left and farther from power.
Don't forget the Rep's also increased their majorities in the House and Senate in 2002.
This NSA story will not put Dems in power nor will any other ginned up scandal.
Real mainstream ideas will.
Your continued hopes for a Hamas type victory are delusional.
7:22 PM
Anonymous said...
According to the American Bar Association, the President broke the law.
Congress did not "decide that the president had authority."
They decided not to investigate the matter. There is a world of difference.
I say it is because the party moved farther to the left and farther from power.
So, um, could you cite some examples of how the party has moved farther to the left since 1996? It was Senator Kerry's support for NAFTA and the Iraq resolution that did it, right? Or was it the relentless desire for a return to more balanced budgets? Senator Kerry's preference for civil unions over gay marriage? The appointment of an anti-abortion Senate minority leader? What? (I just hope "ugly american" never finds out about high-NRA-rating Howard Dean mailing every Democrat a copy of Das Kapital.)
And have you successfully counted up the "McHitlerburton" references at Daily Kos, yet? Maybe there are some more in the "Draft James Webb" threads, or the "Webb's in! Hooray!" diaries. Now, over at vaconservative.com, commenters have been viciously attacking Mr. Webb, but what else would one expect from a pack of leftists?
But in the future, I would second the call for Mr. Greenwald to stop stretching so hard to point out such weak facts as "winning the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections." Because actual election results are a puny rebuttal to repeated drooling assertions about the absolutely overwhelming mandate received by Republicans at every turn.
Your continued hopes for a Hamas type victory are delusional.
Hmm, speaking of which, that did take the Bush administration completely by surprise, didn't it? Even more top-notch intelligence from a part of the world they're obsessed with. But at least they're not liberals. Those folks are out-of-touch.
7:56 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, can you bring yourself to say impeach? 52% of Americans want it. The American people have been ahead of the Dems, the media, and the administration for a while. Polls used to mean something. Our recourse is impeachment. As I said in the previous post we're used to them spinning a defense for the indefensible. This Oppositeland is driving me crazy! If we are to return to the rule of law we must impeach. Accountability seems to be an alien concept in Washington but I believe it is what Americans want. Got an impeach bumper sticker? They're fun! Take care, Jan
I'm a Democrat. I'm a Precinct Committee Person. I plan to actively campaign for Democrats in the coming years.
But Democrats shouldn't expect me to keep quiet when they do profoundly stupid things. Criticizing them may simply bring more attention to the problem and thus make it harder for people to support them. But when I criticize it is only to point out what is manifestly obvious to begin with: the Dems are wimps when it comes to standing up for their principles.
Don't like that criticism? Then don't give me a reason to criticize.
Don't tell me the Dems aren't wimps. Prove it!
Oh, and vote Democrat in 2006!
7:59 PM
Anonymous said...
A staffer in Rockefeller's office tells me they expect NSA Surveillance hearings in the Senate Intel Committee within two weeks! I'm trying to confirm what's up right now. I'll post info on VichyDems.
8:02 PM
Anonymous said...
Responding to a comment upstream: we're out of power because we've moved RIGHT, not left! Link
8:05 PM
Anonymous said...
The question the polls should be asking: Do you believe the NSA is spying on critics of the Bush administration to include Congress?
8:08 PM
Anonymous said...
Great work, Glenn. You don't disappoint.
Glenn, others, please read this excerpt from Gore Vidal's speech called State of the Union:
"This is an unpatriotic government. This is a government that deals openly in illegalities, whether it is attacking a country which has done us no harm, two countries -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- because we now believe, not in declaring war through Congress as the Constitution requires, but through the President. "Well, I think there are some terrorists over there, and I think we got to bomb them, huh? We'll bomb them." Now, we’ve had idiots as presidents before. He's not unique. But he's certainly the most active idiot that we have ever had.
And now here we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. And so as he comes with his State of the Union, which he is going to justify eavesdropping without judicial warrants on anybody in the United States that he wants to listen in on. This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected. Don't say wait ‘til the next election and do it through that. We can't trust the elections, thanks to Diebold and S&S and all the electronic devices which are being flogged across the country to make sure that elections can be so rigged that the villains will stay in power...."
8:11 PM
Anonymous said...
pmain said:
How has that translated in to votes for you so far? Winning many elections? Passing any legislature? Gaining any real strength in polls?
Gee, lets see:
Two Wins in KY Democrats picked up a state Senate seat last night with Perry Clark's win in the 37th district. His house seat was also picked up by Democrat - Ron Weston.
Win in NH The voters of Rockingham District 9 (Epping and Fremont) overwhelmingly voted to send Democrat Penn Brown to Concord yesterday.
Win in VA Jan 31, 2006 -- Democrat Mark R. Herring won every Loudoun precinct in today's special election to fill the 33rd District Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Bill Mims.
2 Wins in Minnesota Tonight, Democrats were victorious in two special elections in Minnesota. The decision by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty to schedule two special elections during the holidays - a move many view as politically motivated - did not stop voters from coming out to support Tarryl Clark (DFL) for State Senate in the 15th District and Larry Haws (DFL) for the Minnesota House election in District 15B.
2 Huge Wins in Missouri In short, in three heavily Republican districts, Dems retained a state house seat, picked up another, and came within a sliver of winning the last.
In total, Dems won 7 out of 8 special elections, including heavily Republican districts. Not too shabby.
I'll let you go get the generic polls, the Dem/Rep breakdown for Congressional approval, and to top it off, the falling Bush numbers (still below 40!!).
Not even a serious investigation into illegal domestic spying? Outrageous! The Nixon Law proposed by Senator DeWine (it's not illegal if the president does it) would probably pass with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Then Congress' capitulation to the executive and the emasculation of the Democratic party will be complete and plain for all to see.
Glenn is absolutely correct. We can waste our time preaching to one another or arguing with contrarian bloggers, but that gets us no closer to holding the Bush Administration accountable for breaking the law. Enough! We must contact Congress directly and DEMAND that our elected representatives in the House and Senate hold the Bush Administration accountable. Evidently, those spineless self-servers only care about one thing: holding their positions of power. Well, we should tell them that we will no longer support them unless they insist upon a full investigation into the domestic spying program. If they won't do it, then they must be replaced with people who care enough about the rule of law to take a stand.
8:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Oops, my math is wrong. I gotta run, so I'll fix it another time.
I wasn't even able to continue reading after the first couple of paragraphs, it made my stomach turn. This tentative behaviour by the Dems is shockingly and absolutely spineless.
So, um, could you cite some examples of how the party has moved farther to the left since 1996?
uh...because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said so
8:39 PM
Anonymous said...
David Shaunessy: I look forward to your posts almost as much as I do to Glenn's.
Everyone, please go to Raw Story to see the just released additional photos of Abu Graibu.
These make me not only ashamed to be a member of the Republican Party and a citizen of the US, but even a member of the human race. Those who argue that humans are, across the board, the superior species fail to note that animals do not engage in sadistic behaviour.
And it is THESE abuses to which the warrentless spying leads. Round up innocent people who do not meet the 'probable cause' test of culpability, and degrade and torture them.
If I were a Muslim who saw those pictures, my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever in terms of supporting the US or Britain, it's apologist co-conspirator in the War Against Liberty and Decency.
If I were a Muslim who saw those pictures, my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever in terms of supporting the US or Britain, it's apologist co-conspirator in the War Against Liberty and Decency.
What nonsense. If I were a muslim my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever when my fellow co-religionists beheaded innocent individuals, blew themselves up in markets and pizza parlors, committed mass murder on a scale not seen for 60 years, stoned women to death for supposed adultery and treated all females like worthless slaves.
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
9:09 PM
Anonymous said...
Mr. Greenwald.
Thank you. You are doing good work.
That's all--just: thanks.
Tad Brennan
9:11 PM
Anonymous said...
At this point, I'm more concerned with losing another branch of government than anything else. It's a loss that I don't see remedied by a few Democratic party gains in November.
The Executive branch is breaking laws and not fulfilling its duties to the Constitution. If Congress changes the law to fit the crime and gives the Executive a blank check, it is not fulfilling its duties and is accessory to the crime.
I want a government with three branches again--not one, not two, but three--each holding up its end of the Constitution.
That's what I told Democrats AND Republicans on the Intelligence Committee today.
It appears as though there is a reasonable difference of opinion here. Some say there is not problem; others compel swift action. Let's consider what we're trying to do: Create a place we can call one thing: Our home.
Your task is to decide what that way of life will be. If your life is about one thing, then consider a life based on knowing what is real.
If the truth is there was no problem -- then let's accept the truth: There is no problem. But if the truth is something else, then let us accept that: Whatever it is.
At this point, the answer is: We don't know. So let's find out. Encourage those in the RNC to believe that you are about one thing: Doing what must be done to make this country what it has always been about: Doing the right thing.
The right thing is what is right; and the wrong thing is to what is wrong. The right way forward is based on what is right, not what is unclear or uncertain or hidden.
There's nothing the RNC or Congress have to fear. The truth will put us in a better place. Then we will know. That's what Americans are all about: Standing up based on what is right, and what is real.
Go visit the RNC blogs, and share with them this message: "You’ve heard them, so let's find out."
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera. No wonder no one takes you seriously.
It gives me no comfort that the Muslim fanatics and terrorists are worse than we are. We are the good guys after all. Remember: The Islamofascists cannot beat us (for the reasons noted by gedaliya among others), but we can still lose if we destroy the things we are trying to protect.
Here is the question: Do we want to defend this country and the civil liberties that make it great? Do we want to succeed? Truly succeed? Or do we just want to play tough and heartless because it feels good?
Being belligerently stupid is rarely a good policy, personally or nationally, foreign or domestic. And, really, haven't we all had quite enough of that approach already? We now have a real threat to face in Iran, not a phony concoction invented by the neo-conservative edition of The Best and The Brightest. And how can we confront the Iran threat, now that we have squandered our international credility, our military resources, our domestic political will, and more than 2,000 of our fellow citizen's lives in a fool's errand in Iraq. What have we left to engage Iran with? We have disarmed ourselves. And, you know what, Iran knows it.
Lies have consequences, often unpredictable consequences. Law-breaking by government officials has consequences, too. Abuses of power, disregard for human rights, all these things have consequences. The consequences are usually uncertain but they are always unpleasant. We must play by the rules, both here and abroad, for ourselves, for our own well-being, for the sake of this great country. Otherwise, we will have destroyed that which we most love in the guise of protecting it. As the saying went in Vietnam: We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Let's not do that.
9:47 PM
Anonymous said...
gedaliya [Mr. "You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera" Abu Ghraib war crimes apologist] --
Two wrongs don't make a right.
We are responsible for our OWN actions, not those of others.
Your words are despicable. Your attitude beneath contempt. I hope you reap what you've sown.
We have our own little Death's Head Gestapo true believer, everyone. Back to the future.
The Iraqis are not my enemies.
The Iranians are not my enemies.
But as far as I can make out, George W. Bush IS an active, hostile threat to my freedom, and to our Constitution, for all practical purposes. And if you want to blame that on the big, bad terrorists -- go right ahead. The terrorists couldn't have said it better themselves.
Glenn, you are so spot on here. This post should be required reading for the spineless "opposition" party. If the democrats can't stand up to the president on this - with public opinion and many Republicans behind them (not to mention the law) - then when will they stand up?
I can't believe the dems are afraid of Karl Rove's threats to make the fall elections about national security (again). Didn't they learn anything from 2002 and 2004? Sacrificing fundamental principles so that they won't look weak on terror is the height of weakness, and is a sure path to more electoral losses.
The way to avoid Karl Rove's trap is to refuse to play by his rules. Or better yet, turn the tables on the Rovian meme that states that opposing the president lets the terrorists win. The new meme the dems need to broadcast is: If we don't stand up for the rule of law in our own country, then the terrorists truly have won.
10:11 PM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What nonsense. If I were a muslim my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever when my fellow co-religionists beheaded innocent individuals, blew themselves up in markets and pizza parlors, committed mass murder on a scale not seen for 60 years, stoned women to death for supposed adultery and treated all females like worthless slaves.
Someone is channeling Ann Coulter. Muslim means terrorist according to you. According to you, the Muslim is the Other, the Enemy who can't be bargained with, whose heart and mind are lost to the West forever. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, and you are the prophet.
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
Godwin's Law permitting, replace the word "Muslims" with "Jews" and pretend you are the President of Iran to understand how offensive your despicable words are.
They aren't just being humiliated. I looked at the pictures. The Iraqis were mutilated and dead. Americans had all the power in those prisons, and they used it to torture defenseless, even completely innocent Iraqi prisoners.
The moral and ethical position you are taking is basically indefensible, there being no ticking time bombs in the effects of the prisoners, but what really gets my goat is your attitude. Can you shed your insularity for a second to understand what Abu Ghraib means to the Iraqis? It means torturers, not liberators. It means betrayal by your defender. It means the failure of our democracy-building enterprise.
So I have an exercise for you. Stop snarling at the A-rabs for a second and look in the mirror. Then imagine you're the parent of a person in one of those photos. Then imagine that you're one of their American tormentors.
If you have more sympathy for the torturer than the tortured, I don't know what anyone can possibly say to you.
11:12 PM
Anonymous said...
Der,
First, thank you for your military service, my father was also in uniform when I born in 1969 & thankfully didn’t experience combat in Vietnam as well. I totally appreciate your point of view & Glenn's. In fact, it was Glenn’s reasoned arguments regarding the NSA wiretaps that led me to this blog in the first place. You’ll find posts here & elsewhere where I said that I thought it was a good idea that these wire-taps were explored & clarified legal or illegal as opposed to being left to the journalistic standards of the NYT. However, I do not believe it was appropriate for the NYT to release the story. I find the Left’s reaction to it despicable. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Judging by the back step that the Democrats & the few Republicans supporting it, shows that they may have jumped the gun too quickly again & at more of a cost then political capital lost. I think that there are certain ways to address said issues & doing it while there are boots on the ground or while in the middle of a shooting war, may be irresponsible & prove harmful. In the time of war, I’d prefer us to err on the side of secrecy & would demand full disclosure at any other time. But since the information is released, no matter how objectionable, it should be pursued in a bipartisan & non-political manner. I’d suggest after the elections in November so neither side leaks or exaggerates the information released for political gains under the guise of “informing the public.”
It’s still very funny, that no one can name 1 American that has been wire-tapped – legally or illegally - but according to the hysterical left it is the destruction of our civilization as we know it – ignoring that spying on Americans during time of duress dates back to Washington’s administration & includes recent administrations like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton & Bush (43). I do not condone breaking the law, but am only questioning the timing of this completely. Pretty darn convenient for the Democrats that this is released right as we are heading into the ’06 election cycle & there is no excuse for it otherwise or the NYT would have released the story last year. A point that no-one on the left has addressed. If it is not politically motivated why not wait until December 2006, January 2007, etc? Not one logical explanation & it is not like any more information has been gained in the year + since the NYT learned it.
Democrats are pumping it for any kind of political gain (just like the Republicans would if the positions reversed, admittedly) like they have every other unsubstantiated claim against the Bush administration so far, because they know that they cannot win any other way. I say let these chicken-little’s continue their chirping about how the sky is falling & once again, when the conspiracy theory fails to take hold, gain momentum or bring about anything relevant, let them suffer the consequences at the voting booth like they are beginning to become accustomed to. Anyone remember the Democratic warnings about Iraqi chemical weapons that were going to be used on US forces, the power of the elite Iraqi Republican Guard & how we were un-prepared, the faked memo about Bush being AWOL, voting irregularities in Florida, PlameGate, & on & on & on.
11:34 PM
Anonymous said...
A letter from 500 lawyers of the American Bar Association will do as much damage as a letter signed by 500 used cars salesmen from Berkeley, CA.
11:46 PM
Anonymous said...
The actions of the Islamic terrorists, who commit the type of atrocities they have, are condemned by every rational, decent person of any stripe worldwide. Deploring them each time a person deplores some other barbaric action serves no purpose. The "hearts and minds" of the most fanatical of the religious extremists are unreachable by any form of reasoned argument. The "hearts and minds" of the masses who blindly get swept up following inhuman leaders are what's at play. The pictures of Abu Graibu make those "hearts and minds" further out of reach than they would be otherwise.
Anyone who does not condemn those practices, or who defends them by pointing out their "lesser" rank of evil than the beheadings and the stonings, is a heartless poseur to any shred of human decency and part of the current problem.
Glenn, It has to get personal. This has to reach people who think first of themselves, then of other people. So I have a question. Who exactly is in the data base given the people they are supposedly watching? Who has given out account numbers and identifying information that might someday come back to haunt them? What businesses are in the data base simply because they have clientelle in say, Turkey or Saudi Arabia. And okay, trust the President. Can you also trust some NSA stranger with your information? Just because it hasn't happened yet... This is only a couple of thoughts on the subject. There are plenty more I'm sure. Make it personal and you will see a lot more people asking Congress and Senate as to what is going on. And why they aren't doing anything to stop it.
11:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Dan Lewis,
The most important & over looked point about either Abu Gharib or Gitmo is that all of the information regarding the horrible treatment & it is disgusting, has come from & was discovered initially by the military itself. It wasn't the product of some brave & crusading reporter, the military addressed it, then court martialed & punished most of those involved. Amazing how that simply fact is completely overlooked or not reported until 5 pages later.
Once again, I have to point out that it is real interesting that these photos suddenly appear right at the beginning of the '06 election cycle. It wasn't enough that the NYT ran the photos & stories front page for 32 straight days. I don't really see another reason or purpose then to try to humiliate the Bush administration, since there is no new information released along w/ it.
Have the MSM learned nothing from the false Newsweek articles or the current Danish cartoons? Since there is nothing new involved, I assume it is because they want to cause the controversy & care nothing for the troops in harm’s way or innocent KFC's throughout the Middle East. While I am happy that the information was released, I think it is disgusting & very partisan to continue in this vein. There isn’t any other explanation available.
11:57 PM
Anonymous said...
The government has planted a chip in my head, and everytime I want to write something, David Shaughnessy writes if first, and much better than I would have :)
Thanks, David. It's so great to be on the same team as people like you and Glenn.
11:57 PM
Anonymous said...
pmain, you are very polite and you rite pretty gud. However, when they were handing out reason and logic, you didn't get much. A shooting war you mention, as being somehow connected to this NSA program. Are you saying we are less safe from the Iraqi insurgency because the NYT let this story out?
I suppose you would argue that Iraq is the frontline on the War on Terror.
Voting irregularities in Florida? Ohio too!
11:58 PM
Anonymous said...
Harman was so disappointing on MTP. She now has a diary on Kos that is very disheartening. If she and other Democrats cannot stand up and defend the Constitution then don't bother with the rest.
12:38 AM
Anonymous said...
Speaking of getting personal - without some kind of evidence, it's going to be a tough sell, I'm afraid...
Rasmussen Reports--February 12, 2006--One-out-of six Americans (16%) believe that the Federal government has wiretapped their phones. Sixty-six percent (66%) are confident their phones have not been tapped while 18% are not sure.
Politically liberal Americans are more likely to believe their phones have been tapped than moderates and conservatives. Among liberals, 26% believe they have been the subject of a wiretap while just 53% are confident their phones have not been monitored in this way.
Conservatives, by a 77% to 12% margin, say their phones have not been tapped.
12:46 AM
Anonymous said...
sic semper tyrannis, glenny
12:53 AM
Anonymous said...
Freedom fan, “Similarly, I have no respect for a fan who demands that the referee penalize his team for a missed holding call. Liberals may deem this courageous and consistent...I have a different word... *spit*”
When I go to a football game I expect the coach to put the best guys on the field that he’s got, not a bunch of fat old fundies and corrupt cronies. If that kind of team were fielded I’d boo my frickin head off then giggle out of sheer frustration as they got creamed by the opposition. What else am I gonna do?
- mystery liberal who wants retardlicans to think before they post - harder
12:56 AM
Anonymous said...
Hmmmmmmm...
By the looks of the sudden proliferation of hysterical Anon postings, I'd say that Glenn is somewhere between "then they fight you" and "then you win"
That's a lot of headway in around a week...
Call_me_ishmael
12:57 AM
Anonymous said...
Glenn says: "Right from the start, the usual nay-sayers in the press and the Democratic consulting class anxiously brayed that the NSA scandal was a political loser for the Democrats."
I think this is right.
I wonder if we have contact information for these consultants. We could try letting them know that we think they are wrong. In large enough numbers even these people might begin to think of us as their real constitutents.
1:00 AM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
So I have an exercise for you. Stop snarling at the A-rabs for a second and look in the mirror. Then imagine you're the parent of a person in one of those photos. Then imagine that you're one of their American tormentors.
Oh please. "Imagine" is a word your mortal enemies have removed from their vocabulary...they are men of action. You simply have no idea who you're dealing with. The Islamic fascist fanatic loves nothing more to hear your screams of fear as he slices off your stupid head. His only vocabulary is violence, and the only way he'll be stopped is by annihilating him and those who actively support him.
I'm sick and tired of listening to liberal apologetic weenies regarding Islam. Islam in its current form has been hijacked by a death cult.
How quickly you forget the dancing in the streets in Karachi, Tehran, and Nablus when Atta and his gang flew airplanes in the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocents.
How soon you forget the beheadings and murders and suicide bombings in markets and schools.
How soon you forget the stonings of women and the slave-state of females in most of the Islamic world.
Sure, a few misfits and sad-sack sadists took humiliating pictures of a few naked muslims in Abu Ghraib. But how soon you forgot what used to happen in Abu Ghraib when Hussein was running the place. Rape-murders of a man's family before he was put into a wood chipping machine. Eyeballs gouged out with spoons. Fingernails pulled out by pliars. Castrations, beheadings and tortures carried out in the most sadistic and depraved manner imaginable.
What nerve you have lecturing me about "imagining." How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what went on in Hussein's Iraq prior to our liberation of that nation. How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what goes on in most of the Islamic world rignt this minute?
If you are representative of most activist Democrats in this country, the Republicans are going to sweep the November elections. Just keep harping about the NSA and Abu Ghraib. The result will be a total and unmitigated electoral disaster for your side.
1:07 AM
Anonymous said...
I find the Left's reaction to it despicable. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hey, pmain, that is the whole problem with this spying thing with me. If it is all legal and isn't doing anything it shouldn't, then why did th WH force a constitutional showdown over it?
And, as Glenn's blog here has pointed out, why did the WH's rationale in January for ignoring FISA contradict what it said against modifying FISA with the Dewine and Kyl/Schummer amendments?
And, let's not forget General Hayden's press conference where he made it pretty clear that he didn't understand the 4th Amendment.
I don't think you have to be right or left to start to have a strong sense of worry when the head of a spy agency doesn't even know what the 4th Amendment says.
Nothing about these three questions has been answered yet and the Administration should be held accountable to answer them. Instead, if the WaPo article is true, then the WH is moving in the opposite direction of not wishinh to answering nothing.
Grey smoke over hill, no matter what is burning it's still a fire.
Here is a interesting history of exexcutive authority for national secutity surveillance:
www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/50/banks.pdf
1:10 AM
Anonymous said...
Good God, how many times are the same trolls going to march in here and proclaim victory for the GOP in November without doing anything besides throwing out the same-old-same-old "you're either with us or against us!" arguments?
The White House Psy-Ops department must be working overtime!
1:20 AM
Anonymous said...
I don't know why you can't understand why the admin did not want the Dewine amendment.
Part one: Politics. The timing was bad to have a discussion of the workings of the FISA secretive courts in the heart of the war on terror.
Part two: I wish you on the left could understand this. They used FISA. They used it thousands of times. FISA was an extension of the president's power, not a limitation because it allowed secretive courts on domestic to domestic surveillance. They were unsure if the Dewine amendment was constitutional and why fight a battle over something they were getting along with. It is the next step you can't comprehend. The more aggressive surveillance of foreign suspects to american suspects/persons does not work well with FISA and is constitutional the president's responsibility. The linkage to the Dewine amendment is not applicable to the terrorist surveillance program.
All this back and forth, but there is a way to find answers: [ Click ]
If there's "no problem" why the "big problem" with confirming?
1:25 AM
Anonymous said...
"Sure, a few misfits and sad-sack sadists took humiliating pictures of a few naked muslims in Abu Ghraib. But how soon you forgot what used to happen in Abu Ghraib when Hussein was running the place. Rape-murders of a man's family before he was put into a wood chipping machine. Eyeballs gouged out with spoons. Fingernails pulled out by pliars. Castrations, beheadings and tortures carried out in the most sadistic and depraved manner imaginable."
Ya? Think that's all true? Then answer one question: why are we letting Saddam Hussein dye his hair every week while he is imprisoned? Look carefully. Nary a gray hair, although his beard is mostly gray. Proof positive he is dying his hair. Did Martha Stewart get that right?
Gives one pause as to what the exact relationship between Saddam Hussein and our government really is.....
In watching the strategy of congressional democrats, I'm reminded of union generals in the civil war. General George McClellan always seemed to find a reason not to attack, frequently due to an exagerated perception of the enemy's strength, and a preference for preparation over action. This was, of course, a sharp contrast to the bold and daring southern generals. It wasn't until generals such as Grant and Sherman came to the forefront that the war was brought to an end.
The Democratic party seems to be dominated by McClellans; who will be our Grant?
gedaliya - if you feel so strongly about who "we" are fighting and you understand them more than I do then I support you going to the middle east and doing battle. I served, and served so that someone like yourself can speak without fear of being silenced, I don't find your not serving in Iraq as weak nor do I find my questitoning my governments secret behavior as appeasement, we are the strongest country in the history of the world, we are not wanted in the middle east, we crashed their party, if we were not there, had stayed out of the Iraq/Kuwait affair, stayed out of the Russian/Afghanistan war would any of this happened? There is not evidence to prove that it would have but much to say it wouldn't and we, you, me and the rest of those posting here could instead be arguing about "the welfare state and welfare queens driving cadillacs and brown people with their hands out" because under it all isn't that what you're really talking about? Cut the head off with a sword or cut it off with a 50 caliber bullet - one is shown on the news with the administrations approval the other is not.
As to the NYT reporting these stories to damage the Bush administration, please. Keller and Salzberg were called to the oval office for a private sit down with the president, the Times held on to this stuff for over a year at the request of the administration - until the election was over, hmmmm, who's that sound like? So I say if, as the president is now arguing, disclosing this super secret information that the administration knew the Times had and would print was a "treasonous act" then why didn't the AG sue to stop it? Why didn't the administration begin it's investigation 18 months ago? And why are there over 300,000 names on that terrorist watch list? Are you on it? We don't know if a private citizen has had their constitutional rights violated because the administration won't tell you who they have listened to.
QUOTE: The poll finds that almost six in 10 say they are "very" (29 percent) or "somewhat" (30 percent)concerned that government efforts to track terrorists are harming the civil liberties of American citizens. Source ENDQUOTE
RNC demands a Solution
Here! There is a way to reduce the concern, and force Congress to investigate: [ Click ]
And why are there over 300,000 names on that terrorist watch list?
There are over 3,000,000 Arabs in the United States. I'm surprised there aren't more names on the terrorist watch list.
Are you on it
I don't know. But since I don't correspond or speak to suspected al Qaeda operatives living on foreign soil the chances are slim I am on the list.
We don't know if a private citizen has had their constitutional rights violated because the administration won't tell you who they have listened to.
As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson once remarked, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I and most of my fellow citizens are willing to surrender certain constitutional rights in order to remain alive.
After all, why haven't their been any lawsuits challenging warrantless searches in airports?
The poll finds that almost six in 10 say they are "very" (29 percent) or "somewhat" (30 percent)concerned that government efforts to track terrorists are harming the civil liberties of American citizens.
The "concern" is directed to those who are the cause of the "harm" to our civil liberties, i.e., fanatical Islamic fascists trying to murder you and your family.
Most people want the government to find and kill them before they kill us. If that involves warrantless wiretaps, fine. They don't trust Democrats to do this. They do trust Republicans to do this.
gedaliya, there's nothing I can say to you. You might as well annihilate me, because I am the enemy of all you want to do to America.
You want to beat the terrorists at their own game; that was a fool's errand from the beginning. In a dog-cut-dog's-head-off world, only the strong survive, right?
How dare I lecture you about trying to understand the Muslim world? How dare I ask for a moment of pity for the people our precious democracy tortured to death?
How dare you sell America's birthright for a mess of pottage. How soon you forget that torture makes us cruel and terrible creatures. How soon you forget that evil begets evil. We are sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, but hey, a little more collateral damage in the war on terror? Our existence as a nation is at stake, as you would have it.
We bombed Iraq before we said that diplomacy was off the table, then invaded it even though the weapons inspectors said Saddam had no program, then kidnapped, tortured, and killed civilians even though they were innocent of any wrongdoing, then used chemical weapons against women and children in Fallujah. We sent billions of dollars down the toilet and sent our men and women to die in an unwinnable urban occupation that has created more terrorists than it has defeated. We threw the Iraqi government into the hands of the Shiites and the Shiites locked arms with the Iranians, the very Muslims you want to annihilate. We turned Iraq into a hellhole in the process. We lost the war in Iraq when we failed to reconstruct it.
But something funny happened. Our nation yet lives! The existential crisis didn't appear! We went to Iraq looking for terrorists and nuclear weapons and we found a bunch of Muslims instead. We couldn't imagine that they would greet us as occupiers, not liberators, we couldn't imagine that support for the insurgency would increase, not decrease as we turned the corners toward democracy. The truth is that many people imagined it; they just don't hate Muslims like you do.
Osama bin Laden can't change our democracy without our consent. We are in a fight for the life of our democracy, but it's not against Osama bin Laden. It is against your racism, against your blind hatred, against your extreme moral relativism about the evil our country has done to defenseless people, against your black and white worldview, against the brutalization of our foreign policy and our armed forces, against the monster you are trying to turn America into.
If I could kill that beast with my bare hands, I would.
I'm sick and tired of listening to liberal apologetic weenies regarding Islam. Islam in its current form has been hijacked by a death cult.
...
What nerve you have lecturing me about "imagining." How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what went on in Hussein's Iraq prior to our liberation of that nation. How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what goes on in most of the Islamic world rignt this minute?
If you are representative of most activist Democrats in this country, the Republicans are going to sweep the November elections. Just keep harping about the NSA and Abu Ghraib. The result will be a total and unmitigated electoral disaster for your side.
Make no mistake. I pity you. Your imagination failed in Iraq, it failed in the war on terror. Did you hear the head of Shin Bet the other day? He said that Saddam was preferable to the chaos America has unleashed in Iraq. So why don't you imagine the liberated feeling of Iraqis living in fear now? Why don't you imagine an ethnic civil war, courtesy of the United States? Why don't you pretend they are white for a damn minute so you can shed a crocodile tear?
You don't understand Islam. You can never defeat what you don't understand, but you can never make peace either. You have a sadistic wish to defend the country, consequences be damned, even if the consequence is damnation. You would prefer that America live with a genocidal mentality rather than suffer another 9/11.
Thanks for the warning about the elections, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror, knowing that I have hated your ideology of death as passionately as possible, than be able to believe in my heart of hearts that it played in Peoria. What benefit will it be to us if we gain the whole world but lose our soul? We have gone too far down that road as a people and as a nation.
Houston, we can confirm that the stealth impeachment project has been a success! [ Click ]
We've approached, under the radar!
3:18 AM
Anonymous said...
Jameskarkoski,
I cannot honestly say whether it is legal or not, I believe that that may best to be left up to the Judicial & Legislative branches of our government. I merely questioned whether this was the best time for the investigation & completely questioned the NYT’s motive as to when & why they chose to release the information. The White House has stated that by releasing details of the program National Security has been endangered or possibly damaged & that we have lost a valuable tool in fighting terrorism. Haven’t heard this point disputed. If that is the case, then those that released it should be charged, arrested & given their due in court. If convicted, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
If the program is legal, then there is no real good reason for pursuing it right now, if it is illegal, then where is the proof to justify further damaging our national security? Where are the American citizens who have had their rights violated? Not one answer regarding this, but the left & most leaving comments here, are sure that crimes have been committed - once again, all w/o proof.
How is this any less of a trampling of the American Justice system or less of a perversion of justice? Why is it that the release was postponed, initially as per the request from the Bush administration, but finally released just as the ’06 elections are beginning. The time when they could possibly do damage to the Republican Party & specifically George Bush? If the NYT saw reason enough for it to not release the information a year ago, what has changed? The answer is that is useful to their side. That is the only reason, because if rights were being violated they would have published the information a year ago when they first learned it. Once again no one person has addressed this issue as well.
I have read Glenn’s writings regarding the NSA wiretaps & he has argued quite reasonably & brought up several great points, but they are irrelevant if he is totally wrong & nothing from the other side has shown that that is truly the case or shown proof enough to de-classify the program & hold public inquiries. No matter the level or volume of conjecture.
I believe that the White House believes that the FISA courts & procedures are well within the bounds of normal day to day Executive operations, but are too limiting or do not apply in certain circumstances during war time. Glenn believes differently & has made valid points. But the need to address these are merely academic until there can be any actual damage or violations shown. Since no-one can actually say or show proof of any wrong doings & since the Administration did keep Congress members informed all along (none objected to it, by the way) there is no reason to follow a speculative line of inquiry & risk furthering any damage to the nation. Especially if the initial release of the information has not only been harmful to national security, but was solely politically motivated. No one has shown a valid argument regarding this, or justified continuing in view of the lack of proof. Notice that the bi-partisan committee has now been split & may not follow the line of questioning.
Partisans on the left which immediately assume the worse about their government will insist that politics have taken over while completely ignoring the fact that it was politics that brought us all to this point originally & will again fail to denounce it, much less acknowledge it.
I diaried on this very topic on the DailyKos today (Wednesday). I watched Sunday's Meet the Press and found myself extremely frustrated with the anemic and disappointing performance by Daschle and Harman, who basically parroted and thus enabled the administration's talking points about the wiretap program.
I.e., that it's working fine except for this one small little legal matter that we need to resolve to make the program 100% perfect. No mention of what an egregious violation of FISA and the constitution it is, nor of how it is specifically violating American's civil liberties because of its warrantless nature, nor of how it might have been used to spy on people completely unconnected to terrorism (e.g. reporters, politicians, diplomats, activists), nor of how inefficient and ineffective it appears to be as presently structured--ALL of which are directly due to its current lack of meaningful judicial and congressional oversight.
This lack of oversight not only breaks the law and violated the constitution, it also prevents congress from being able to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency, thus violoating not only the law, constitution and civil liberties, but also, potentially, threatening our national security. The program is an embarrassing failure from a legal, constitutional, civil liberty AND national security perspective, and needs to either be stopped, or fundamentally changed to address all of these issues.
And yet Democrats are not able or willing to adopt this approach. I'm not sure why. It's quite depressing.
Here's a link to my diary on this (I also replied to Harman's DKos diary today with my own comment, which I ended turning into this diary):
Keep up the great work. I really do believe that people like you are making a significant difference, even though, without most Democrats' help, it's pretty slow going. But as you pointed out, the public appears to slowly be coming around to embracing the view that this program is wrong. Sadly, I suspect that when a sufficient percentage of the public openly expresses its strong displeasure with the program, Democrats' will "suddenly" come out strongly against it. Leading by following is what I call it. Very shameful.
The Democrats want to write "retroactive" legislation for FISA because what the President has done is perfectly legal and so they want to give the appearance that they are not obstructionists.
I couldn't agree more with you on your dissection of this issue. My take on the state of the investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program by Senate intelligence committee is that the Majority Republicans have looked at the political calculus and have determined that there is no political upside to having such an inquiry. There is only downside!
The Republicans will predictively decide that it is better for their 2006 electioneering to favor party (their party of course!) over principle, and therefore sandbag any attempt by the Democrats to pursue an inquiry. The few wavering Republicans (Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)), will choose to close ranks "for the good of the party".
If the Republicans were to go forward on an inquiry, they would risk even further political party damage in the 2006 elections. Further investigation would simply increase the "Guilt by association" for Republicans standing for re-election with an admitted lawbreaking Republican President.
Like you, what I can't understand is why the Democrats can't do their own political calculus. The Republicans are going to try to paint the Democrats as "soft on National Security" whether the inquiry is held or not, so why not start banging the drums fiercely about a Republican President breaking the law and a Republican Majority covering it up!
There is no downside for the Democrats! There is only an upside! Democrats have got to wake up and realize that they can't remain the craven and timid "woe is me" party and expect to slay the Republican dragon.
Folks, you can't fight back by surrendering! You don't win elections by bowing to your opposition! Stop listening to those useless beltway-bandit strategists/consultants (or simply idiots if you prefer) who recommend no rocking of the boat! Take a stand for once in your life! If you don't, we'll find someone who will!
5:38 AM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, keep up the good work. As to the Democrats my former party, I'm now a registered GREEN. My Congressional Representative, Nancy Pelosi, simply refuses to introduce Articles of Impeachment. Her logic is there just are not enough votes and it would be upsetting to the country and the party. I'm no constitutional scholar/parliamentarian but wouldn't it be somewhat simple to introduce the measure? It surely will be tabled by the majority but no matter what it will be in the record.
Thanks for the warning about the elections, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror...
Yes, that is clear. Moronic, narcissistic self-righteousness is just what the doctor ordered in response to our mortal enemies. You're the kind of fellow whose shrieks of abject terror they especially love listening to as they saw off your head with a dull knife.
Thank God the vast majority of Americans reject your suicidal impulses, and that we have a military capable of carrying out our will to defeat Islamic fascism.
Like you, what I can't understand is why the Democrats can't do their own political calculus.
That is precisely what they are doing. Political professionals know that this issue is fatal to most Democrats, and will keep it at a long arm's length.
9:25 AM
Anonymous said...
re: and that we have a military capable of carrying out our will to defeat Islamic fascism.
Gee, I don't think I've seen that yet.
gedaliya, get a clue. The military is completely the wrong tool needed to defeat Islamic fascism. You're kidding yourself.
9:57 AM
Anonymous said...
gedaliya "The Republicans the party of Grants."
Left office disgraced by the rampant corruption of his administration. Ulysses Grant did. George W. Bush will.
You ever wonder why trolls and their media counterparts spend so much time telling Dems what will lose them elections?
Anyway...
My ideas, Glenn, are modest, but could be effective:
we should set up a blog of American public opinion. It would be as non-controversial as possible (i know this is hard with polls, but maybe some kind of poll aggregator)
display the information in a graphic or easy to understand at a glance way
and point out which Dem representatives agree with the american people.
or just point out the proportions of Dems in agreement.
and do this on every issue.
so NSA, 75% of Americans think its possible that Bush broke the law
1% of Federal Democrats have said publicly that they think this
...etc.
personally i think it would show that the people are waay further left than anyone in power. and it would be great to make that plain.
also, we need to find out who the Dem strategists that the news articles are always referring to and put their feet to the fire.
who are these mysterious people? and why do people listen to them? find out their career history. find out their winning percentage.
if they're losers find out how much they make and from who and why they still have their jobs (Bob Shrum anyone?)
and expose them.
and praise the winners.
we're always going on and on about transparency and accountability. we need it to start in our own party. rank and file needs to know who the power-brokers are and what their track records are.
rank-and-file needs to be able to see, quickly and plainly, what the leadership supports and how it differs from what they support, and even how it differs from what a majority of Americans support.
and leadership needs to see it too.
if we can't even hold our own party members accountable and responsive, we can't expect the rest of the population to do so with the government.
Rhetorical strategy for Dems: start speaking for "the American people". Repubs do this all the time: "The American People won't stand for this." Or "The American People want that." They don't care that they've got no support for it, the impression gets created nonetheless. start claiming that the GOP is out of the mainstream. publicly. repeatedly.
and if they aren't now, eventually they will be. power is perception. the "reality-based" community needs to grasp this. conservatives learned it 30 years ago.
Hmm, well the Grant administration was plagued with rampant corruption and cronyism. Of course, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Republicans became the party of Jefferson Davis. Good ol' southern strategy. But hey, it helps "our side" win, so who cares if we repudiate Lincoln to do it?
Where are the American citizens who have had their rights violated?
We don't know, because there was no outside oversight of the program. "Prove to me that a secret illegal program with no independent paper trail did something wrong!" No FISA warrants + no periodic briefing by the Attorney General of the relevant full House and Senate committees = no outside knowledge of what the program is doing. Why is that so difficult to understand? Does it contain too many big words? The swearing out of warrants upon probable cause in the Fourth Amendment is based upon the presumption that "Trust us, we're not doing anything illegal" is not sufficient. That's why you Free Republic guys were howling about how the FISA court wasn't enough of a check on executive power when it was a Democrat in the White House. But IOKIYAR. Because principles and even consistency be damned, as long as your team wins. Franklin must have run into some of you guys before saying, "A republic, if you can keep it."
11:27 AM
Anonymous said...
pmain
Not only are you unclear on the illegality of domestic espionage conducted by this administration without constitutionally required, and legislatively mandated warrents, duly sworn for cause, you are unclear on the roles of our respective branches of government.
The judicial branch decides issues arising from enacted legislation, as well as resolution of disputes regarding constitutional compliance.
While the legislative branch exercises many constitutionally vested powers, the legislature is the only branch empowered to enact laws.
The role of the executive branch is to faithfully execute those laws enacted by the legislature.
The chief executive is not empowered by the Constitution to differentially enforce those laws; to decide which provisions of a given law is worthy of enforcement, or which provisions are not worthy of the full weight of the authority of that office. Indeed, the President's Oath of Office requires a positive affirmation by the office holder "to faithfully execute the laws." Violation of the Oath of Office should constitute a "high crime" worthy of removal from service any false-swearing public servant.
Strawman #1: "WH stated that by releasing details of the program NATIONAL SECURITY has been endangered. . ." Please be specific; which details have been released? What is the nature of the alleged damage? When did the damage occur?
Strawman #2: "finally released just as the '06 elections are beginning." Yes, I, too, think the Bush Administration arguments to prevent the New York Times publication before the Presidential election of 2004 were politically motivated.
Strawman #3: "FISA courts & procedures. . .too limiting. . ." Your assertion contradicts testimony to Congress given by Presidential Counsel Gonzales in 2003.
Valid point: "those that released it should be charged, arrested & given their due in court. If convicted, they should be punished to the full extent of the law." Surely you're referring to the TREASON perpetrated by those involved in revealing, in a time of war, the identity of our secret agent fighting our covert campaign against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The presence of weapons of mass destruction, at the disposal of Saddam Hussein, necessitated our invasion of Iraq, opening up the central front in our War on Terror. The revelation of Valerie Plame's identity has weakened our hand in that theater of operations in the War on Terror, providing material aid and comfort to enemies sworn to the destruction of our nation. Execution of any individual associated with the unmasking of our operative during a time of war is a fitting penalty, don't you agree? Unless they're a Republican, of course.
11:56 AM
Anonymous said...
Gedaliya --
Pointing out that McClellan was a Democrat and Grant was a Republican couldn't be more specious. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of political history knows that the Democratic and Republican parties have nearly entirely flipped. McClellan was a conservative who wanted to pacify the South because he sympathized with the cause of SLAVERY. Lincoln and Grant were, by today's standards, liberals.
"That is precisely what they are doing. Political professionals know that this issue is fatal to most Democrats, and will keep it at a long arm's length".
I'm afraid you've missed my (and Glenn's) points:
1. The paid "political professionals" otherwise known as the beltway bandits, are exactly the ones that should be ignored! They cower in the shadow of Master Karl - a man who's only tool is fear!
2. The real "political professionals" are the American public, and as Glenn has stated (and I totally agree), the polls show that we smell a rat. A big, fat Republican rat! These high crimes and attempts at coverup aren't passing the smell test of the American public.
Smart Democrats will realize that there is only an upside to making this an issue!
Lincoln and Grant were, by today's standards, liberals.
I am sure you're aware that Lincoln regulary ignored the Supreme Court and even suspended Habeas Corpus. He also signed death warrants for thousands of deserters, spys and traitors.
If only we had such liberals today.
3:06 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, it was my impression that this blog is instrumental in attracting people of like mind and calling them to action. It's more than just another discussion board, isn't it? I think Gedaliya should be banned, and anyone else like her. It makes no sense to have Tokoyo Rose participating in the discussions. It's depressing, unproductive, and distracting. Nobody who agrees with your ideas is interested in what she has to say, and as she will never be persuaded by reason, she serves no purpose on this blog. In fact, she is someone who is working for the Bush administration. Why do they have to be represented here? We're here to try to stop a trainwreck. There's no time for "niceties" like reading those who want the train to crash their "rights", or getting them coffee. Ban her or delete her posts. Either that, or please advise your legitimate allies to refrain from responding to her and to scroll by her posts.
"Um, since no Democrats are "making this an issue," it would appear, using your unassailable logic, that there must be no smart Democrats".
Tsk, tsk...childish gedaliya! This "Smart" Democrat and millions of others are making it an issue, or you wouldn't be here trolling and trying to stop it!
The Republicans can only pray that prominent Democrats continue to attack the president for listening to ocnversations between al Qaeda operatives overseas and their American agents.
Let me know when you hear a "prominent Democrat[]" do that. This is just the standard "talking point" put out by the RW "slime machine", and it's a load'o'c***. No one has said that al Qaeda shouldn't be tapped, and if it's al Qaeda on the line, even Dubya isn't too stoopid to fill out a warrant. And, as Glenn pointed out a ways back, the Dubya maladministration even insisted that no change was needed to FISA and that it wasn't getting in the way of anything a couple years ago. Do try and keep up.
Yeah, I know you have your orders from the Master to keep singing that song, louder, louder, LOUDER, but it's not going to work here. So go sing it somewhere else where people might actually believe it ... like at Freeper.com or LGF.
OBTW, Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
No one has said that al Qaeda shouldn't be tapped, and if it's al Qaeda on the line, even Dubya isn't too stoopid to fill out a warrant.
The administration contends (and I agree with them) that the CIC does not now nor will ever need to obtain a warrant for listening to the conversations described above. It is simply his perogative to exercise his constitutional authority in this regard and short of impeaching him (or Congress cutting off the funding) there is nothing anyone can do about it.
In order to stop him, then, his political opponents must challenge his policy in the court of public opinion, and use this challenge to elect enough members of the House and Senate to undertake one or the other (or both) options. Since we don't see that happening, the only logical conclusion that a rational person can deduce is that there is only token opposition to his actions among the vast majority of the electorate, not enough to inspire even the president's most ardent opponents from undertaking the required actions to stop him.
Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
If he is alive, he is huddling in some lonely cave in the barren mountains of Pakistan. One can only hope he is suffering. If he is alive, we will get him. I can't wait for the day we see his bullet-ridden body laying Che-like on some cold granite slab.
4:46 PM
Anonymous said...
Gedaliya --
If you can't see the difference between the measures required to maintain stability during a domestic insurrection as opposed to foreign terrorism, none of which, incidentally, has anything to do with whether the Bush administration should be allowed to VIOLATE THE LAW whenever they feel like it, then there's little point talking with you. But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war, even a war that may or may not require the active engagement of troops at a given point (such as after we "declare victory" in Iraq just in time for the midterm elections?)
But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war...
Actually, I'm not. The key word here is "whenever." First all all, each branch of the federal government has the constitutional tools to "cirvumvent" the will of the other two branches when it deems it necessary.
The Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, impeach and convict the president, and/or cut off funds if it deems his actions not to its liking.
The Supreme Court can declare a legislative act or a presidential action unconstitutional.
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
"Coequal branches of government" is a phrase that actually has meaning.
5:39 PM
Anonymous said...
"Coequal branches of government" is a phrase that has meaning, indeed, Gedaliya, but not if you subject it to the contorted definition you are advocating.
You did fine until you arrived at the Administration's interpretation of executive powers (and yours, by extension, I suppose.) Do you not see how executive powers of that nature are essentially a final "trump card" over the other branches' checks?
Do you really not see the danger here? Until people completely forget about 9/11 (which will never happen, especially with Republicans shamelessly exploiting it for their fear-mongering purposes) or all terrorists are eradicated (which will never happen either,) national security will ALWAYS be a priority issue. So essentially, if either of the two other branches of government passes a law or issues a ruling that the executive doesn't like, they can ignore it because of some vague "national security issue" standard? Who decides what's a valid national security issue? What's to stop the executive, in that case, to say that it is vital to future National Security to indoctrinate our children with Christianity in the public schools because otherwise the terrorists will find it easier to convert them to the Jihad?
I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen anytime soon, but erosions of liberty happen one small piece at a time until people can barely remember how it started.
6:15 PM
Anonymous said...
An accurate interpretation, I forgot to mention, of executive checking power is the veto. That essentially gives the executive the right to force a 2/3 majority on ANY bill he doesn't like. That's not good enough for the power-grabbing Bushies, though. It's easy to forget the magnitude of that power, of course, when your party controls both houses of Congress.
The administration contends (and I agree with them) that the CIC does not now nor will ever need to obtain a warrant for listening to the conversations described above.
And lots of people (including Glenn in prior posts here) have blown that contention out of the water. Look, you may be of the opinion that it's proper, necessary and/or justified for your daddy to do whatever he wants because you're PYPIF. But that's quite a different thing from making it legal (even if it were true). And the law says that a warrant (even a post facto one) is necessary for some surveillances. Now Dubya may disagree with the law. He may flout the law. But he can't change the law.
As Glenn has pointed out, what Dubya (and seemingly you is arguing for is that he gets to violate that specific law on his own say-so and without any check or restraint ... and there is no limit under this rationalization for violating any other law that he decides is getting in the way of what he wants to do.
It is simply his perogative [sic] to exercise his constitutional authority in this regard ....
You're assuming a "constitutional authority" that simply doesn't exist (or, if it indeed does exist, nullifies the entire Constitution itself, which leads one down the path to contradiction and sophistry: "Can Dubya use his unlimited powers to 'write' a law of his own that even he can't violate?").
... short of impeaching him (or Congress cutting off the funding) there is nothing anyone can do about it.
I brought that possibiliy up in ConLaw class one day just to be a contrarian, and Prof. Choper said, "That's a subject for a different class..." Perhaps Comparative PolySci, I dunno.... But Choper was right: Under our system of government, we rely on at least a modicum of adherence to the basic framework of government, and when the actors refuse to play by the rules, the whole scheme disintegrates ... perhaps to the point of anarchy and complete lawlessness. Take it to its logical extreme: Say I decided that the Constitution and the laws permit me to shoot you if I feel like it, You might say, "Waiddaminnit, that's not what the Constitution says". I'd say, "Of course I disagree. It's obvious, it's right there, and you just don't see it. Now hold still while I aim...." But you say, "The Constitution doesn't say that you get to decide it means anything you want it to mean...." I come back with: "But of course it does, see, it's obvious, it's right there, and you just don't see it...." Note that the reasoning behind this in no way requires that I be Preznit ... nor does Dubya's.
Starting to see the problem here? Starting to see why Glenn is so aghast at Dubya's arrogation of this untrammelled "authority" under whatever supposed basis?
I doubt it ... you're too busy PYP....
[Arne]: Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
If he is alive, ...
Yeah, he's alive. Dubya's little incursion on the laws and Constitution hasn't done a damn bit of good. Still happy you sold your soul for a mess of pottage?
But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war, even a war that may or may not require the active engagement of troops at a given point (such as after we "declare victory" in Iraq just in time for the midterm elections?)
Just a clarification: Dubya's rationale (and even his argued position, which Gonzales says doesn't rely on the AUMF) doesn't require that a state of war exist. Although, once you cede that Dubya gets to make any "law" he wants (or ignore such), he can declare his own "state of war" just as easily as he can snoop of U.S. citizens without a warrant ... or round up and intern all liberals.
The Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, impeach and convict the president, and/or cut off funds if it deems his actions not to its liking.
The Supreme Court can declare a legislative act or a presidential action unconstitutional.
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
That way lies madness. Underlying it all is a "gentlemen's agreement" to behave, and if the players don't behave and refuse "follow the rules", so as to precipitate these kinds of conflicts, we have a real Constitutional crisis, and that document is badly scorched if not burned. There may be a "successful" outcome of the measures above (and for the most part inthe past there has been), but that hardly is the end of the question. What if the President refuses to step down when impeached and convicted (I'd note the Constitution is silent on this possibility)? When the rules are busted, in the end the only "final" authority left becomes force ... and I hardly think that you advocate moving towards such a system, do you, Gedaliya?
Cheers,
6:55 PM
Anonymous said...
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
Yes, he can, in that it is neither a logical nor physical impossibility. However, ignoring legislative acts is, by definition, proscribed in law, so it isn't logically possible for him to do so legally. Unlike physical and logical "can't"s, legal "can't"s aren't self-enforcing -- some sort of coercion is required for enforcement.
7:13 PM
Anonymous said...
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
If the president does so, he places himself in a potentially actionable position.
If you mean that the President can ignore said laws without thereby violating the law himself, you are just wrong.
9:02 PM
Anonymous said...
Getting into psychology, we all understand the dynamic of the lady who doth protest too much.
Am I the only one willing to point out that perhaps the reason that there has been this huge campaign to portray Bush as masculine is, well, you know.....
As a woman, I can tell you that the thought that Bush is masculine has me laughing out loud. I voted for him because of lower taxes and what I mistook as his endorsement of basic Republican, capitalistic positions.
But masculine? Are we looking at the same person? What he reminds me of so strongly is Jack Lemmon in drag in Some Like it Hot. Rent the movie and decide for yourselves....
If you mean that the President can ignore said laws without thereby violating the law himself, you are just wrong.
There are numerous examples of presidents doing just this. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln are two who provide the most well-known examples of the practice, but there are dozens of other cases.
Most presidents have "sequestered" funds allocated for a particular legislative act to prevent its implementation. Other presidents have refused to comply with SCOTUS decisions, and other presidents have simply ignored the will of congress.
If you are not aware of these facts I suggest you do a little reading to familiarize yourself with them.
Well, no, it does not. We did not descend into madness when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus or when Jackson simply ignored congressional acts.
I wonder why leftists are so inclined to hyperbole? Perhaps you can provide some insight into this conundrum. It surely does much to undermine your credibility on a wide range of topics.
9:27 PM
Anonymous said...
"Bush tacked on the phrase "and in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President" from order13292
This is sortof like the signing statements, a bunch of smoke and mirrors , assuming powers he does not have, ie the president does not have the right to amend the contitution or amend his own powers or change the powers of his office. He cannot declare that the vice is a coequal and is CIC on Tuesdays between 2 and 6 pm. The ballots we voted on do not say President and copresident. The office is not fungible, one man is president not 2. We should never let the executive get away with this egregious assumption of rule changing: everytime we think we are on the field they change the field rules and goalposts. This is an order not worth the paper it is written on and we should not let them get away with obfuscation like this.
We at 'Against the War on Terror' agree that there is something rather pathetic about the Democrats' lack of willingness to exercise political leadership. But, as we commented on our blog, we also find it perplexing that so many are surprised at their unwillingness to do so. (See www.againstwot.com) One could trace the Dems passivity back a long way, but just think of their electoral strategy: sit back and hope Bush self-destructs. That's not exactly a confident, self-assertive political strategy.
11:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Most presidents have "sequestered" funds allocated for a particular legislative act to prevent its implementation. Other presidents have refused to comply with SCOTUS decisions, and other presidents have simply ignored the will of congress.
If you are not aware of these facts I suggest you do a little reading to familiarize yourself with them.
No one has denied these facts, oh weaver of strawmen. Rather, what is mad is to argue that, because they happened, they are constituionally valid, or acceptable.
It's amusing to see someone as transparently intellectually dishonest as yourself talking about "leftists" undermining their credibility. The very use of the term "leftist" here (George Will? Bob Barr?) is hyperbole plus.
Well, no, it does not. We did not descend into madness when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus or when Jackson simply ignored congressional acts.
Perhaps you should read the rest of what I said (or at least, respond to it). I said that most such deviations are correcting, because people come to their senses (Lincoln is a particularly bad example because the Supreme Court said that was a no-no, and that was the end of it; no further confrontation). And there are few such incidents too, mainly because people of reason avoid such provocations. And there it might end here as well, if Dubya just gives up trying to pretend he gets to say what the law is and which laws "are inoperative" (to use some famous words) ... or lets the court resolve the matter. But he's asserting that he has no obligation to do that, and that he's just going to keep on truckin'....
That way lies madness. Maybe you think that an impeachment every couple of years is just peachy keen, and a swell way to run the ship of state and keep it on an even keel ... by running it full tilt towards the rocks every couple of years until someone has the sense to mutiny ... but I think most reasonable people would think differently.
Lincoln is a particularly bad example because the Supreme Court said that was a no-no, and that was the end of it; no further confrontation).
This is incorrect. To wit:
"With Congress not in session until July [1861], Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
"Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.
Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
There's more to it than that, gedaliya, as you know. Lincoln at least had the benefit of there being an actual "Rebellion or Invasion" -- the only Constitutional excuse for suspending habeas. And in 1863 Congress exercised its power under Art. I sec. 9 and backed up Lincoln's order with the Habeas Corpus Act.
And Lincoln STILL got slapped down -- yet Bush's supporters still claim that when he arrests American citizens at peaceful airports and ships them to military brigs, he's following Lincoln's venerated precedent.
"Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
And there it sits (well, at least until Dubya decides to try and flog a horse 140 years tits-up). Did you think you had some kind of point here?
You should consider for a moment Thersite's comments too...
Cheers,
4:15 AM
Anonymous said...
"'the UAE still has ties to al Qaeda.' Is this really the case, and if so, why haven't we taken action against the UAE in the past? Why hasn't anyone demanded that we do so?"
UAE is #6 oil exporter in the world.
I'm trying to remember, there's another country kind of like UAE, a dictatorship supporting jihadism that BushWorld never notices anything wrong with . . . Oh yeah Saudi Arabia.
Let's do keep puzzling over this one.
10:09 AM
(updated below - updated again)
The NSA scandal is at a crossroad. In one sense, there were numerous events this past week which reflect a growing scandal. Further hearings by the Judiciary Committee are being planned; increasing numbers of Republicans, including Rep. Heather Wilson, Grover Norquist and Richard Epstein, have expressed serious objections this week to the Administration’s actions; and Tim Russert devoted his entire hour on last Sunday's Meet the Press to the scandal, a clear sign of the scandal's growing strength.
But undercutting all of that momentum is the increasingly obvious fact that a substantial number of Democrats are flirting heavily with -- if they have not already outright embraced -- the notion that they ought to back away from this scandal, focus on legislative "revisions" to FISA in order to render retroactively legal the Administration’s patently (and proudly) lawless behavior, plead with the Administration to accept some oversight going forward, and then forget about the whole sordid affair. Put another way, many Democrats are slowly slouching towards the path they almost always end up taking – that is, not challenge the Administration due to three things: fear, fear and fear. Specifically, they are afraid that standing firm will backfire politically, even though all available facts suggest that this fear is wholly unfounded.
Political considerations to the side for a moment, how can Democrats even consider allowing the Administration to break the law with impunity? As I’ve argued many times, the Administration did not violate the law here because they have a specific view uniquely about their power to eavesdrop. They violated the law here because they have adopted a general theory of Executive power which maintains that the President has the right to act contrary to any Congressional law -- and without any judicial "interference" -- with regard to any decisions that even vaguely pertain to national security, even including the use of war powers against American citizens on U.S. soil. To allow the Administration a free pass on this lawlessness is to further install and solidify that ideology of lawlessness. How can any Democrat possibly think it’s in the interests of their party or this country to acquiesce to that?
What is so simultaneously bewildering and frustrating about the tentative and fearful posture assumed by so many Democrats with regard to this scandal is that the fears are based on nothing but pure fantasy and myth. This notion that Democrats cannot pursue this scandal because they will look weak on national security or be painted as wanting to "hang up on Osama" is completely negated by every relevant fact.
There was a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday containing substantial data regarding public opinion of this scandal. As CNN reported:
About 49 percent of respondents said the president had definitely or probably broken the law by authorizing the wiretaps and 47 percent said he probably or definitely had not.
Those numbers were similar to a question about whether the program is right or wrong -- 47 percent said it was right and 50 percent called it wrong.
A majority believes the eavesdropping program is "wrong." And a plurality, close to a majority, believe that the President "probably or definitely" broke the law.
And if you add to that total the percentage (24%) which thinks that the President "probably" did not break the law (which means, by definition, that those respondents are still open to the possibility that he did), it means that 73% of the public is open to the possibility that the President broke the law here (with the vast majority of those believing that the President did break the law). One can look at the converse of that as well (that roughly the same total are open the possibility that the President did not break the law), but the point is that after two months of this scandal, close to a majority believe that George Bush did break the law and almost everyone outside of the hardest-core Bush loyalists (and even some of those) are open to the possibility that he broke the law.
These are extraordinary and unbelievably encouraging numbers, and that is so for several reasons. First, there is a potent and important core political belief in our country that the President is not above the law. Most Americans viscerally know that Richard Nixon was booted from the White House in disgrace because he broke the law. Few things would be more damaging to the President and his Administration – and deservedly so – than convincing the American public that he broke the law when exercising his political powers. These polls demonstrate that Americans are ready to be convinced of this. Many already have been. What rationale could possibly justify Democrats backing away from this opportunity?
Second, I am genuinely amazed that the percentage of people who believe that Bush broke the law is so high, because Democrats have barely even made this case to the public. The number of prominent Democrats who have come before the cameras and stated unequivocally and unapologetically that George Bush broke the law can be counted on one hand. Americans have almost come to this conclusion on their own. Imagine what these numbers would be if Democrats were acting in unison and were taking a firm and principled stance against the Administration’s law-breaking, not just with regard to eavesdropping but with regard to the Administration's views of the Executive power of law-breaking.
This Sunday’s Meet the Press was one of the most instructive, and depressing, illustrations of this phenomenon ever. The show was devoted to the NSA scandal. The Republican guests were the Chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Pat Roberts and Rep. Peter Hoekstra. The Democrats were the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman, and former Senate Majority Leader Sen. Tom Daschele.
The two Republicans could not have been any more aggressive or absolute in defending the Administration. There was not an acknowledgment by either of them that any of the Administration’s defenses could be even remotely or theoretically flawed. They emphatically advocated the Administration’s views on each and every issue – the President did nothing wrong; he had legal authority both from Article II and the AUMF for everything he did; he briefed the Congress fully; and thank God he did this because he’s protecting us all from being blown up.
Amazingly, what Harman and Daschele said was not really much different than that. Neither of them once articulated the primary point here – that this is a scandal because George Bush broke the law, or that the Administration is espousing theories that entitle them to act contrary to law, even as to the Government’s treatment of American citizens on U.S. soil. You just don’t hear any of that from Democrats, at least not Democrats like Harman and Daschele.
What you hear is mealy-mouthed, conflicted incoherence which inexplicably attempts to pay homage to the basic goodness and rightness of the extremely unpopular Administration while offering only the most reluctant, tepid and fringe critiques of its actions -- and, from Harman, what we heard was that it was likely that the program was legal and, for that reason, the leakers and even the journalists who disclosed the program ought to be criminally prosecuted.
Republicans have been hammering the notion that the President’s actions were not only legal but absolutely necessary to prevent our children from being blown up, while Democrats have nervously suggested that maybe this wasn’t entirely proper but maybe we should also just ask the President how we can help to make what he wants to do legal.
And even with all of that, a plurality – almost a majority – believe that the President broke the law, and an overwhelming majority are open to the possibility that he did. Given the dynamic among politicians and the media, that is really an extraordinary result. So what explains the Democrats’ irrational and factually baseless fear of pursuing this scandal?
The central premise of conventional political wisdom is that Democrats are chronic losers whose real views are overwhelmingly rejected by most Americans. As a result, they can’t say what they really believe because what they really believe is embraced only by a handful of freaks and outcasts on the coasts and the "heartland" is repulsed by what they believe. As a result, if they want to win elections, they have to dress up what they think in much more moderate and Republican-accommodating language, constantly genuflecting to basic Republican premises but only nitpicking on the corners, because otherwise, normal Americans will continue to be repelled by their angry, radical agenda.
How many times do we hear that - from the media, from pundits, in the blogosphere, even from Democratic consultants? If there is such a thing as conventional wisdom, it’s that.
What is so unbelievable about this world-view is that it is so plainly predicated on falsehoods, on factually false premises. Let’s use the war in Iraq as an example. According to this prevailing wisdom, anyone who opposes the war on Iraq, who thinks it’s a mistake, who doesn’t pay homage to the President’s "go-on-offense-against-the-terrorist" routine when it comes to Iraq, is a pacifistic, out-of-the-mainstream loser who is an embarrassment to the Democrats and is the type of person who has to be repudiated and hidden if the Democrats have any hope of winning every again.
That notion is as widely accepted as it is false. Here is what USA Todayreports about their latest poll:
Eichenberg says all that [perceptions that Iran is a growing danger] is eroding President Bush's standing, too. Among those polled, 55% say they lack confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iran. And Bush's approval rating has dipped to 39%, the first time below 40% since November, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
A 55% majority say the war in Iraq was a mistake. Just 31%, a record low since the question has been asked, say the United States and its allies are winning there.
The radical, out-of-the-mainstream view is not that the war in Iraq is a mistake. That is, quite solidly, the majority view. The radical view is that we did the right thing by invading Iraq. And yet, if you listen to the blogosphere, and more importantly, the establishment media, the premise is always that anyone who strongly condemns the war in Iraq (e.g. Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, etc.) is a fringe radical who is sinking the Democrats’ electoral chances. But the facts demonstrate that the opposite is true. A lopsided majority hold that view.
If a Democratic politician were to say that the U.S. was not winning the war in Iraq, swarms of media pundits and Bush followers would decree that Democrat to be an untrustworthy out-of-the-mainstream cretin who cannot be trusted and who Democrats must repudiate unless they want to keep losing elections. And yet, by a lopsided 65-31 margin, Americans agree with that view. The out-of-the-mainstream view is the one the media has depicted as being the only acceptable view - that we did the right thing in invading Iraq, that we are winning there, that questioning the wisdom of our ongoing occupation is "what Karl Roves hopes for" because it will doom the Democrats to defeat.
Democrats have to realize -- and now -- that nobody outside of the core Bush cultists even listens to these manipulative appeals any more. They worked in 2002 and 2003; they don’t work anymore. The well has run dry. All of the public relations stunts over the last month - the Heroic Salvation of Los Angeles, the new scary bin Laden tape where he copies Democratic talking points, the oh-so-tough-and-resolute State of the Union strutting – it all fell on deaf ears and achieved nothing. As the USA Today article explains:
"It [the poll] suggests that he's pretty much down to his core supporters out there ... and everyone else has left," says Richard Stoll, a political scientist at Rice University.
Right from the start, the usual nay-sayers in the press and the Democratic consulting class anxiously brayed that the NSA scandal was a political loser for the Democrats. Those of us who thought it was wrong and serious that the President wants to break the law were doing him a huge favor, we were told, and we should just shut up and let him go about the business of "defending the nation" however he thinks is best. If we didn’t, Americans would start to think that we were trying to block him from protecting the nation against The Terrorists.
It’s now been two months since the scandal first broke. It’s been the most prominently covered story by far during that period. Are Americans running into the arms of the President because they perceive that Democrats are trying to prevent him from eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden? No, no such thing is happening. The opposite has happened. After two months of the news being dominated by this scandal, Bush’s approval ratings are back in the 30s and everyone has abandoned him other than the cultists who form his base and will never abandon him.
Immediately after the first day of the NSA hearings, I wrote this concerning the factors which I believe will determine the course and outcome of this scandal:
The Administration will be held accountable for its illegal conduct here if and only if Americans becomes convinced that the Administration's actions were wrongful and deserve punishment. And that, in turn, will happen only if Bush opponents formulate an effective and coordinated strategy for making this case directly to Americans, and then articulate those principles aggressively and passionately.
Democrats will pursue this scandal the way they ought to if and only if the public demands that they do so. One of the central challenges of the blogosphere is to marshal the public’s anger over this scandal in order to force Democrats to hold the Administration accountable for its law-breaking, and to take a stand for the rule of law in this country. Most Democrats clearly won’t do this unless they are compelled to, but I believe that with a weakened, unpopular President and extremely encouraging public opinion polls on this scandal, we ought to devote our focused and vibrant energies towards preventing Democrats from running away from this challenge.
UPDATE: Sean-Paul Kelley reports at The Agonist that, while the world listens to Dick Cheney's stoic expressions of regret and pain, the House Judiciary Committee voted today 21-16 -- along party lines -- against requesting that the Justice Department produce legal documents (which do not reveal operational details) regarding the legality of the NSA program.
And Digby expresses frustration and offers some highly insightful analysis regarding the pitiful fear of many Democrats to take the position that the President ought to abide by the law.
UPDATE II: Every time I think the Administration is making headway in slowing down the momentum of this scandal, some event occurs which changes my mind. Atrios has posted excerpts of what appears to be a truly phenomenal speech by Sen. Byrd on the NSA scandal. A small portion:
…I plead with the American public to tune-in to what is happening in this country. Please forget the political party with which you may usually be associated, and, instead, think about the right of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a private life. Forget the now tired political spin that, if one does not support warrant-less spying, then one may be a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden. And the tenacious Thersites reports that Sen. Jay Rockefeller's office expects that "there will be hearings [of the Senate Intelligence Committee] within the next two weeks."
posted by Glenn Greenwald at 12:07 PM on Feb 15, 2006
"The NSA Scandal and public opinion myths"
193 Comments -
Glenn, I don't understand why the Dems don't simply hire someone like you or Jeffrey Feldman (Frameshot blog) to synthesize this message and get it out to the public. It seems fairly straight forward, on the surface: hire a good public relations/marketing manager and catapult that propaganda, only this time, it is the truth that we're slinging, not the shit that Karl rove has distributed lo these past 5 years. What is the problem here?
12:31 PM
Truthout has an article up that American Bar Association has passed a resolution asking the President to cease the program or go to Congress to change FISA. Also, I see a UPI story that Tice is saying now that there is a 2nd program more invasive that the first warrantless wiretap. He's telling intelligence committee that they don't have the clearance for him to testify about it. Perhaps we have reached that tipping point. I got that article from Raw Story.
12:35 PM
This is worth a call/write/fax campaign at least as much as the Alito filibuster was.
Yow -- it looks like the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to vote today! With even a few days lead time it's possible to organize a campaign but it looks late now for that committee. Where is the next point of leverage?
12:37 PM
Is it at least worth blog diaries encouraging calls to Senate Intelligence Committee members?
12:38 PM
it would be interesting for some pollster to follow up with a few quick questions, after noting if the respondent thinks the president broke the law. "what does the 4th amendment actually say?" "does this FISA law allow the president to get a wiretap before he gets a warrant?" "do you think the president is wiretapping only terrorists?"
i'm going to guess that the more the public understands the 4th amendment, the more they'll think that laws were broken.
which would lead to the conclusion that dem's ought to go out and talk not about how the president should or shouldn't wiretap, but what the law says, and the endlessly-repeated question "why won't the president obey the law?"
12:40 PM
Imagine what these numbers would be if Democrats were acting in unison and were taking a firm and principled stance against the Administration’s law-breaking, not just with regard to eavesdropping but with regard to their view of Executive power.
Indeed, it's time to make a wider claim: That the maladministration's arrogance WRT refusal to release documents, unjustified and unjustifiable "executive privilege", "rewriting" laws (MOU statements on signing) and such, closed meetings, misuse (nay, illegal use) of executive branch resources, etc., are all lawless, and actions taken as a whole far more indicative of a dictatorship or royal kingdom. This country isn't run by just one person, unaccountable and unanswerable to the democratic branches, and we in fact had a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of such a regime.
This of course ties in with your "Cult Of Bush" post a couple posts back, Glenn ... "the King can do no wrong" ... but we ought to say this loudly (and use the word "King" in doing so).
Cheers,
12:42 PM
Glenn:
Yes. And?
Unless there's a concerted drive to hold policians like Harman accountable, how exactly will this change? By showing them poll numbers?
These people are cowed, they're living in a cycle of abuse, they can't help themselves anymore--they don't respond to reason. They've been reduced to more visceral reactions. They're terrified of the right, as you say.
Until pragmatists (not progressives, not leftists, but people of whatever political stripe who agree that Big Government should not be allowed to break the law) hold them accountable in such a way as to inspire an equal amount of fear, nothing will change. Pragmatic leaders must lead the fight to hammers these people with media and money, to reduce the smooth misstatements and kneejerk tremulousness and the vague double-speak to a couple of hard-hitting truths, and simply hammer people like Harman until not only she, but those like her, are afraid of repeating self-abusive talking points.
Did society make them do it? Oh, boo-hoo. Were they scared, is that why they broke the law? Too bad. I don't want to hear excuses, you do the crime, you do the time. Why are Republicans soft on crime, when committed by Big Government?
Gussie
12:47 PM
Yes. And?
Unless there's a concerted drive to hold policians like Harman accountable, how exactly will this change? By showing them poll numbers?
I think the poll numbers help, but they are not sufficient.
We need to create clear, focused campaigns - and now - to make it clear to Democrats that giving the Administraiton a pass on law-breaking is not acceptable to us. One of the most important tools we have in the blogosphere is numbers - and not just numbers, but highly active and energized numbers ready to mobilize.
Hopefully, bloggers can get together over the next day or so and create a campaign designed to target a couple of key Democrats and pounding them until they agree to do what they ought to do with this scandal.
That's the kind of thing the blogosphere can do effectively, and the point of my post is that we ought to do that - here and now, with this scandal. I know some things are being talked about, planned, etc. Hopefully there will be something we can all become involved in now.
Anyone with suggestions/ideas/proposals - please contribute them. Like I said, I think the scandal is at a crossroad. It can continue to expand until it reaches a tipping point, which I think - which I KNOW - is attainable, or it can fade into the pile of previous, seemingly grave though ultimately inconsequential scandals.
How it resolves is, as I've been saying, a function of how we demand that it be resolved.
12:51 PM
Glenn, first I want to say you are creating a great blog here, your writing is articulate and thought provoking. Now here's some fuming.
Daschele and Harmon on MTP were pathetic. The softballs being lobbed at them by Russert were begging for definitive yeses and noes, a real missd opportunity. But, this is just one in a million missd opportunities. There is absolutely no bravery in the Democratic leadership, no conviction and of course, no strategy. They are cowardly sycophants.
JN
12:58 PM
Glenn: what are your comments on my post above ... helpful?
12:59 PM
>If a Democratic politician were to say that the U.S. was not winning the war in Iraq, swarms of media pundits and Bush followers would decree that Democrat to be an untrustworthy out-of-the-mainstream cretin who cannot be trusted and who Democrats must repudiate unless they want to keep losing elections<
A recent thread on Digby suddenly reminded me of what the "National Mood" wes in the run up to the war. Anyone remeber the Dixie Chicks? So a big part of the problem is that the mjajor networks have already dug themselves into the hole of supporting the war and they think its easier for them to control the public's perception than it is to reflect it.
1:05 PM
It’s not only the Democrats who don’t understand how to frame this issue (convincing the public that the President, not only broke the law, but has an ideology of lawlessness), but the media.
For example, David Ignatius while saying that the administration “has gone to far” attributes this “arrogance of power” to a “bunker mentality.”
He misses completely the ideology of lawlessness that brought about this “arrogance of power.” He misses that the administration intentionally violated the laws because of their political views.
Until the media and the Bush opponents face this basic fact, this administration will not be held accountable, and lawlessness will become institutionalized within the Presidency.
Yes, it’s an arrogance of power, but it’s not because of a “bunker mentality” -- it’s from the basic viewpoint that Cheney has had since Nixon’s days – that of a “all-powerful” (above the laws) chief executive. We are just seeing that theory come into fruition with basic contempt for checks and balances and the rule of law.
This was planned, it didn’t come about because of 9/11 or the failures in Iraq, Katrina, etc. etc. Lawlessness is what they believe in.
It has been made possible by the rise of the religious right, the development of a right-wing media (and intimidation of the mainstream media) and the cultivation of extremist views within the Republican Party. Which, in turn, have been successful in framing this issue as not about the law, but about security from terrorism.
Yes, it’s an arrogance of power – an abuse of power - and that, I’m afraid, was the goal.
1:08 PM
The Democrats are playing not to lose, as usual. We have to play to win.
How hard is it for every Democratic lawmaker to issue a press release that says:
"The President broke the law. He is damaging national security. Our nation is not a monarchy."
Impossible, apparently.
1:11 PM
It was so depressing to watch Harman act like a woman who just found out her husband was cheating on her but she didn't want a divorce. "It's okay if you cheat honey - just let me know when you do it, okay?"
1:12 PM
Let's change the language we're using from "the Dems need to" or "the Dems should" to "We Will."
We will contact Harry Reid's office, we will contact all the democratic leaders, we will contact the DCCC and other groups, and we will point them to your argument which is the last one that "needs" to be made because it perfectly distills the problem and demands action.
1:15 PM
I think the Democrats real fear, is not the possible political backlash. They are afraid of what winning on the grounds that The President broke the law will mean. The Democrats have no interest in the creative destruction to politics as usual in Washington that would bring. They don't object to Bush and his policies on any political or moral groung, they object to the fact that they are not in power to enjoy the spoils. Destroying Bush and also destroying the corrupt system the two parties have worked together to create over the past 25 years does not serve thier purpose. The Democrats are not a party of opposition, they are a complicit party of collaboration.
Brian
brimcc@gmail.com
1:18 PM
The out-of-the-mainstream view is the one the media has depicted as being the only acceptable view - that we did the right thing in invading Iraq, that we are winning there, that questioning the wisdom of our ongoing occupation is "what Karl Roves hopes for" because it will doom the Democrats to defeat.
The Republican Mighty Wurlitzer has been pushing this myth of the popularity of the war, of the president, and of the Republican party (and its ideas) too ... for quite some time. They have the machine, and it works (just check out the True Believers in the comments sections here, for instance).
Democrats need to do two things:
1). Pick a message, simple consistent, and defencible.
2). Put together the machinery to get it out.
I think you're doing a valuable job on the first part, Glenn. Now we don't own the media, but I think we have equivalent (roughly) capabilities in the blogs, outfits like MediaMatters, and in grass-roots organisations such as MoveOn. All we have to do is to get the Democratic leadership (or lack thereof) to sign on to the program. Goodness knows, what they've been doing for a decade hasn't been working, and people need to walk up to them and tell them that ... as I did a couple of weeks ago when the DCNN called asking for money again this year.
Cheers,
1:21 PM
Mainsailset - I'm a little sceptical about the two sources (Tice and Raw Story), but there have been some references to a domestic eavesdropping program and the notion that the Intelligence Committee won't investigate is, for that reason and so many others, an outrage beyond what can be expressed.
Maybe we should do something with a couple key Intelligence Committee members - maybe one or two wavering GOP members. Hopefully the blogosphere will get organized on this today and can act in a focused way.
1:24 PM
Glenn: thanks for the response. The UPI story with Tice puts the issue up on the MSM radar as does the letter from the 500 ABA lawyers. Like you, I believe there is no one smoking gun, it's simply important to keep the issue on the radar screen and not let it lose traction.
1:34 PM
So, now I'm waiting for you guys to be clear. Who are we contacting and what are we saying?
1:39 PM
your strategy is flawed Glenn.
1:42 PM
Glenn--
Campaigns... which members? In your time in DC and networking on this issue, do you have a sense of who the right few Senators are to start influencing?
1:43 PM
Just wondering, but maybe the MSM will continue to give King George et. al. a pass on this and so much more, since they still have 3 years to govern.....and a completely emasculated presidency could be a real problem for the country.
bad
1:45 PM
If the democrats continue to allow Karl Rove to define their political positions, then they deserve to remain the minority party. Disgusting! Worse: nauseating!
1:46 PM
Who are these "Democrats?" We need to contact them to encourage them to stop putting their fingers in the wind and stand up for us. Or we need to get rid of them. I'm tired of Democrats that don't stand up for core principals. I want names.
1:48 PM
regarding the public opinion myths: the PIPA report from just before the last election (the report Al Franken discusses frequently), did not only document the Bush supporters' (erroneous) views of the Iraq war.
They also showed how Bush supporters were completely ignorant of his own positions on other issues. 74% of them believed Bush supports labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, for instance. More than half thought Bush supports participation in land mines treaty, the ICC, Kyoto treaty, treaty opposing nuclear weapons testing. And they agreed with Bush for supporting these things.
yet the Dems run from these issues.
see http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20rpt.pdf
1:49 PM
oh, and can you tell us why you don't trust Tice?
1:49 PM
What rationale could possibly justify Democrats backing away from this opportunity?
The party gains control of the Executive next election with a political cash cow quagmire war in the middle-east.
1:50 PM
This will work in numbers. I am trying to coordinate with other bloggers and get some information as to who the best 2 or 3 Intelligence Committee members are to target.
Give me a little time. I will post something as soon as I know. We want to pick the right ones and deluge them with demands that the investigation proceed. I think that can have an impact. And we should keep doing that. One unique value of the blogosphere is the number of highly motivated, highly knowledgeable people who are very engaged and who want to have an actual impact.
That is a powerful force and we shouldn't underestimate it. I'll post a little later today and hopefully large numbers of people can be on the same page in a way that matters today.
1:51 PM
Do you honestly think that the Dems would pass up an opportunity to bash Mr. Bush if the polls were even remotely in their favor as you contend?
The Gallup poll is the usual poli-itorial masquerading as actual scientific opinion measuring...
To start, the polling was taken over the weekend because they know they will get a disproportionately large number of Dems that way.
Then each of the questions were only posed to a few hundred respondents, which gives you such a large variable that the poll is statistically unreliable.
You can tell the moonbat contingent is over represented when 20% claim that they have been personally wiretapped.
Then you get to the leading questions suggesting that the program is illegal.
Glenn, you were correct when you stated that these poll results were "unbelievable." Go with that instinct...
The Dems know better from their own internal polling which most likely reflects the Rasmussen polling finding 2-1 support for surveillance of telephone call between al Qaeda numbers and US residents.
That is why they have all but surrendered on this issue. Almost to a man or woman, the Dems say that they support this program.
Congress as a whole has surrendered on the FISA issue. According to the US News & WR I was reading over breakfast, Specter is drafting legislation with bipartisan support which will have FISA "review" the NSA program every 45 days. In essence, Congress has abandoned the idea of requiring warrants and is simply (and most likely unconstitutionally) delegating their oversight power to the FISA court.
1:54 PM
Glenn,
Truly great piece. I thought this illegal domestic eavesdropping was going to be the line-in-the-sand issue that finally might sabotage the Bush presidency. But at a minimum I was convinced it would give the Beltway Dems some backbone to become a true opposition party in dealing with an extremely unpopular president. And it would give them tremendous traction going into the elections this year. Alas, I was wrong.
It's time to face up to reality. The Republicans are much smarter than the Democrats, and they expertly play the press. The Republicans are a minority party that will keep on winning and winning until a revived Democratic Party OR a new party steps up to oppose them.
We may be at our "Whig" moment with the Democrats. I'd be all for that were it not for one salient fact. By the time the new party got going and became a factor, I'd be dead. So I guess I'm left with the Democrats. But after five years of their capitulation, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect the Democrats to do anything to save the situation. They've obviously concluded that it's better to be in office with a Republican government than to be out of office with a Republican government, so they've chosen expediency over the good of the country.
The Democrats ran Anybody But Bush last time and expected that to carry the day. And it almost did! That's how unpopular Bush was. But they blew it by not capitalizing on all the failures of 2005 when the Bush presidency imploded. The Dems may eke out some meager gains this fall, but John McCain will be the next president, and absent something like a depression, I think the GOP will rule indefinitely.
So I agree with what you say, Glenn. But I just don't see any hope. I think we are well and truly fucked.
But thanks for writing you blog, though. At least when I read people like you, Liberal Oasis and others, I can dream of what a real opposition to Bush might be like.
1:57 PM
Glenn,
Have you ever consided that the Mainstream Dems like the way things are going? Saying they are fearful of the RW media machine is not a good enough reason to explain the Dems inaction on this matter, as well as many other matters. They see the polls, hear the media, yet they do nothing to oppose. Ya just gotta believe they don't disagree enough with the Reps. to make it worthwhile to even FAKE an opposition.
2:02 PM
I know I am going to get bashed for this, and maybe deservedly so, but I think we need to enlist at least someone in the MSM. Keith Olbermann is doing a great job. And....I am already flinching, but Chris Matthews and his producers at MSNBC have been deluged recently, and I think he has been a real thorn in the admin's side the last few days. I think we have sent MSNBC enough comments recently to maybe have convinced them to let Keith and maybe Chris start to examine what is really happening. I think they could be convinced that they would boost their ratings by offering the progressive audience an alternative to CNN and Fox. Why not enlist them in this effort? All right, hit me.........
2:07 PM
it’s an arrogance of power, but it’s not because of a “bunker mentality” -- it’s from the basic viewpoint that Cheney has had since Nixon’s days – that of a “all-powerful” (above the laws) chief executive.
"Bunker mentality" and "siege mentality" were precisely the terms used to describe the Nixon White House during Watergate. The implication being that Tricky Dick & Co. were just an aberration on the American political scene.
But the authoritarian and antidemocratic streak in modern American conservatism is not an
aberration. That reactionary catchphrase "America is a Republic, not a Democracy" has been around ever since the New Deal. Judging by Justice Scalia's recent remarks, the attitude behind that catchphrase is alive and well. By "Republic" what is intended is a society based on hierarchy, deference, and (for most people)only limited access to political power. The pre-1960s South comes closest to fulfilling that conservative ideal.
I hope that Glenn's posts start something bigger and more significant than another round of Bush-bashing, namely, a wider and more general assault on a contemporary "conservatism" which has long since ceased to deserve the adjective "conservative."
2:08 PM
Elist the MSM -- absolutely, but with planning and assertiveness.
First, the message. A short, several page briefing sheet including not only the talking points, but the responses to the typical questions.
Second, the messengers. Who are the best spokespeople -- legislators like Feingold, pundits, whoever will represent the case. If some of the messengers are legislators, does Glenn or whoever have a good relationship with the staff person who works on the issue?
Third, the venues. Which columns and tv shows to appear on. Pitch the story.
2:16 PM
This from arch-conservative Paul Weyrich is interesting. On a host of issues he thinks the Bush Admin and GOP are vulnerable. An excerpt:
And the War. The President and the Vice President insist we are winning. Perhaps we are. Again, perception is reality. The perception is that the situation is way out of control. Not only are our brave men and women maimed and killed by roadside bombs day after day but not a day goes by without suicide bombers blowing up hundreds of innocent Iraqis. Rational people are asking, "How is this governable?" Yes, we have elections and yes, voter participation has increased each time elections have been held. Yes, there now is some sort of government, if it can be sorted out. Americans are, fortunately and unfortunately, an impatient people (as opposed to the Chinese, for example, who think in terms of centuries rather than the next quarter hour).
When are Americans coming home? I surely do not wish to do anything which will further endanger our troops. However, if the perception is that their role is reduced, if Iraqi soldiers truly are taking their place, in other words, if there is a light at the end of the tunnel, Americans may modify their feelings that the Iraqi War was a major mistake. If so, Republicans may do a bit better than expected. If in the autumn we continue to hear the same new we are hearing now displeasure will be exercised at the polls.
2:22 PM
The 49% who think he broke the law goes to 70% if the congress holds hearings. The administration knows that, which is why they are leaning so hard on Republicans to squash hearings.
I must confess that, as frustrating as I find the various faults of the Republican party, the thing that really gets my goat are the craven, spineless, quivering jellyfish we have elected as Democrats.
Paul Craig Roberts (a Reaganite National Review contributor) claims here that "the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party."
I have trouble crediting the claim, but the cravenness of the Democrats in congress raises the possibility that Roberts might, in fact, be right.
2:23 PM
Thank you for mentioning in the comments that you are coordinating with other bloggers on this. Please have them post (and you also) "we are working on a strategy - please check back soon for more". The best way to get us involved is to keep us posted - even if the post is a "check back" post we know something is happening and can begin gearing up.
Like it of not you have become the go to guy on this issue - thank you for taking is so seriously.
2:24 PM
Rep Congress has been bought! We're hearing that last week and even yesterday there was a FULL COURT PRESS from the WH on the NSA issue - and it was reported that if a Rep member did not support the Pres on this, his financial support as well as WH support on re-election would be cut. So, once again Karl is in the driver's seat.
2:26 PM
And there's no reason there couldn't have been a citizen campaign in the last week focused on the intelligence committee. We knew they were looking into it, that would have been a point of leverage. Legislators act more bravely when they feel they have voters at their backs.
2:34 PM
Glenn - I agree with you that the blogosphere can keep this thing alive and provide backbone for the Dems. I just want to point out that this really reinforces the absolutely critical necessity of further development of a progressive communications and PR INFRASTRUCTURE.
When we merely "frame" issues strategically and then toss those frames into the current media landscape through the conventional channels, the frames end up mangled and unrecognizable. It's putting cart before horse given the current lack of progressive infrastructure. But if the frames arrived at a newsroom or a congressional office backed up by ten thousand emails, faxes and phone calls (from all different places) that reinforce the message, we'll start to see results.
Our challenge is basically two-fold: 1) to sort out all the disparate "interests" on the left for the sake of consistent, powerful and unified messaging (unity of message); 2) to create and develop numerous, separate, independent entities that produce and distribute properly-messaged content to media and seats of power. (diversity and multiplicity of message generators).
-Jack O'Roses
2:34 PM
Glenn, Very astute observations just like all of your other postings. This site has become my must read.
The dems have relegated themselves to being defacto apologists for this Administration by their complete and utter lack of opposition. They are a mere shadow in the political arena…wallpaper that only attracts attention when it peels or fades. It was pathetic to see both Daschele and Harmon shake their heads when the republican guests would speak, but when given the opportunity to counter, they merely simpered that the program was necessary and that problem need to be addressed. What kind of opposition is that? Where is the backbone? Daschele doesn’t even have an office to lose. Such fear of looking weak just exaggerates and magnifies their weakness. This story has had legs for two months now with little to no assistance from democratic opposition. They have no voice anymore. It is no longer puzzling why the balance on Sunday talk shows is skewed right (as pointed out by Media Matters). Why have opposition party views, if they do not clearly articulate opposition? Head shakes and smirks don’t cut it. These are public speakers with the ability to articulate an argument, yet they have allowed themselves to become the parody that they have been accused of being. Every pundit spouts on about the Dem’s lack of message, lack of unity, lack of spine…Guess what? Goebbels was right. Argumentum Ad Nauseam works. Only its not suppose to define your views of yourself.
2:35 PM
Dear Glenn:
You are absolutely right: The Democratic party needs a spine. It is disgraceful that Democrats are making a greater clamor over Cheney's hunting accident than the Bush Administration's repeated and ongoing criminal violations of FISA. No wonder these guys can't win elections.
For a brief time, I thought that Republicans might prove themselves patriots rather than partisans and insist upon accountability when the President -- this one or any other president -- breaks the law. But now it is clear that Nixon was right all along: If the President does it, it's not illegal. Indeed, today's Republican leaders are refining that crude Nixonian proclamation into a less totalitarian, more marketable formulation: If what the president does violates the law, then we'll just change the law so that it conforms with the president's conduct. Ex post facto. Disgraceful!!
I read in the Washington Post today that Republican Senators -- namely, Olympia Snow, Mike DeWine, and Chuck Hagel -- have announced that they no longer support an inquiry into whether the Bush Administration has violated (and continues to violate) FISA. Instead of an investigation, these Republican senators now call for FISA to be amended so that the Bush Administration's domestic spying program will become legal.
Think about that: These Republicans don't even know what the Bush Adminsitration has been doing, let alone whether the proffered legal excuses are vaid (of course, they aren't), yet they oppose an investigation. They don't even want to know whether the Bush Administration has violated FISA, persistently, repeatedly, and defiantly. These Republican Senators don't care whether the Bush Administration has committed crimes! Shameful!
Well, why stop there? Why limit this amnesty to FISA? Why not just go ahead and make it explicit and pass a law that says: The President can do whatever he chooses to do so long as he does it under the color of fighting terrorism. Pass the Nixon Law: When the president does it, it's not illegal. Not that the law will matter to the Bush Administration, which will do whatever it wants regardless, but the Nixon Law will allow Republicans to say to Tim Russert on Sunday mornings, "Well, no, Tim, the President is not violating FISA now that we have passed the Nixon Law." Disgraceful!
Even worse, Democrats will probably support the Nixon Law, too. You are so right, Glenn. Democratic political leaders are so weak, so timid, so cowardly that they do not deserve respect, let alone votes. The country is far far ahead of the Democratic leadership. And that makes these Democrats followers, not leaders. Shame. Shame. Shame.
2:37 PM
Jack,
Very good points, but we need someone like Dean or Feingold on the inside as a partner.
2:38 PM
I am sick of government of the Congress, by the Congress.
2:42 PM
From the news today, it seems Dick Cheney has been busy convincing Republicans to not investigate NSA further through the Senate Intelligence committee. Mike DeWine is prepared to offer a law authorizing current activities without any necessary FISA approval. Oy.
2:47 PM
"The President broke the law. He is damaging national security. Our nation is not a monarchy."
The president broke the law, repeatedly, and repeatedly told us he broke the law, and would do so again, repeatedly.
He needs to be impeached -- and tried.
The House's prosecutorial 'discretion' needs to be witnessed by the public.
A House resolution calling for immediate hearings needs to be made every day, and the drafting of articles of impeachment needs to be started now, so there is a lot of footage of such action being ruled out of order, or shouted down on a voice vote, or going unrecognized by the Speaker.
If the President's 'justification' is sufficient, he will be acquitted in the Senate.
But the Senate needs to go on record assenting to the justification.
I want C-Span video of the Senate engaging in the Constitutional equivalent of jury nullification.
I want to watch squirming Democratic senators being forced to choose between their country and their seats.
2:51 PM
The Vichy Democrats control the party....note the Hackett removal. Hackett would have done the unthinkable and opened a debate on the issues important to US citizens whether we agree with him or not. He called Bush a chickenhawk... The media has the power to destroy anyone that speaks out against Bush. If someone dares speak against this administration from the Dixie Chicks to Harry Belafonte they are called on the carpet to do penance with Blitzer...Sawyer and all. The press and a lot of dems agree with Bush on major issues like war...and if one disagrees they will be destroyed...Even Al Gore's speech was dismissed on the wiretapping by the dems...Murtha a hawk is an outcast. You have to follow Hillary's lead or be left behind.
2:53 PM
Glenn's arguments, well grounded, will fall on deaf ears in Congress because Rove has shut the financial door on the Rep's. So, set aside the arguments, play the Jack Abramoff card now. Public is aware that Rep's can be bought thanks to Jack. So connect the dots and show Rep's are more seduced by $ than by what's right for their country. The gun's loaded, time to shoot.
2:54 PM
I only recently started reading your excellent blog, Glenn. I grew up deep in conservative religious republican country (Oregon), and I have to say, these people are not protecting core Republican values. As a woman of color, I register independent because I have seen a complete breakdown in Republican and Democratic values. The two parties are chasing one another to the right, largely because the Church (under various denominations) has been an effective organizer and moral lightening rod in these relativistic inclusive times. From my perspective, the most effective way to galvanize people to action is to reiterate the principles in the Constitution itself. The Republican party has been able to rally people around the concept of Patriotism, and most of Bush's core don't analyze the manner in which this patriotism is being practiced. It's the bible cloaked in the flag, and Democrats haven't been successful in mobilizing their own religious leaders nor in calling Republicans to the carpet for this intermingling of church and state.
As non-Republican progressives, liberals or conservative democrats (and moderate Republicans for that matter) it's urgent that we call cultural icons out in support of these values which we all share as Americans. This isn't really a party issue, and to frame it as such reduces it to the same dynamics which thus far have led to Bush's victories-by-default. I say call out everyone -- Intelligence committee members, educators, prominent artists, athletes (remember Ali during the draft?), religious leaders, mothers, fathers, teenagers, young adults (MTV, anyone?), advertisers. The advantage of the blogosphere is it's reach into every facet of life. If every blogger sat down and thought about the leaders in his or her industry, the tastemakers, and forwarded a cogently stated argument about why constitutional principles are good for our American Democracy, and this were followed up with a few willing religious leaders who opened the floor to discussions of accountability, integrity, and personal responsibility and then the press continued to problematize everything (good, bad and ugly because that is precisely what makes for a strong democracy), then I think we can capitalize on and focus public opinion.
I disagree with posters who counter your statistics on Bush/wiretapping legality -- it's not relevant to the discussion of whether or not we, as Americans, believe in the idea of "liberty" at all costs -- even our liberty and freedom to pursue our interests free of government scrutiny.
Focusing on people in Washington doesn't really work. That's been the issue for Democrats from the beginning. When Senators and their campaign managers on the ground begin to the feel the heat with their home base, then like cannons on a battleship, they swivel and take aim at the problem. Opinion articles published in local papers in the so-called "Red States" that de-polarize the issue and make it about basic American values and focus our attention on corruption in politics, corporate influence on the executive structure (because, let's face it, Cheney's makeover of the executive branch brings it in line with corporate management practices minus the board of directors), and the fact that most Americans are not doing appreciably better, and in fact, can look forward to doing appreciably worse (look at interest rates on savings and bonds)would be the most effective way to open a foothold for local candidates to challenge the GOP status quo. Local races are won locally (duh). Having participated in local political races for federal office, candidates are always forced to deal with issues that are raised by local opinion makers, civic leaders and community members. If Senators or their staffers hold town hall meetings, these issues need to be raised -- what are you, Senator, doing to protect my 1st and 4th amendment rights? I'm scared of Al Qaeda but I don't want to wake up and find out the FBI is at my door because my internet connection was hijacked, or my kid had to do a paper on the middle east.
I think the GOP did an excellent job last time of making federal elections locally relevant and until and unless the democrats find a way to do that, to involve average voters in discussions about what they want their country to be about, how they interpret their rights and freedoms, then it's status quo. Their is no real justice as long as people believe they can preserve social peace. That's a lesson that has been pounded home for people of color in this country. So, on-the-spot townhalls and church-led discussions about these principles may stir up that social peace enough for folks to reach for Justice, Liberty and the American Way....
2:57 PM
Glen,
Couldn't agree more. Some comments:
1) Almost anyone, except the most extreme of Bush apologists, who continues to look at the legal issues will see just how weak the Bush legal argument is. Those poll numbers will continue to move to reflect that fact as people are educated. I'm no lawyer, but the way I see it, Glen, Orin Kerr and Epstein have thoroughly eviscerated the arguments I've heard from the right.
2) The Epstein piece in the WSJ a couple of days ago probably opened alot of conservative eyes. And that probably isn't reflected in the polls just out.
3) Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the Bushies themselves even believe their own legal arguments. It seems they are doing all they can to make sure those arguments never have to be tested in court. If possible, that would be the path to a slam-dunk win on the issue -- have a court rule definitively that Bush is breaking the law. Dems should push for that, not for some legislative adjustment that gives Bush an easy out. (Supreme court would be best. Would love to see how Roberts and Alito would rule.)
4) This should be a great issue for Dems, and a tough one for Repubs. But, astoundingly, the media's conventional wisdom is just the opposite. How can that be? This is a perfect examplar of the theme that should be the key for Dems in the fall: That "this" (civil rights abuses, failing war on terror, failing war in Iraq, failing marks on homeland security, Katrina, huge deficits, terrible domestic legislation, widespread corruption, political meddling in science, etc, etc.) is what single-party rule give you. This is what lack of checks and balances gives you. This is what a congress that doesn't know the meaning of the word "oversight" gives you.
It should be very difficult politically for any Republican to have to admit that he made excuses for this Administration's law breaking.
3:04 PM
I blame the so-called "moderate" and "maverick" Republicans. People like Hagel, McCain, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, Collins, and few other *even* less reliable non-entirely-insane conservatives who are rolling over for Bush.
I blame them - along with Democrats who can't figure out that opposing a 40% president should be a 60%-approved position or that a bumbling megalomaniac is the best person to trust with these powers (though the less powerful, the better, I suppose) - because *they* are the swing vote.
The problem is, they don't have the guts to stand up for the Constitution, or themselves, or the rest of the political system, because if they do, Bush will be pissed. And maybe still in power. If they don't, they can claim, "Oh, it's not that big of a deal, it's not a Constitutional crisis, because we're the political oversight, and we said it's okay." Democrats, even united, don't have the power to thwart Bush. Only Republicans can. And they won't, or at least, haven't. I don't know if that's worse than watching them fail; this way, at least we can *pretend* we don't live in an authoritarian police state.
3:07 PM
Joe Lieberman on Sean Hannity's show, telling the world that the Democratic Party has been captured by far-leftists and is weak on defense and that Hannity's a really great guy. You can almost hear them swapping spit.
With a dem like Lieberman we will have one party rule....
3:07 PM
Only difference I can see between Jack Abramoff paying Congressmembers for influence/votes and Karl Rove is that Jack as a lobbyist did it as incentive vs Rove promises to open the pursestrings and support as reward. Either way, Reps's are accepting payment for their vote.
3:08 PM
Ah, Lieberman. Never afraid to stand outside the tent, pissing in, and complain to his friends in the other tent how much it smells in ours. "You know," he says to them with a wry chuckle, "because they let people piss in it! Can you believe them?"
3:09 PM
Streamlining the effort to win over particular Senators is certainly one way to go about it. Absent that, I think there's still a chance for this scandal to become huge. Glenn posted numerous times as to why he thinks that there are other programs not yet disclosed. Gonzales conspicuously uses limiting language every time he talks about eavesdropping, limiting it to what the President disclosed in his radio address. It might be easier to create pressure to find out the answer to this very limited question -- do other programs exist? -- than to pressure fearful Democrats into doing what they've been too scared to do for five years. And the result could lead to a bombshell.
3:15 PM
Explanation for Democratic and Republican silence on this issue. There could well be blackmail afoot.
I am not one of the tinfoil hat crowd but if you read the history of Rove via Atlantic Monthly, it is not hard to believe that NSA spying has really been used most frequently on the politicians of both parties and media personalities/executives. Nearly everyone has a skeleton in his closet that he would not like to have exposed. Rove has never been shy about exposing and even manufacturing skeletons when it is in his/Bush's interest to do so. These guys are all politics all the time.
3:17 PM
LOL at Mary who said
Joe Lieberman on Sean Hannity's show, telling the world that the Democratic Party has been captured by far-leftists and is weak on defense and that Hannity's a really great guy. You can almost hear them swapping spit.
We have one party rule now Mary. Every source of federal government power is held by Republicans. The majority of state houses and governorships are held by Republicans.
One day maybe you will figure out you are the problem men like Joe Lieberman are the answer.
The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. Thats you Mary.
....Oh wait I know you don't think they party has gone far enough to the left yet. If we can just get to the left of Mao we will win in a landslide! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
as our party chairman would say.
3:22 PM
Thank you so much for stating the case for aggressive action against the Adminstration on domestic spying. I hope this piece is distributed to all Democrats in Congress. I'm starting again with my emails. This is just too important to cave in on. If the Democrats don't think it's important to make a stand on this assault on the Constitution, then what in the world is there left worth fighting for?
3:33 PM
Ugly American:
I never realized that the One-Pary State is the purest expression of the American Ideal.
I guess we blew the 1940's and '50's pretty badly.
3:34 PM
I honestly think this is one of the best Comments threads I've ever had, if not the best. Superb comments all around and I think it's because people really believe that we can have an impact on this issue and that it's only we who will force a real resolution. Just a few specific comments:
Dewar - "oh, and can you tell us why you don't trust Tice?"
I'm sure you've heard all the speculation about him. I don't necessarily believe it, but I also don't disbelieve it, because I don't have any information to know. Until then, I don't think we should hitch our wagons too extensively to Tice, since we don't know what he really is and we don't need to since we have so much else. They are very good at destroying messengers. Why give them a target like that?
Via - 'Why not enlist them in this effort? All right, hit me......... '
While there are days when I believe that the blogosphere is our only hope - because our other institutions are so decayed, stagnant and obsolete - we should and must work with and use any instruments we can, including journalists, inside-DC people, friendly politicians. That was a lesson I learned when I was just in DC - there are allies to make there who have some influence and who will help. We need to cultivate every weapon possible.
Jack O'Roses - Our challenge is basically two-fold: 1) to sort out all the disparate "interests" on the left for the sake of consistent, powerful and unified messaging (unity of message); 2) to create and develop numerous, separate, independent entities that produce and distribute properly-messaged content to media and seats of power. (diversity and multiplicity of message generators).
I couldn't agree more. The problem is, unlike the mentality of the Bush follower (generally speaking), most people don't necessarily want structure or organization. It also is contrary to the spontaneous, unchartered spirt of the blogosphere. But people more than anything else care at this point about winning, and we need to have some way to focus and organize all of this energy so that it's not scattered but effective.
All I can say about this is that I agree 1000% with what you said and there are people trying to do this. They are at different levels of development but it's too necessary and obviously effective for it not to be done. There is already more coordination among blogs and their readers in the last month (you've see it with things like the Wash Post/Abramoff stuff, Chris Matthews, even smaller incidents like WalMart and Kate O'Bierne's book). I think that will only increase as people realize that we need to work in a coordinated way if any of this is to really matter.
Film Diva - This isn't really a party issue, and to frame it as such reduces it to the same dynamics which thus far have led to Bush's victories-by-default."
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I believe that this is a real bridge-building issue. Not only would it not make Democrats look weak and unpatriotic (like those always-fearful, always-losing Democratic consultants whine that it would), it would do the opposite - Democrats would look strong and patriotic by standing up for our constitutional principles without regard to the political consequences, something people want to see from Democrats but haven't for so, so long. There is NOTHING partisan about concepts like the rule of law, opposing an unchecked Executive, etc. To the contrary, it goes to the core of American values and that's why so many people across the ideological lines are galvanized by this issue.
3:41 PM
Glenn,
good that you go back to rallying people to DO something instead of just arguing against 'the other side'.
Too bad that the degree of cowardice within the Dem side is proving to be unsurmountable. The Dem's are Bush's best friends! Zero guts.
I still hope that someone like Feingold will find his spine, but you know what? I'm not holding my breath.
3:43 PM
Are you faxing this to senators? Please tell me you're faxing this to senators.
3:44 PM
Why not simply *assume* there are other programs (first rule of espionage and paranoia: there are *always* other programs)? Start asking questions about them. See what happens.
3:47 PM
We have one party rule now Mary. Every source of federal government power is held by Republicans.
In the last 3 out of 4 Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate for President received more votes than the GOP candidate. The only exception was 2004 - when the Democrats nominated the most politically inept figure ever - and still almost won.
The grand failure of every person and movement is always hubris. Republicans have convinced themselves of this bizzare myth that they command this huge electoral majority and that George Bush has won two consecutive landslides and the whole country with the exception of a few fringes is behind him. That is all myth.
And nobody is urging the party be more liberal. The issue is whether they stand for anything, whether they fight for principles. In the Ohio Senate primary, most people in the blogosphere love Paul Hackett and are furious that the nominee will be Brown, even though Brown is far more liberal than Hackett. They love Hackett for the same reason they love the pro-life Harry Reid, and the anti-gun-control budget-balancing Howard Dean - not because they are liberal (they are not), but because they are not intimidated or frightened by anything.
People are looking for Democrats to have a spine, not a specific political ideology.
3:52 PM
Anyone with suggestions/ideas/proposals - please contribute them.
Katherine on Obsidian Wings said this a little while ago:
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously?
That's our message. That's the short, pithy way we attack. As Katherine says, when the Administration says they can detain whoever they want, torture whoever they want, spy on whoever they want, do and say and lie about whatever they want -- most people say "Well, they don't really mean that."
But they do.
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously?
That's the message.
3:53 PM
Glenn said:
"Hopefully, bloggers can get together over the next day or so and create a campaign designed to target a couple of key Democrats and pounding them until they agree to do what they ought to do with this scandal."
Please tell that to Jane and ReddHedd at FDL. They have become obsessed with the Cheney shooting incident and have not mentioned antother story in 4 days.
The time is wasting. FDL was instrumental in the campaign against Alito. I truly believe had the campaign started a lot earlier, we actually would have won.
Now the same thing is happening over there. Jane and Redd are both fantastic writers and highly motivational. It is a shame to see time slipping by when we should all be doing something NOW.
3:54 PM
Glenn -
Thank you. And you can use your blog to try to help Russ Feingold to maintain a filibuster of the basically-unrevised-since-December's-filibuster P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, when the cloture vote comes up sometime this Thursday or Friday in the Senate.
Russ Feingold just laid it out on the Senate floor, and he covered ALL the bases. NO Senator has an excuse for not understanding what is at stake, in detail. Feingold has done all their homework for them. [His comprehensive statement is available on-line.]
After the Hackett hatchet job by the corrupt core of the Democratic Congress, uproar better be ensuing in the Democratic caucus today, or soon. If Feingold is the next "sacrifice" to the gods of fear by the DSCC/DCCC fraudsters, I'm not sure there will be any turning back for the Democratic Party.
Which, although perhaps the best thing for our country considering how we've been trying to fight with one hand tied behind our backs in our struggle against Executive Branch lawlessness thanks to the Congressional Democrats, ought to make the "leadership" think twice for once.
The reality is, however, that Senator Chuck Schumer from New York (and other Democrats like him) is right there with Bush: Schumer says that if he had it to do all over again, knowing what he knows now [at a $100,000 a MINUTE clip], he'd STILL vote TODAY to invade Iraq.
Case closed.
4:02 PM
Schumer says that if he had it to do all over again, knowing what he knows now [at a $100,000 a MINUTE clip], he'd STILL vote TODAY to invade Iraq.
Rob Corddry : Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists -- he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face.
4:05 PM
I just have to post this, since last week sometime a commenter who didn't like my views on leftists and stuff told me to go back to lewrockwell.com -- notwithstanding that I'm not that kind of libertarian.
Lew is lovin' Glenn.
4:13 PM
Earlier Gussie wrote:
"Until pragmatists (not progressives, not leftists, but people of whatever political stripe who agree that Big Government should not be allowed to break the law) hold them accountable in such a way as to inspire an equal amount of fear, nothing will change. Pragmatic leaders must lead the fight to hammers these people with media and money, to reduce the smooth misstatements and kneejerk tremulousness and the vague double-speak to a couple of hard-hitting truths, and simply hammer people like Harman until not only she, but those like her, are afraid of repeating self-abusive talking points."
As I see it that is just what the republicans are doing - Rove is the coordinater, EVERYTHING, goes through him, Norquist has his job, as well as Abramoff and all the others including Bush and Cheney - power is what they are about fueled by the myopic blind belief that the USA must lead the world to a new way and therefore can do no wrong. Every comment I've read here is spot on and I would add to that what we - progressive blogistan - are struggling with in bringing the truth to light and exposing the damage this dangerous cabal has done and will continue until brought to check is the spinelessness of the opposition party - as I see it it's "their town" - the Harmon's and Daschele's and Russerts and Mathews'and now Clinton's (Emmanuels). The democrats need to learn from the republicans - everyone is on the same page and if you get out of line you will pay - the republicans make examples out of their own to prove how serious they are and so Collins and Chafey and Specter know better than to step over the line else they get their foot stomped and lose a place at the trough. Again I see it as both parties know the rules of the game and play by them - Ted Stevens was a backbencher from Alaska for 20 plus years but now holds the purse strings of the nation and is one of the wealthiest Alaskans - you think those poor schlups in Alaska don't know this? yet they keep sending him back. He gained his wealth while he was a congressman and senator - not high paying jobs I might add - so he got it, clearly, by dipping into the pot - and while one party takes their wheel barrows through the front door of the taxpayer funded honeypot the minority party slips through the stage door with a laundry bag - both do not leave empty handed and so if ya wanna play with the big dogs ya hafta roll over once in a while and show your belly - otherwise you'll end up back here with the rest of us and in CEO identity america - the one with the golden parchute wins and gets invited to all the right parties. Who, in our celebrity conscious culture, wants to hang out with their family back home over the holidays when we could be in Aspen with the stars? Branding and Marketing are our politics - power and money our god. And that is what we are fighting - have you noticed that some of the more left blogs are getting more power and influence? and they are tempering their responses to some of these scandals? True Glenn, what you say we need to do, but I see it we need to enlist the strong dems like Murtaugh and his "Band of Brothers", Hackett included, to take up your challange - but Hackett is a loose cannon, not to be trusted to go on MTP and color within the lines. And the DLC plays the game as well as the old college republican Rove-Norquist-Abramoff-Reed mafioso - they kneecap their own first.
4:19 PM
I love my country but distrust my government. However, it is always the role of the loyal opposition to provide a check on the unrestrained power of the party in office. If the Constitution has been violated, certainly we must prosecute. But most of what I see is rabid Bush-bashing and transparent parochial politics.
Mr. Greenwald's passion is not to articulate Conservative values, but rather to smear Republican leadership and media personalities who are articulating those Conservative values. Apparently he feels the dhimmicrat party is an under-achiever in the area of Bush-bashing and America-hatred, so he is helpfully providing some assistance. However, the difference between constructive and destructive criticism is crystal to all. The wild popularity of such a RINO, with liberals on this site as with those who giggle with delight as they listen to Air(head) Amerikka, is no mystery.
When I go to a football game, I respect the opposing team and its fans. I will boo when by team performs poorly and cheer when it doesn't. But I have no regard for a fan with such dearth of loyalty that he switches sides and roots for the other team just because those around him do. Similarly, I have no respect for a fan who demands that the referee penalize his team for a missed holding call. Liberals may deem this courageous and consistent...I have a different word... *spit*
4:25 PM
Frustrated reading many of these comments because they just lead back to more TALKING, to one another! I'm putting it on the table that every blogger send out an opinion piece to their local leaders, church and paper regarding what we want our America to look like. Do we still care to uphold the truths espoused in the constitution? Until there's a clear view on what we are actually discussing, devoid of partisanship, it's all more of the same "my poll said blah blah blah" "well, MY poll said blah blah blah!" The reason the Founders were able to have a clear vision of what America should look like, is because they were united against what they DIDN'T want. Let's break out the window cleaner and polish the glass so that we can all get a look. I'm writing an essay over the next few days on what it means to be an American from the perspective of someone who grew up in a Marine Corps household. I've had American values drilled into me since birth and I'm disgusted that Bush is polarizing the military against average Americans practicing their 1st Amendment rights and using our intelligence infrastructure to trample all over our 4th amendment rights.
Dictatorships start here -- with the support of the military, a willing populace, and the gradual erosion of democratic principles like the separation of the executive branches (hello, election 2000 which as far as I remember was decided by the Supreme Court in the biggest display of judicial activism to date). Many of the events we have been witnessing over the last few years create fertile soil for extremism to sprout on, and that's scary.
New Orleans is calling in international monies and ideas because we are failing them, we probably need international monitors during our next election cycle, and more vociferous attention being paid to the incredibly bad job the Senate and Congress are doing of oversight in the name of bi-partisanship. Anyway, I'm ranting, I apologize Glenn, but this comment thread is fantastic, it keeps sucking me in.....
4:29 PM
Excellent points from Glenn and in the comments. The Democrats aren't losing on the issues, they're losing because they lack the courage to take stands on issues. They are badly in need of a leader. Howard Dean can only do so much. They need someone who can keep them together, and they need to speak for principles. They are far too obsessed with image and poll standings, and they are completely cowed by Republicans and the media. If a third party comes along that is unafraid to take a stand on principle that is remotely close to representing my beliefs, they have my vote, whether they have a chance of winning or not. If they can show the Dems that standing for something, rather than "playing not to lose" (as someone astutely put it here) can win them enough votes to make a difference, maybe it will rub off. My anger at Ralph Nader diminishes with every example of Democratic cowardice.
4:33 PM
FreedomFan writes:
Mr. Greenwald's passion is not to articulate Conservative values, but rather to smear Republican leadership and media personalities who are articulating those Conservative values. Apparently he feels the dhimmicrat party is an under-achiever in the area of Bush-bashing and America-hatred,
Well, that's all special. You aver to know Greenwald's true passions, and think he is "smearing" media personalities who articulate conservative values.
Ann Coulter articulates conservative values when she repeatedly "jokes" longingly about the murder of Supreme Court justices -- by terrorists, even? Who knew?
As for "dhimmicratic"party, that is sheerly juvenile.Perhaps you'd be happier at LGF?
4:39 PM
Glenn, I share your frustration. I think you described the Democrat leaders accurately, when you use words like, mealy-mouthed, reluctant, and tepid.
Democrats need to always reject the Republican frames. I can't count the number of times when the Russerts, Matthews, and Stephanopalai of the world, have repeated GOP frames and talking points. I would suggest that Democrats instantly reject those, and articulate the Democrat frames.
I have actually changed a few minds by using the following argument.
Democrats support spying on potential terrorists. No Democrat is against spying on terrorists, and anyone who says that is being dishonest/lying.
The real issue is that no man or woman is above the law.
If a President believes they are above the law, then they are no longer a President, but they are a dictator or a King. This concept is easy for the average voter to understand, especially those who are not political junkies.
I like asking Republicans, "If Hillary were President, would you want her to be above the law"?
I also agree with the others who suggested a coordinated effort between the bloggers and the Democrats. Maybe when they realize we got their backs, then they might not be so mealy-mouthed, reluctant, and tepid.
4:42 PM
Feingold needs support on defeating the Patriot Act renewal, certainly. Nat Hentoff has an interesting take on NSA activities and the Patriot Act National Security Letters, which gets explored here.
Liberty is attacked on a broad front, through our executive branch'sand in our legislative branch's acquiescence. By explicitly expanding the scope of government intrusion through the renewal of the Patriot Act or by implicitly avoiding a bloody fight on the constitutionality of NSA surveillance, Congress is complicit in the loss of our liberty.
There is a sad inertia in politics where once things are set in motion, the citizen gets rolled over.
5:20 PM
Just to follow up on some of the comments earlier . . . there is a sense that the Cheney story is dominating the news right now and that, as minor as it may be in one sense, it has the potential to do real damage. It is very difficult to work on other issues, this line of thinking goes, in an environment where all the media oxygen is being sucked up by the Cheney story.
I'm not saying I agree with that view - I don't (I think the NSA story is of much greater importance than the Cheney story on every level), but it is true that the media seems to be paying attention primarily to Cheney right now (it's a story they can understand and it feels scandal-ish) and there's no point in trying to divide everyone's attention.
This is not the last day of the NSA story, obviously. There are plenty of other pressure points that will be needed and we will do that. In the meantime, Thersites has compiled an excellent list of contacts for members of the Senate Intelligence Committee with contact information.
I think it makes sense to contact all of them with whatever e-mails or faxes you want demanding that they conduct a real investigation into the operational aspects of the Administration's warrantless NSA program. I intend to. Those faxes and e-mails do get heard and read and even 100 or 1,000 can make a serious diffence in how someone perceives public opinion and how they vote.
5:36 PM
I have an idea for what we should call any legislation to give Bush, retroactively, the legal cover he seeks.
"The Enabling Act".
Godwin be damned.
5:41 PM
Yesterday when I read that Chuck Hagel said he wasn't interested in a "punitive inquiry" a little bell went off in my head. That's what Republicans are going to be calling a real NSA spying investigation; the principle is that we can learn all about the program as long as the President is exonerated.
The Republicans should eat every quote they ever made about the Lewinsky scandal right now. There was a collection on Daily Kos with the same idea.
So let's hear from Chuck Hagel the hypocrite, then:
"There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"
And Frist as well:
"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."
The Cheney shotgun in the face shooting allows for more of this talk too. Why wasn't Dick questioned that night? Breathalyzed? Well, it's because there are two standards of justice: one for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, and one for everyone else.
I think this is why FDL is hitting the Cheney story so hard; the victims of wiretapping are faceless and nameless. The Vice President gave a face and a name to "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others": Whittington. It's all the same issue, about breaking the law, accountability, and coverups, with one major difference: there are no mitigating circumstances whatsoever for shooting a man in the face while hunting birds.
The Cheney story is the NSA story, just with shotguns and white guys instead of computers and brown guys. Democrats should tie them together at every opportunity.
5:54 PM
what shargash said at 2:23PM.
Why have the majority of the bloggers not mentioned or dismiss this possibility?
Why are we quick to brand the Democrats spineless when it could be a simple case of blackmail and them going along to maintain their jobs?
With all the evil and dirty dealing the Bush administration and the neo-cons have engaged in, why is it not logical that they have the goods on spouse-cheating, homosexaully-closeted, porn-surfing congresspeople?
Can we just allow that they have this country and our representatives by the proverbial balls?
I am just tired of reading the same indignation and name-calling.
When someone starts a fund to begin doing covert surveillance of the powerful neo-cons, let me know. I have some dollars for you.
5:55 PM
Thanks, Glenn!
5:58 PM
Great post, Glenn. The Dems are making the Conservative myth that they appeal only to the fringe true by having these tepid views on the Administration's policies and scandals. Most Americans are far more anti-Bush than the leading Democrats, so the Party is effectively marginalizing itself by taking these half-hearted, centrist views that few Americans identify with and even fewer respect. That's one of the major handicaps of this two-party system, and as good a reason as any why voter turnout remains so low in this country.
6:10 PM
Glenn - What do you do with the argument that while what you say is true of the country as a whole, the competitive states and districts - which the Democrats must win to take back the Congress - are more conservative, so the Democrats must sound more like Republicans in order to win them?
6:13 PM
The Republicans can only pray that prominent Democrats continue to attack the president for listening to ocnversations between al Qaeda operatives overseas and their American agents. This would be a prescription for a Republican electoral triumph this November.
Perhaps Glenn Greenwald is, in fact, a stealth Rovian operative working to undermine the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be surprised if his soporific blog entries, always too long by orders of magnitude, contain secret instructions to various Rove agents. This is, as we members of the VRWC know, standard operating procedure.
What other explanation is there for a move that would almost permanently sink the party into oblivion? Why else would he attempt to persuade real-life politicians, who are almost to a man bailing out from this disaster of an issue, to persevere? How else to explain how anyone could advance the insane idea that our mortal enemies should enjoy the protections of our Constitution?
How else indeed?
6:15 PM
More of the defeatist, "DNC can't do anything." The DNC is irrelevant. The States can force the Congress to deal with this.
We're supposed to be free of unlawful Government conduct
The States can compel Congress to face this issue, and not cower to the White House non-sense. Here is what you can do: Click -- Call your State legislators and have them discuss this issue, and issue a proclamation calling for Bush's impeachment. There's nothing the President, RNC, or Congress can do to stop this process. Here's how it works: [ Click ]
Tell your friends -- click the link -- send it around -- let people know: If Congress and the White House don't want to do their jobs, and get a real accounting for these violations, the States are prepared to move and force them. Tell your friends, stay determined, and stand your ground!
6:16 PM
Most of you will write this off as yet another tirade from a cultist member, but the biggest point & mistake made, that Democrats miss completely is that they have no publicly perceived values. Sure anyone of you can list some talking points of what you are for & spend several hours listing the Bush Administrations’ faults (your favorite past time), give me thousands of examples of how I’m wrong, call me names, tell me I’m fascist & then claim that those that support the Republicans are cult members. How has that translated in to votes for you so far? Winning many elections? Passing any legislature? Gaining any real strength in polls? How did your prevention of Roberts or Alito nominations go? How’s the NSA investigation going?
The strength of the Republicans & most especially this administration is that like them or not, you know where they stand on the big issues. Support them of not, their agenda… you know the one that was advertised from the beginning is the one they are going to pursue. Sure Bush isn’t a true conservative you’ll retort & that’s proof he’s bad, stupid or evil, but he has placed 2 justices on the court & one’s the Chief Justice – there may be as many as 2 more placements before his term is over & what can you do about it? Not a damn thing & you know it. They are going to pick judges that appeal to what Americans truly want, those that follow the law & are, by-the-way, overly qualified for the job. So good luck w/ that filibuster or your usual plastering comments of being racist, hater of women, closed minded, etc. What if he actually nominates Janice Brown, are you sure you want Biden & Kennedy questioning her on national television? How much longer do you think that the African American community, totally ignored by the Democrats in representation or political positions, are going to stand by while Bush places yet another self-made Black in a very high & public position, all the while Steele & Swann are running as Republicans? Bush has gotten the tax cuts he promised, tried tackling Social Security (was blocked, but he tried & the American people know that & know where the Democrats sit or stand in SOTU terms), brought about tort reform, etc, etc. He has gotten his way period & called the shot before hand. He has taken every little snipe offered by the Left, attacks by terrorists, natural disater or quips from leaders of other nations on the chin & is still standing & getting his way. He is Babe Ruth & the Yankees & the Democrats are a whiney version of the Bad News Bears, but the truth be told they won’t come together at the end & put up much of a fight – that’s Hollywood, this is reality.
What has the other side done? They have called him names, called him stupid, proclaimed he is incompetent, insisted that he is evil & demanded impeachment. Their entire platform is Bush based or rather, anti-Bush based. Sucking it up or writing your Senators & Congressmen, or demanding change, seeing & seeking conspiracies in everything the Republicans do or mistake they make, does nothing but strengthen him & the Republicans in general. Sure his numbers are very low, similar to how the world’s view of America changed after the Soviet Union collapsed – everyone hates the front runner. But come on, there isn’t even another challenger in the same race. Democrats are the moral equivalent of the Eastern Bloc countries, except that now those countries are very pro-American & pro-Bush.
Why is it that no matter how low Bush’s poll numbers go, the other side never really gains that much? Notice that while his numbers plummet, the numbers for Congress & the media plummet even further?
The Democrats’ last Presidential candidate’s foreign policy basically boiled down to “well, it’s like their’s, but better” or “I’d do the same thing, but bring in more people in to help.” - all of the while failing to recognize that the other countries that backed out had vested & financial reasons for doing so – or my favorite statement “go to my web-site.” What was the address again, oh yeah, www.stillacrappysenator.com or www.2ndplace.com.
It’s funny, but most Democrats bring up or seem to count on the fact that if they bring someone in that has perceived similar values like the Republicans, that those that straddle the fence will come to their side. Has it crossed your mind that if Bush was a better public speaker or was some how less divisive or even better looking, how many of those that voted for Kerry would have voted the other way? Look at how their moderates are treated. Lieberman, the Democrats’ previous Vice President Candidate, is almost a leper for telling the truth about Iraq or for trying to cross the aisle to get something done. Save your the war isn’t going well tripe, because amazing enough, the majority of the troops actually doing the fighting believe otherwise & I for one will take their opinion everyday of the week before the likes of Pol Pot Durbin, Kennedy, Sheehan, Kerry or Clinton. How was Hackett treated? What do polls in Afghanistan or Iraqi say?
You know, I have always been registered as an Independent & was raised to vote for the person who I believed was best suited for the job & I’ll tell you straight up that I am going to register as a Republican the next chance I get. For every fault I find w/ the Bush administration & there are many, there are at least 20 for the Democrats’ response, manner & lack of solution.
The point is, that by following this path Democrats are not only going to lose more elections, they are losing support from educated, politically aware voters like me. Any gains made will be related to people’s perception of Bush’s personality, not the Democratic platform. Call me all the names you want, argue w/ my points until the next losing election, but it is true & if you are truly honest you’ll admit it. There is a saying that was popularized by Jim Rome’s sports talk radio program that totally applies here, “SCORE BOARD!” And the Republicans are going for the shutout, while the Democrats are still trying to figure out how to play the game. Good luck Bears, you won’t have me rooting for the underdog on this one.
Sincerely, Chimpy McHilterBushBurton mindless, nazi-like drone cult member rethugican Freeper racistfollowers Right wing nut wing nut hater of women, children & puppies koolaid drinker whose vote counts the same as yours w/ the exception, my side is winning.
6:25 PM
I think the polls indicate how contentious the midterm elections are going to be this year. As for the NSA program: To me, this is setting the stage for Bush & Co. to declare martial law/a dictatorship. Only someone that can argue that a warrantless eavesdropping program is legitimate and legal is someone who is looking to become a dictator. (See Hitler and Nazi Germany). Hopefully, the American people and the rest of world will recognize the this potential in the nic of time to stop it.
6:35 PM
From the same post:
What has the other side done? They have called him names, called him stupid, proclaimed he is incompetent, insisted that he is evil ....
Pol Pot Durbin
I've given up expecting sanity -- do I have to punt on simple internal consistency, too?
6:36 PM
that they have no publicly perceived values.
I'll give you one for starters:
Not supporting the executive in repeated, publicly admitted, breaking of statute, black letter law.
I don't need any others. That, by itself, is enough for me.
6:41 PM
How else to explain how anyone could advance the insane idea that our mortal enemies should enjoy the protections of our Constitution?
Because this part:
and their American agents.
means that they merit the protections of our Constitution.
US citizens have rights under our Constitution, even if the executive branch asserts without evidence that they are an enemy. I realize that you hate this idea, and that you gleefully shit on command all over the ideals of the Founding Fathers, because "your side" gets to "win." But some of us actually care about America over Party. But that's what Mr. Greenwald's Cult of Bush / Cult of Party posts have been about. Who cares about our Constitutional principles and the rule of law, as long as we can win? Heck, Mr. Greenwald has even astutely addressed the whole idiocy of the meme of "continued complete irrelevance" of the party that won the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections, and lost the last one by a squeaker. My God, could the repudiation of the Democratic Party be any more definitive?
And here's good ol' "Pol Pot Durbin" pmain again:
my side is winning.
Yup, yet again, that's all that matters. Good grief, this President's base isn't just theocrats, it's kindergarteners.
6:48 PM
This man and men like him could lead the Democratic Party back to power. But would any of you vote for him?
I doubt it.
7:06 PM
Based on Glenn's update and in reference to the Digby comments(which I wholeheartedly agree with as well as Glenn's posts): At least it was a party line vote with all the Dems voting for more information. It's a start.
7:06 PM
Speaking of Republicans not acting within the law, it looks like the 2006 budget bill was passed unconstitutionally, because two versions of the bill passed and were not correctly reconciled.
Does this mean that I can stop paying taxes now? If the IRS isn't funded legally, how can its actions be legal? Sort of a "fruit of the poisonous fiscal tree" argument...
Though, obviously, I'm no lawyer....
7:08 PM
While Glenn cites CNN, USA and other polls to support the view that Americans are actually opposed to Bush policies, I’m afraid that Bush supporters with the help of Fox News have their very poll that – or so they claim – proves just the opposite.
This Fox poll is being cited as showing that “By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States. Furthermore, six in 10 say they are personally okay with the NSA monitoring their international telephone calls.”
AJ Strata has a round up of right-wing thought on this phenomenon, and dishonestly concludes, “As it became clear FISA was stonewalling the same kinds of leads that would have prevented 9-11, any politician worth their salt was not going to stand against Bush’s decision. The media was played by PR experts - and duped.”
This is why the moderate Republicans are caving to Cheney on this issue, says the right-wing meme, it had nothing to do with the heavy-handed tactics or threats to withhold campaign funding etc. No, it’s because the American people want to reward Cheney by giving them legal carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Of course, there is no evidence that allowing warrantless wiretapping would have prevented 9/11, we don’t have the capabilities to translate all the calls we monitor – that has been proven in the investigation.
And if a poll was conducted regarding the issue of “breaking the law” the results would be quite different.
Yet, this viewpoint is now a “fact” or at least a Fox Fact – and this is a huge problem. It used to be that political opponents argued their positions from the same facts. Now the authoritarian cult has its own facts, and absolutely no qualms about being totally dishonest.
These distortions have been intentional and very effective. And, quite frankly, I don’t have a clue how to deal with this phenomenon. I wish I did.
7:10 PM
And man, I really wish Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom had never invented the term "Chimpy McHitlerburton". He really embarrassed his fellow liberals with that one. And all the variants occurring at timblair.net and redstate.org? Tim Blair is an avowed Trotskyist, and notice the "red" part in "redstate", indicating Communist = liberal sympathies. Plus, observe how it's been invoked in this very comment thread at Mr. Greenwald's blog! Leftists just love that term. Me, I prefer "President Bush" or "George W. Bush," as in,
"President Bush admitted to violating a federal statute, and vowed that he would continue to do so,"
or,
"George W. Bush has replaced a defanged secular despot with an unstable Iran-friendly Islamic state,"
but I'm not particularly leftist, so it doesn't count.
And the ugly american was obviously too busy searching Daily Kos for occurrences of "McHitlerburton" to catch all the Daily Kos "Draft James Webb" diaries. Oh, well.
7:12 PM
Film Diva: "The reason the Founders were able to have a clear vision of what America should look like, is because they were united against what they DIDN'T want. Let's break out the window cleaner and polish the glass so that we can all get a look."
** my reading of history is that the founders did have a clear vision and it was basically what we have - the haves taking from the have nots and working together on ways to keep the rest of us out and not share power - we send the money, they decide how it's spent - there really isn't any democratic representation here, hasn't been for a while, the last outsider, barely let in was Clinton and he was trailer trash and treated as such and to make their creds more bonafide Hillary and the ex-president moved to upper class New York and now sup at wall street/east hamptons tables - I don't get invited there and probably you don't either - that third voice, which I think is being talked about, is the one that needs to make itself heard - how does that happen?
**
pmain you start by saying...
Most of you will write this off as yet another tirade from a cultist member, but the biggest point & mistake made, that Democrats miss completely is that they have no publicly perceived values.
and end it with...
Sincerely, Chimpy McHilterBushBurton mindless, nazi-like drone cult member rethugican Freeper racistfollowers Right wing nut wing nut hater of women, children & puppies koolaid drinker whose vote counts the same as yours w/ the exception, my side is winning.
***
and everything in between is repeating the catechism - A+ - in 1969 I made a choice to serve my country - afterall it had helped my family out with that AFDC Social Security program, and kept us together and I assure you that my father's children have payed way more back than he took out - my friends at the time chose college, they didn't understand why I would sign up and volunteer for an elite unit, train to serve my country volunnteering my life instead of having fun and getting in on the new craze of peace, drugs, sex, rock and roll - I returned in '73 without having served in VietNam but serving 2 years out of country - I believed in Nixon, that the president wouldn't lie, my friends mocked my naivete, I voted Nixon, Ford, Reagan twice, Bush - then the first gulf war happened and I couldn't believe how the president was lying us into that and was disgusted at our actions and careless attitude to another human's suffering and agonizing death - "The Highway of Death" was butchery of the most highest and modern degree - and since the end of that fiasco over 200 thousand service men and women have suffered with some disease or illness or have died - During thte buildup I happened to tune in to a Pacifica station and they were playing a talk that Noam Chomsky had given explaining it all from his perspective and in '92 i pulled the lever for Clinton, then after the sell out of '94 stopped supporting both parties.
You may see this site as all dems all the time - I don't - I see it as speaking truth to power. If what the president is doing is lawful why won't he share what he has with congress? Why does Cheney and Bush continue to stonewall a republican congress when they try to follow their constitutional duty of oversight? Why does the president have the secret service restrict dissenters to caged "free speech zones"? These aren't just democrats bringing this up - and now with prominant republicans speaking out why not listen to them? I suggest that you visit Counter Punch, read Paul Craig Roberts, Znet, read Robert Fisk, Alternet, and follow some of the links there. I've been a listener and reader of many alternative news sites - Glen Greenwald speaks to me in a voice I can understand - I may not agree with everything he writes, but hey it's his site and if I was that easy to get along with .... Move away from the spot your standing on and try a different point of view. And my friends of that early era? They think and argue as you do - yet their sons and daughters enjoy the pampered life beyond college and would be shocked at any uncouth suggestion that the put down their beers and bongs and serve.
7:16 PM
Democrats are weak on defense and trying to scream louder and stomp their feet harder will only make things worse.
Glenn is dead on wrong on this issue. It is the executive branch's authority, not the judicial or legislative to run foreign/domestic surveillance. Period. You can cry until the cows come home that Bush broke the law. Until you can show a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision otherwise, the American people by a majority believes it is the president's constitutional duty and the Congress does not the will to change it.
It is just one more step in wrong war, cut and run, give terrorists rights, don't protect the citizenry attitude that makes the democrats weak, weak, weak on national defense.
And what do you get from Glenn? He asks "What are you afraid of." We are afraid of people like Glenn Greenwald. We have the strength and intestinal fortitude to run a war and protect the citizens and know that if the government oversteps our rights, we will take care of that. We have nothing to fear except weak-kneed appeasing liberals.
7:21 PM
In the last 3 out of 4 Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate for President received more votes than the GOP candidate. The only exception was 2004 - when the Democrats nominated the most politically inept figure ever - and still almost won.
You really had to stretch for that one didn't you Glenn?
Bill Clinton never won a majority if you remember (although he may have if Ross Perot didn't run).
The truth is Republicans have held the presidency almost exclusively since the 60s with Clinton being the exception. He was a very moderate Dem if you recall.
and to use a similar tactic as Glenn. GWB lost the popular vote yet won the electoral vote over Al Gore in one of the closest elections in American history. The nation was severely divided over the court case, had a major attack against it, entered into an unpopular war and yet 4 years later GWB received more votes than any President in history and beat a bona fide war hero by 3 million votes.
Why? you say Kerry was an inept loser. Well you put him in the primary.
I say it is because the party moved farther to the left and farther from power.
Don't forget the Rep's also increased their majorities in the House and Senate in 2002.
This NSA story will not put Dems in power nor will any other ginned up scandal.
Real mainstream ideas will.
Your continued hopes for a Hamas type victory are delusional.
7:22 PM
According to the American Bar Association, the President broke the law.
Congress did not "decide that the president had authority."
They decided not to investigate the matter. There is a world of difference.
7:33 PM
I say it is because the party moved farther to the left and farther from power.
So, um, could you cite some examples of how the party has moved farther to the left since 1996? It was Senator Kerry's support for NAFTA and the Iraq resolution that did it, right? Or was it the relentless desire for a return to more balanced budgets? Senator Kerry's preference for civil unions over gay marriage? The appointment of an anti-abortion Senate minority leader? What? (I just hope "ugly american" never finds out about high-NRA-rating Howard Dean mailing every Democrat a copy of Das Kapital.)
And have you successfully counted up the "McHitlerburton" references at Daily Kos, yet? Maybe there are some more in the "Draft James Webb" threads, or the "Webb's in! Hooray!" diaries. Now, over at vaconservative.com, commenters have been viciously attacking Mr. Webb, but what else would one expect from a pack of leftists?
But in the future, I would second the call for Mr. Greenwald to stop stretching so hard to point out such weak facts as "winning the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections." Because actual election results are a puny rebuttal to repeated drooling assertions about the absolutely overwhelming mandate received by Republicans at every turn.
Your continued hopes for a Hamas type victory are delusional.
Hmm, speaking of which, that did take the Bush administration completely by surprise, didn't it? Even more top-notch intelligence from a part of the world they're obsessed with. But at least they're not liberals. Those folks are out-of-touch.
7:56 PM
Glenn, can you bring yourself to say impeach? 52% of Americans want it. The American people have been ahead of the Dems, the media, and the administration for a while. Polls used to mean something. Our recourse is impeachment. As I said in the previous post we're used to them spinning a defense for the indefensible. This Oppositeland is driving me crazy! If we are to return to the rule of law we must impeach. Accountability seems to be an alien concept in Washington but I believe it is what Americans want.
Got an impeach bumper sticker? They're fun!
Take care, Jan
7:58 PM
I'm a Democrat. I'm a Precinct Committee Person. I plan to actively campaign for Democrats in the coming years.
But Democrats shouldn't expect me to keep quiet when they do profoundly stupid things. Criticizing them may simply bring more attention to the problem and thus make it harder for people to support them. But when I criticize it is only to point out what is manifestly obvious to begin with: the Dems are wimps when it comes to standing up for their principles.
Don't like that criticism? Then don't give me a reason to criticize.
Don't tell me the Dems aren't wimps. Prove it!
Oh, and vote Democrat in 2006!
7:59 PM
A staffer in Rockefeller's office tells me they expect NSA Surveillance hearings in the Senate Intel Committee within two weeks! I'm trying to confirm what's up right now. I'll post info on VichyDems.
8:02 PM
Responding to a comment upstream: we're out of power because we've moved RIGHT, not left! Link
8:05 PM
The question the polls should be asking: Do you believe the NSA is spying on critics of the Bush administration to include Congress?
8:08 PM
Great work, Glenn. You don't disappoint.
Glenn, others, please read this excerpt from Gore Vidal's speech called State of the Union:
"This is an unpatriotic government. This is a government that deals openly in illegalities, whether it is attacking a country which has done us no harm, two countries -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- because we now believe, not in declaring war through Congress as the Constitution requires, but through the President. "Well, I think there are some terrorists over there, and I think we got to bomb them, huh? We'll bomb them." Now, we’ve had idiots as presidents before. He's not unique. But he's certainly the most active idiot that we have ever had.
And now here we are planning new wars, ongoing wars in the Middle East. And so as he comes with his State of the Union, which he is going to justify eavesdropping without judicial warrants on anybody in the United States that he wants to listen in on. This is what we call dictatorship. Dictatorship. Dictatorship. And it is time that we objected. Don't say wait ‘til the next election and do it through that. We can't trust the elections, thanks to Diebold and S&S and all the electronic devices which are being flogged across the country to make sure that elections can be so rigged that the villains will stay in power...."
8:11 PM
pmain said:
How has that translated in to votes for you so far? Winning many elections? Passing any legislature? Gaining any real strength in polls?
Gee, lets see:
Two Wins in KY
Democrats picked up a state Senate seat last night with Perry Clark's win in the 37th district. His house seat was also picked up by Democrat - Ron Weston.
Win in NH
The voters of Rockingham District 9 (Epping and Fremont) overwhelmingly voted to send Democrat Penn Brown to Concord yesterday.
Win in VA
Jan 31, 2006 -- Democrat Mark R. Herring won every Loudoun precinct in today's special election to fill the 33rd District Senate seat vacated by the resignation of Bill Mims.
2 Wins in Minnesota
Tonight, Democrats were victorious in two special elections in Minnesota. The decision by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty to schedule two special elections during the holidays - a move many view as politically motivated - did not stop voters from coming out to support Tarryl Clark (DFL) for State Senate in the 15th District and Larry Haws (DFL) for the Minnesota House
election in District 15B.
2 Huge Wins in Missouri
In short, in three heavily Republican districts, Dems retained a state house seat, picked up another, and came within a sliver of winning the last.
In total, Dems won 7 out of 8 special elections, including heavily Republican districts. Not too shabby.
I'll let you go get the generic polls, the Dem/Rep breakdown for Congressional approval, and to top it off, the falling Bush numbers (still below 40!!).
8:15 PM
Not even a serious investigation into illegal domestic spying? Outrageous! The Nixon Law proposed by Senator DeWine (it's not illegal if the president does it) would probably pass with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Then Congress' capitulation to the executive and the emasculation of the Democratic party will be complete and plain for all to see.
Glenn is absolutely correct. We can waste our time preaching to one another or arguing with contrarian bloggers, but that gets us no closer to holding the Bush Administration accountable for breaking the law. Enough! We must contact Congress directly and DEMAND that our elected representatives in the House and Senate hold the Bush Administration accountable. Evidently, those spineless self-servers only care about one thing: holding their positions of power. Well, we should tell them that we will no longer support them unless they insist upon a full investigation into the domestic spying program. If they won't do it, then they must be replaced with people who care enough about the rule of law to take a stand.
8:18 PM
Oops, my math is wrong. I gotta run, so I'll fix it another time.
8:19 PM
I wasn't even able to continue reading after the first couple of paragraphs, it made my stomach turn. This tentative behaviour by the Dems is shockingly and absolutely spineless.
Who needs enemies with ‘friends’ like this.
8:24 PM
So, um, could you cite some examples of how the party has moved farther to the left since 1996?
uh...because Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh said so
8:39 PM
David Shaunessy: I look forward to your posts almost as much as I do to Glenn's.
Everyone, please go to Raw Story to see the just released additional photos of Abu Graibu.
These make me not only ashamed to be a member of the Republican Party and a citizen of the US, but even a member of the human race. Those who argue that humans are, across the board, the superior species fail to note that animals do not engage in sadistic behaviour.
And it is THESE abuses to which the warrentless spying leads. Round up innocent people who do not meet the 'probable cause' test of culpability, and degrade and torture them.
If I were a Muslim who saw those pictures, my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever in terms of supporting the US or Britain, it's apologist co-conspirator in the War Against Liberty and Decency.
8:55 PM
If I were a Muslim who saw those pictures, my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever in terms of supporting the US or Britain, it's apologist co-conspirator in the War Against Liberty and Decency.
What nonsense. If I were a muslim my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever when my fellow co-religionists beheaded innocent individuals, blew themselves up in markets and pizza parlors, committed mass murder on a scale not seen for 60 years, stoned women to death for supposed adultery and treated all females like worthless slaves.
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
9:09 PM
Mr. Greenwald.
Thank you. You are doing good work.
That's all--just: thanks.
Tad Brennan
9:11 PM
At this point, I'm more concerned with losing another branch of government than anything else. It's a loss that I don't see remedied by a few Democratic party gains in November.
The Executive branch is breaking laws and not fulfilling its duties to the Constitution. If Congress changes the law to fit the crime and gives the Executive a blank check, it is not fulfilling its duties and is accessory to the crime.
I want a government with three branches again--not one, not two, but three--each holding up its end of the Constitution.
That's what I told Democrats AND Republicans on the Intelligence Committee today.
9:18 PM
It appears as though there is a reasonable difference of opinion here. Some say there is not problem; others compel swift action. Let's consider what we're trying to do: Create a place we can call one thing: Our home.
Your task is to decide what that way of life will be. If your life is about one thing, then consider a life based on knowing what is real.
If the truth is there was no problem -- then let's accept the truth: There is no problem. But if the truth is something else, then let us accept that: Whatever it is.
At this point, the answer is: We don't know. So let's find out. Encourage those in the RNC to believe that you are about one thing: Doing what must be done to make this country what it has always been about: Doing the right thing.
The right thing is what is right; and the wrong thing is to what is wrong. The right way forward is based on what is right, not what is unclear or uncertain or hidden.
There's nothing the RNC or Congress have to fear. The truth will put us in a better place. Then we will know. That's what Americans are all about: Standing up based on what is right, and what is real.
Go visit the RNC blogs, and share with them this message: "You’ve heard them, so let's find out."
We can find out:
[ Click ]
9:21 PM
gedaliya said...
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera. No wonder no one takes you seriously.
It gives me no comfort that the Muslim fanatics and terrorists are worse than we are. We are the good guys after all. Remember: The Islamofascists cannot beat us (for the reasons noted by gedaliya among others), but we can still lose if we destroy the things we are trying to protect.
Here is the question: Do we want to defend this country and the civil liberties that make it great? Do we want to succeed? Truly succeed? Or do we just want to play tough and heartless because it feels good?
Being belligerently stupid is rarely a good policy, personally or nationally, foreign or domestic. And, really, haven't we all had quite enough of that approach already? We now have a real threat to face in Iran, not a phony concoction invented by the neo-conservative edition of The Best and The Brightest. And how can we confront the Iran threat, now that we have squandered our international credility, our military resources, our domestic political will, and more than 2,000 of our fellow citizen's lives in a fool's errand in Iraq. What have we left to engage Iran with? We have disarmed ourselves. And, you know what, Iran knows it.
Lies have consequences, often unpredictable consequences. Law-breaking by government officials has consequences, too. Abuses of power, disregard for human rights, all these things have consequences. The consequences are usually uncertain but they are always unpleasant. We must play by the rules, both here and abroad, for ourselves, for our own well-being, for the sake of this great country. Otherwise, we will have destroyed that which we most love in the guise of protecting it. As the saying went in Vietnam: We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Let's not do that.
9:47 PM
gedaliya [Mr. "You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera" Abu Ghraib war crimes apologist] --
Two wrongs don't make a right.
We are responsible for our OWN actions, not those of others.
Your words are despicable. Your attitude beneath contempt. I hope you reap what you've sown.
We have our own little Death's Head Gestapo true believer, everyone. Back to the future.
The Iraqis are not my enemies.
The Iranians are not my enemies.
But as far as I can make out, George W. Bush IS an active, hostile threat to my freedom, and to our Constitution, for all practical purposes. And if you want to blame that on the big, bad terrorists -- go right ahead. The terrorists couldn't have said it better themselves.
9:50 PM
Glenn, you are so spot on here. This post should be required reading for the spineless "opposition" party. If the democrats can't stand up to the president on this - with public opinion and many Republicans behind them (not to mention the law) - then when will they stand up?
I can't believe the dems are afraid of Karl Rove's threats to make the fall elections about national security (again). Didn't they learn anything from 2002 and 2004? Sacrificing fundamental principles so that they won't look weak on terror is the height of weakness, and is a sure path to more electoral losses.
The way to avoid Karl Rove's trap is to refuse to play by his rules. Or better yet, turn the tables on the Rovian meme that states that opposing the president lets the terrorists win. The new meme the dems need to broadcast is: If we don't stand up for the rule of law in our own country, then the terrorists truly have won.
10:11 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
10:18 PM
What nonsense. If I were a muslim my "heart and mind" would be out of reach forever when my fellow co-religionists beheaded innocent individuals, blew themselves up in markets and pizza parlors, committed mass murder on a scale not seen for 60 years, stoned women to death for supposed adultery and treated all females like worthless slaves.
Someone is channeling Ann Coulter. Muslim means terrorist according to you. According to you, the Muslim is the Other, the Enemy who can't be bargained with, whose heart and mind are lost to the West forever. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, and you are the prophet.
You get upset by a few pictures of muslims being humilated on camera.
No wonder no one takes you seriously.
Godwin's Law permitting, replace the word "Muslims" with "Jews" and pretend you are the President of Iran to understand how offensive your despicable words are.
They aren't just being humiliated. I looked at the pictures. The Iraqis were mutilated and dead. Americans had all the power in those prisons, and they used it to torture defenseless, even completely innocent Iraqi prisoners.
The moral and ethical position you are taking is basically indefensible, there being no ticking time bombs in the effects of the prisoners, but what really gets my goat is your attitude. Can you shed your insularity for a second to understand what Abu Ghraib means to the Iraqis? It means torturers, not liberators. It means betrayal by your defender. It means the failure of our democracy-building enterprise.
So I have an exercise for you. Stop snarling at the A-rabs for a second and look in the mirror. Then imagine you're the parent of a person in one of those photos. Then imagine that you're one of their American tormentors.
If you have more sympathy for the torturer than the tortured, I don't know what anyone can possibly say to you.
11:12 PM
Der,
First, thank you for your military service, my father was also in uniform when I born in 1969 & thankfully didn’t experience combat in Vietnam as well. I totally appreciate your point of view & Glenn's. In fact, it was Glenn’s reasoned arguments regarding the NSA wiretaps that led me to this blog in the first place. You’ll find posts here & elsewhere where I said that I thought it was a good idea that these wire-taps were explored & clarified legal or illegal as opposed to being left to the journalistic standards of the NYT. However, I do not believe it was appropriate for the NYT to release the story. I find the Left’s reaction to it despicable. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Judging by the back step that the Democrats & the few Republicans supporting it, shows that they may have jumped the gun too quickly again & at more of a cost then political capital lost. I think that there are certain ways to address said issues & doing it while there are boots on the ground or while in the middle of a shooting war, may be irresponsible & prove harmful. In the time of war, I’d prefer us to err on the side of secrecy & would demand full disclosure at any other time. But since the information is released, no matter how objectionable, it should be pursued in a bipartisan & non-political manner. I’d suggest after the elections in November so neither side leaks or exaggerates the information released for political gains under the guise of “informing the public.”
It’s still very funny, that no one can name 1 American that has been wire-tapped – legally or illegally - but according to the hysterical left it is the destruction of our civilization as we know it – ignoring that spying on Americans during time of duress dates back to Washington’s administration & includes recent administrations like FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton & Bush (43). I do not condone breaking the law, but am only questioning the timing of this completely. Pretty darn convenient for the Democrats that this is released right as we are heading into the ’06 election cycle & there is no excuse for it otherwise or the NYT would have released the story last year. A point that no-one on the left has addressed. If it is not politically motivated why not wait until December 2006, January 2007, etc? Not one logical explanation & it is not like any more information has been gained in the year + since the NYT learned it.
Democrats are pumping it for any kind of political gain (just like the Republicans would if the positions reversed, admittedly) like they have every other unsubstantiated claim against the Bush administration so far, because they know that they cannot win any other way. I say let these chicken-little’s continue their chirping about how the sky is falling & once again, when the conspiracy theory fails to take hold, gain momentum or bring about anything relevant, let them suffer the consequences at the voting booth like they are beginning to become accustomed to. Anyone remember the Democratic warnings about Iraqi chemical weapons that were going to be used on US forces, the power of the elite Iraqi Republican Guard & how we were un-prepared, the faked memo about Bush being AWOL, voting irregularities in Florida, PlameGate, & on & on & on.
11:34 PM
A letter from 500 lawyers of the American Bar Association will do as much damage as a letter signed by 500 used cars salesmen from Berkeley, CA.
11:46 PM
The actions of the Islamic terrorists, who commit the type of atrocities they have, are condemned by every rational, decent person of any stripe worldwide. Deploring them each time a person deplores some other barbaric action serves no purpose. The "hearts and minds" of the most fanatical of the religious extremists are unreachable by any form of reasoned argument. The "hearts and minds" of the masses who blindly get swept up following inhuman leaders are what's at play. The pictures of Abu Graibu make those "hearts and minds" further out of reach than they would be otherwise.
Anyone who does not condemn those practices, or who defends them by pointing out their "lesser" rank of evil than the beheadings and the stonings, is a heartless poseur to any shred of human decency and part of the current problem.
11:49 PM
Glenn,
It has to get personal.
This has to reach people who think first of themselves, then of other people.
So I have a question.
Who exactly is in the data base given the people they are supposedly watching?
Who has given out account numbers and identifying information that might someday come back to haunt them?
What businesses are in the data base simply because they have clientelle in say, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
And okay, trust the President. Can you also trust some NSA stranger with your information?
Just because it hasn't happened yet...
This is only a couple of thoughts on the subject. There are plenty more I'm sure.
Make it personal and you will see a lot more people asking Congress and Senate as to what is going on. And why they aren't doing anything to stop it.
11:50 PM
Dan Lewis,
The most important & over looked point about either Abu Gharib or Gitmo is that all of the information regarding the horrible treatment & it is disgusting, has come from & was discovered initially by the military itself. It wasn't the product of some brave & crusading reporter, the military addressed it, then court martialed & punished most of those involved. Amazing how that simply fact is completely overlooked or not reported until 5 pages later.
Once again, I have to point out that it is real interesting that these photos suddenly appear right at the beginning of the '06 election cycle. It wasn't enough that the NYT ran the photos & stories front page for 32 straight days. I don't really see another reason or purpose then to try to humiliate the Bush administration, since there is no new information released along w/ it.
Have the MSM learned nothing from the false Newsweek articles or the current Danish cartoons? Since there is nothing new involved, I assume it is because they want to cause the controversy & care nothing for the troops in harm’s way or innocent KFC's throughout the Middle East. While I am happy that the information was released, I think it is disgusting & very partisan to continue in this vein. There isn’t any other explanation available.
11:57 PM
The government has planted a chip in my head, and everytime I want to write something, David Shaughnessy writes if first, and much better than I would have :)
Thanks, David. It's so great to be on the same team as people like you and Glenn.
11:57 PM
pmain, you are very polite and you rite pretty gud. However, when they were handing out reason and logic, you didn't get much.
A shooting war you mention, as being somehow connected to this NSA program. Are you saying we are less safe from the Iraqi insurgency because the NYT let this story out?
I suppose you would argue that Iraq is the frontline on the War on Terror.
Voting irregularities in Florida? Ohio too!
11:58 PM
Harman was so disappointing on MTP. She now has a diary on Kos that is very disheartening. If she and other Democrats cannot stand up and defend the Constitution then don't bother with the rest.
12:38 AM
Speaking of getting personal - without some kind of evidence, it's going to be a tough sell, I'm afraid...
Rasmussen Reports--February 12, 2006--One-out-of six Americans (16%) believe that the Federal government has wiretapped their phones. Sixty-six percent (66%) are confident their phones have not been tapped while 18% are not sure.
Politically liberal Americans are more likely to believe their phones have been tapped than moderates and conservatives. Among liberals, 26% believe they have been the subject of a wiretap while just 53% are confident their phones have not been monitored in this way.
Conservatives, by a 77% to 12% margin, say their phones have not been tapped.
12:46 AM
sic semper tyrannis, glenny
12:53 AM
Freedom fan,
“Similarly, I have no respect for a fan who demands that the referee penalize his team for a missed holding call. Liberals may deem this courageous and consistent...I have a different word... *spit*”
When I go to a football game I expect the coach to put the best guys on the field that he’s got, not a bunch of fat old fundies and corrupt cronies. If that kind of team were fielded I’d boo my frickin head off then giggle out of sheer frustration as they got creamed by the opposition. What else am I gonna do?
- mystery liberal who wants retardlicans to think before they post - harder
12:56 AM
Hmmmmmmm...
By the looks of the sudden proliferation of hysterical Anon postings, I'd say that Glenn is somewhere between "then they fight you" and "then you win"
That's a lot of headway in around a week...
Call_me_ishmael
12:57 AM
Glenn says: "Right from the start, the usual nay-sayers in the press and the Democratic consulting class anxiously brayed that the NSA scandal was a political loser for the Democrats."
I think this is right.
I wonder if we have contact information for these consultants. We could try letting them know that we think they are wrong. In large enough numbers even these people might begin to think of us as their real constitutents.
1:00 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1:03 AM
dan lewis:
So I have an exercise for you. Stop snarling at the A-rabs for a second and look in the mirror. Then imagine you're the parent of a person in one of those photos. Then imagine that you're one of their American tormentors.
Oh please. "Imagine" is a word your mortal enemies have removed from their vocabulary...they are men of action. You simply have no idea who you're dealing with. The Islamic fascist fanatic loves nothing more to hear your screams of fear as he slices off your stupid head. His only vocabulary is violence, and the only way he'll be stopped is by annihilating him and those who actively support him.
I'm sick and tired of listening to liberal apologetic weenies regarding Islam. Islam in its current form has been hijacked by a death cult.
How quickly you forget the dancing in the streets in Karachi, Tehran, and Nablus when Atta and his gang flew airplanes in the World Trade Center killing thousands of innocents.
How soon you forget the beheadings and murders and suicide bombings in markets and schools.
How soon you forget the stonings of women and the slave-state of females in most of the Islamic world.
Sure, a few misfits and sad-sack sadists took humiliating pictures of a few naked muslims in Abu Ghraib. But how soon you forgot what used to happen in Abu Ghraib when Hussein was running the place. Rape-murders of a man's family before he was put into a wood chipping machine. Eyeballs gouged out with spoons. Fingernails pulled out by pliars. Castrations, beheadings and tortures carried out in the most sadistic and depraved manner imaginable.
What nerve you have lecturing me about "imagining." How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what went on in Hussein's Iraq prior to our liberation of that nation. How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what goes on in most of the Islamic world rignt this minute?
If you are representative of most activist Democrats in this country, the Republicans are going to sweep the November elections. Just keep harping about the NSA and Abu Ghraib. The result will be a total and unmitigated electoral disaster for your side.
1:07 AM
I find the Left's reaction to it despicable. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hey, pmain, that is the whole problem with this spying thing with me. If it is all legal and isn't doing anything it shouldn't, then why did th WH force a constitutional showdown over it?
And, as Glenn's blog here has pointed out, why did the WH's rationale in January for ignoring FISA contradict what it said against modifying FISA with the Dewine and Kyl/Schummer amendments?
And, let's not forget General Hayden's press conference where he made it pretty clear that he didn't understand the 4th Amendment.
I don't think you have to be right or left to start to have a strong sense of worry when the head of a spy agency doesn't even know what the 4th Amendment says.
Nothing about these three questions has been answered yet and the Administration should be held accountable to answer them. Instead, if the WaPo article is true, then the WH is moving in the opposite direction of not wishinh to answering nothing.
Grey smoke over hill,
no matter
what
is burning
it's still a fire.
Here is a interesting history of exexcutive authority for national secutity surveillance:
www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/50/banks.pdf
1:10 AM
Good God, how many times are the same trolls going to march in here and proclaim victory for the GOP in November without doing anything besides throwing out the same-old-same-old "you're either with us or against us!" arguments?
The White House Psy-Ops department must be working overtime!
1:20 AM
I don't know why you can't understand why the admin did not want the Dewine amendment.
Part one: Politics. The timing was bad to have a discussion of the workings of the FISA secretive courts in the heart of the war on terror.
Part two: I wish you on the left could understand this. They used FISA. They used it thousands of times. FISA was an extension of the president's power, not a limitation because it allowed secretive courts on domestic to domestic surveillance. They were unsure if the Dewine amendment was constitutional and why fight a battle over something they were getting along with. It is the next step you can't comprehend. The more aggressive surveillance of foreign suspects to american suspects/persons does not work well with FISA and is constitutional the president's responsibility. The linkage to the Dewine amendment is not applicable to the terrorist surveillance program.
1:24 AM
All this back and forth, but there is a way to find answers: [ Click ]
If there's "no problem" why the "big problem" with confirming?
1:25 AM
"Sure, a few misfits and sad-sack sadists took humiliating pictures of a few naked muslims in Abu Ghraib. But how soon you forgot what used to happen in Abu Ghraib when Hussein was running the place. Rape-murders of a man's family before he was put into a wood chipping machine. Eyeballs gouged out with spoons.
Fingernails pulled out by pliars. Castrations, beheadings and tortures carried out in the most sadistic and depraved manner imaginable."
Ya? Think that's all true? Then answer one question: why are we letting Saddam Hussein dye his hair every week while he is imprisoned? Look carefully. Nary a gray hair, although his beard is mostly gray. Proof positive he is dying his hair. Did Martha Stewart get that right?
Gives one pause as to what the exact relationship between Saddam Hussein and our government really is.....
1:28 AM
I really hope the Dems do not back down. Stand firm because we need SOMEONE to stick up for us in D.C.
1:36 AM
matthew ortega imagines:
I really hope the Dems do not back down.
We too hope they don't back down.
1:51 AM
In watching the strategy of congressional democrats, I'm reminded of union generals in the civil war. General George McClellan always seemed to find a reason not to attack, frequently due to an exagerated perception of the enemy's strength, and a preference for preparation over action. This was, of course, a sharp contrast to the bold and daring southern generals. It wasn't until generals such as Grant and Sherman came to the forefront that the war was brought to an end.
The Democratic party seems to be dominated by McClellans; who will be our Grant?
1:59 AM
The Democratic party seems to be dominated by McClellans; who will be our Grant?
You may recall that George McClellan was a Democrat (he ran against Lincoln in 1864 and lost miserably) and that Ulysses Grant was a Republican.
The Democrats are the party of McClellans. The Republicans the party of Grants.
Good luck.
2:07 AM
gedaliya - if you feel so strongly about who "we" are fighting and you understand them more than I do then I support you going to the middle east and doing battle. I served, and served so that someone like yourself can speak without fear of being silenced, I don't find your not serving in Iraq as weak nor do I find my questitoning my governments secret behavior as appeasement, we are the strongest country in the history of the world, we are not wanted in the middle east, we crashed their party, if we were not there, had stayed out of the Iraq/Kuwait affair, stayed out of the Russian/Afghanistan war would any of this happened? There is not evidence to prove that it would have but much to say it wouldn't and we, you, me and the rest of those posting here could instead be arguing about "the welfare state and welfare queens driving cadillacs and brown people with their hands out" because under it all isn't that what you're really talking about? Cut the head off with a sword or cut it off with a 50 caliber bullet - one is shown on the news with the administrations approval the other is not.
As to the NYT reporting these stories to damage the Bush administration, please. Keller and Salzberg were called to the oval office for a private sit down with the president, the Times held on to this stuff for over a year at the request of the administration - until the election was over, hmmmm, who's that sound like? So I say if, as the president is now arguing, disclosing this super secret information that the administration knew the Times had and would print was a "treasonous act" then why didn't the AG sue to stop it? Why didn't the administration begin it's investigation 18 months ago? And why are there over 300,000 names on that terrorist watch list? Are you on it? We don't know if a private citizen has had their constitutional rights violated because the administration won't tell you who they have listened to.
2:25 AM
. . . the spin-machine defeats itself . . .
Fox News Poll Supports Concern
QUOTE:
The poll finds that almost six in 10 say they are "very" (29 percent) or "somewhat" (30 percent)concerned that government efforts to track terrorists are harming the civil liberties of American citizens. Source
ENDQUOTE
RNC demands a Solution
Here! There is a way to reduce the concern, and force Congress to investigate: [ Click ]
2:42 AM
Der writes:
And why are there over 300,000 names on that terrorist watch list?
There are over 3,000,000 Arabs in the United States. I'm surprised there aren't more names on the terrorist watch list.
Are you on it
I don't know. But since I don't correspond or speak to suspected al Qaeda operatives living on foreign soil the chances are slim I am on the list.
We don't know if a private citizen has had their constitutional rights violated because the administration won't tell you who they have listened to.
As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson once remarked, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I and most of my fellow citizens are willing to surrender certain constitutional rights in order to remain alive.
After all, why haven't their been any lawsuits challenging warrantless searches in airports?
2:42 AM
Constant doesn't get it:
The poll finds that almost six in 10 say they are "very" (29 percent) or "somewhat" (30 percent)concerned that government efforts to track terrorists are harming the civil liberties of American citizens.
The "concern" is directed to those who are the cause of the "harm" to our civil liberties, i.e., fanatical Islamic fascists trying to murder you and your family.
Most people want the government to find and kill them before they kill us. If that involves warrantless wiretaps, fine. They don't trust Democrats to do this. They do trust Republicans to do this.
2:47 AM
gedaliya, there's nothing I can say to you. You might as well annihilate me, because I am the enemy of all you want to do to America.
You want to beat the terrorists at their own game; that was a fool's errand from the beginning. In a dog-cut-dog's-head-off world, only the strong survive, right?
How dare I lecture you about trying to understand the Muslim world? How dare I ask for a moment of pity for the people our precious democracy tortured to death?
How dare you sell America's birthright for a mess of pottage. How soon you forget that torture makes us cruel and terrible creatures. How soon you forget that evil begets evil. We are sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, but hey, a little more collateral damage in the war on terror? Our existence as a nation is at stake, as you would have it.
We bombed Iraq before we said that diplomacy was off the table, then invaded it even though the weapons inspectors said Saddam had no program, then kidnapped, tortured, and killed civilians even though they were innocent of any wrongdoing, then used chemical weapons against women and children in Fallujah. We sent billions of dollars down the toilet and sent our men and women to die in an unwinnable urban occupation that has created more terrorists than it has defeated. We threw the Iraqi government into the hands of the Shiites and the Shiites locked arms with the Iranians, the very Muslims you want to annihilate. We turned Iraq into a hellhole in the process. We lost the war in Iraq when we failed to reconstruct it.
But something funny happened. Our nation yet lives! The existential crisis didn't appear! We went to Iraq looking for terrorists and nuclear weapons and we found a bunch of Muslims instead. We couldn't imagine that they would greet us as occupiers, not liberators, we couldn't imagine that support for the insurgency would increase, not decrease as we turned the corners toward democracy. The truth is that many people imagined it; they just don't hate Muslims like you do.
Osama bin Laden can't change our democracy without our consent. We are in a fight for the life of our democracy, but it's not against Osama bin Laden. It is against your racism, against your blind hatred, against your extreme moral relativism about the evil our country has done to defenseless people, against your black and white worldview, against the brutalization of our foreign policy and our armed forces, against the monster you are trying to turn America into.
If I could kill that beast with my bare hands, I would.
I'm sick and tired of listening to liberal apologetic weenies regarding Islam. Islam in its current form has been hijacked by a death cult.
...
What nerve you have lecturing me about "imagining." How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what went on in Hussein's Iraq prior to our liberation of that nation. How about you taking a moment to "imagine" what goes on in most of the Islamic world rignt this minute?
If you are representative of most activist Democrats in this country, the Republicans are going to sweep the November elections. Just keep harping about the NSA and Abu Ghraib. The result will be a total and unmitigated electoral disaster for your side.
Make no mistake. I pity you. Your imagination failed in Iraq, it failed in the war on terror. Did you hear the head of Shin Bet the other day? He said that Saddam was preferable to the chaos America has unleashed in Iraq. So why don't you imagine the liberated feeling of Iraqis living in fear now? Why don't you imagine an ethnic civil war, courtesy of the United States? Why don't you pretend they are white for a damn minute so you can shed a crocodile tear?
You don't understand Islam. You can never defeat what you don't understand, but you can never make peace either. You have a sadistic wish to defend the country, consequences be damned, even if the consequence is damnation. You would prefer that America live with a genocidal mentality rather than suffer another 9/11.
Thanks for the warning about the elections, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror, knowing that I have hated your ideology of death as passionately as possible, than be able to believe in my heart of hearts that it played in Peoria. What benefit will it be to us if we gain the whole world
but lose our soul? We have gone too far down that road as a people and as a nation.
2:53 AM
Houston, we can confirm that the stealth impeachment project has been a success! [ Click ]
We've approached, under the radar!
3:18 AM
Jameskarkoski,
I cannot honestly say whether it is legal or not, I believe that that may best to be left up to the Judicial & Legislative branches of our government. I merely questioned whether this was the best time for the investigation & completely questioned the NYT’s motive as to when & why they chose to release the information. The White House has stated that by releasing details of the program National Security has been endangered or possibly damaged & that we have lost a valuable tool in fighting terrorism. Haven’t heard this point disputed. If that is the case, then those that released it should be charged, arrested & given their due in court. If convicted, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
If the program is legal, then there is no real good reason for pursuing it right now, if it is illegal, then where is the proof to justify further damaging our national security? Where are the American citizens who have had their rights violated? Not one answer regarding this, but the left & most leaving comments here, are sure that crimes have been committed - once again, all w/o proof.
How is this any less of a trampling of the American Justice system or less of a perversion of justice? Why is it that the release was postponed, initially as per the request from the Bush administration, but finally released just as the ’06 elections are beginning. The time when they could possibly do damage to the Republican Party & specifically George Bush? If the NYT saw reason enough for it to not release the information a year ago, what has changed? The answer is that is useful to their side. That is the only reason, because if rights were being violated they would have published the information a year ago when they first learned it. Once again no one person has addressed this issue as well.
I have read Glenn’s writings regarding the NSA wiretaps & he has argued quite reasonably & brought up several great points, but they are irrelevant if he is totally wrong & nothing from the other side has shown that that is truly the case or shown proof enough to de-classify the program & hold public inquiries. No matter the level or volume of conjecture.
I believe that the White House believes that the FISA courts & procedures are well within the bounds of normal day to day Executive operations, but are too limiting or do not apply in certain circumstances during war time. Glenn believes differently & has made valid points. But the need to address these are merely academic until there can be any actual damage or violations shown. Since no-one can actually say or show proof of any wrong doings & since the Administration did keep Congress members informed all along (none objected to it, by the way) there is no reason to follow a speculative line of inquiry & risk furthering any damage to the nation. Especially if the initial release of the information has not only been harmful to national security, but was solely politically motivated. No one has shown a valid argument regarding this, or justified continuing in view of the lack of proof. Notice that the bi-partisan committee has now been split & may not follow the line of questioning.
Partisans on the left which immediately assume the worse about their government will insist that politics have taken over while completely ignoring the fact that it was politics that brought us all to this point originally & will again fail to denounce it, much less acknowledge it.
Of course what do I know, I am a cultist?
3:19 AM
I diaried on this very topic on the DailyKos today (Wednesday). I watched Sunday's Meet the Press and found myself extremely frustrated with the anemic and disappointing performance by Daschle and Harman, who basically parroted and thus enabled the administration's talking points about the wiretap program.
I.e., that it's working fine except for this one small little legal matter that we need to resolve to make the program 100% perfect. No mention of what an egregious violation of FISA and the constitution it is, nor of how it is specifically violating American's civil liberties because of its warrantless nature, nor of how it might have been used to spy on people completely unconnected to terrorism (e.g. reporters, politicians, diplomats, activists), nor of how inefficient and ineffective it appears to be as presently structured--ALL of which are directly due to its current lack of meaningful judicial and congressional oversight.
This lack of oversight not only breaks the law and violated the constitution, it also prevents congress from being able to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency, thus violoating not only the law, constitution and civil liberties, but also, potentially, threatening our national security. The program is an embarrassing failure from a legal, constitutional, civil liberty AND national security perspective, and needs to either be stopped, or fundamentally changed to address all of these issues.
And yet Democrats are not able or willing to adopt this approach. I'm not sure why. It's quite depressing.
Here's a link to my diary on this (I also replied to Harman's DKos diary today with my own comment, which I ended turning into this diary):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/15/201658/392
Keep up the great work. I really do believe that people like you are making a significant difference, even though, without most Democrats' help, it's pretty slow going. But as you pointed out, the public appears to slowly be coming around to embracing the view that this program is wrong. Sadly, I suspect that when a sufficient percentage of the public openly expresses its strong displeasure with the program, Democrats' will "suddenly" come out strongly against it. Leading by following is what I call it. Very shameful.
4:40 AM
The Democrats want to write "retroactive" legislation for FISA because what the President has done is perfectly legal and so they want to give the appearance that they are not obstructionists.
4:51 AM
Glenn,
I couldn't agree more with you on your dissection of this issue. My take on the state of the investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program by Senate intelligence committee is that the Majority Republicans have looked at the political calculus and have determined that there is no political upside to having such an inquiry. There is only downside!
The Republicans will predictively decide that it is better for their 2006 electioneering to favor party (their party of course!) over principle, and therefore sandbag any attempt by the Democrats to pursue an inquiry. The few wavering Republicans (Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)), will choose to close ranks "for the good of the party".
If the Republicans were to go forward on an inquiry, they would risk even further political party damage in the 2006 elections. Further investigation would simply increase the "Guilt by association" for Republicans standing for re-election with an admitted lawbreaking Republican President.
Like you, what I can't understand is why the Democrats can't do their own political calculus. The Republicans are going to try to paint the Democrats as "soft on National Security" whether the inquiry is held or not, so why not start banging the drums fiercely about a Republican President breaking the law and a Republican Majority covering it up!
There is no downside for the Democrats! There is only an upside! Democrats have got to wake up and realize that they can't remain the craven and timid "woe is me" party and expect to slay the Republican dragon.
Folks, you can't fight back by surrendering! You don't win elections by bowing to your opposition! Stop listening to those useless beltway-bandit strategists/consultants (or simply idiots if you prefer) who recommend no rocking of the boat! Take a stand for once in your life! If you don't, we'll find someone who will!
5:38 AM
Glenn, keep up the good work. As to the Democrats my former party, I'm now a registered GREEN. My Congressional Representative, Nancy Pelosi, simply refuses to introduce Articles of Impeachment. Her logic is there just are not enough votes and it would be upsetting to the country and the party. I'm no constitutional scholar/parliamentarian but wouldn't it be somewhat simple to introduce the measure? It surely will be tabled by the majority but no matter what it will be in the record.
9:11 AM
dan lewis:
Thanks for the warning about the elections, but I would rather be able to look myself in the mirror...
Yes, that is clear. Moronic, narcissistic self-righteousness is just what the doctor ordered in response to our mortal enemies. You're the kind of fellow whose shrieks of abject terror they especially love listening to as they saw off your head with a dull knife.
Thank God the vast majority of Americans reject your suicidal impulses, and that we have a military capable of carrying out our will to defeat Islamic fascism.
9:18 AM
mad dog writes:
Like you, what I can't understand is why the Democrats can't do their own political calculus.
That is precisely what they are doing. Political professionals know that this issue is fatal to most Democrats, and will keep it at a long arm's length.
9:25 AM
re:
and that we have a military capable of carrying out our will to defeat Islamic fascism.
Gee, I don't think I've seen that yet.
gedaliya, get a clue. The military is completely the wrong tool needed to defeat Islamic fascism. You're kidding yourself.
9:57 AM
gedaliya
"The Republicans the party of Grants."
Left office disgraced by the rampant corruption of his administration.
Ulysses Grant did.
George W. Bush will.
10:29 AM
You ever wonder why trolls and their media counterparts spend so much time telling Dems what will lose them elections?
Anyway...
My ideas, Glenn, are modest, but could be effective:
we should set up a blog of American public opinion. It would be as non-controversial as possible (i know this is hard with polls, but maybe some kind of poll aggregator)
display the information in a graphic or easy to understand at a glance way
and point out which Dem representatives agree with the american people.
or just point out the proportions of Dems in agreement.
and do this on every issue.
so NSA, 75% of Americans think its possible that Bush broke the law
1% of Federal Democrats have said publicly that they think this
...etc.
personally i think it would show that the people are waay further left than anyone in power. and it would be great to make that plain.
also, we need to find out who the Dem strategists that the news articles are always referring to and put their feet to the fire.
who are these mysterious people? and why do people listen to them? find out their career history. find out their winning percentage.
if they're losers find out how much they make and from who and why they still have their jobs (Bob Shrum anyone?)
and expose them.
and praise the winners.
we're always going on and on about transparency and accountability. we need it to start in our own party. rank and file needs to know who the power-brokers are and what their track records are.
rank-and-file needs to be able to see, quickly and plainly, what the leadership supports and how it differs from what they support, and even how it differs from what a majority of Americans support.
and leadership needs to see it too.
if we can't even hold our own party members accountable and responsive, we can't expect the rest of the population to do so with the government.
Rhetorical strategy for Dems: start speaking for "the American people". Repubs do this all the time: "The American People won't stand for this." Or "The American People want that." They don't care that they've got no support for it, the impression gets created nonetheless. start claiming that the GOP is out of the mainstream. publicly. repeatedly.
and if they aren't now, eventually they will be. power is perception. the "reality-based" community needs to grasp this. conservatives learned it 30 years ago.
10:36 AM
The Republicans the party of Grants.
Hmm, well the Grant administration was plagued with rampant corruption and cronyism. Of course, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Republicans became the party of Jefferson Davis. Good ol' southern strategy. But hey, it helps "our side" win, so who cares if we repudiate Lincoln to do it?
Where are the American citizens who have had their rights violated?
We don't know, because there was no outside oversight of the program. "Prove to me that a secret illegal program with no independent paper trail did something wrong!" No FISA warrants + no periodic briefing by the Attorney General of the relevant full House and Senate committees = no outside knowledge of what the program is doing. Why is that so difficult to understand? Does it contain too many big words? The swearing out of warrants upon probable cause in the Fourth Amendment is based upon the presumption that "Trust us, we're not doing anything illegal" is not sufficient. That's why you Free Republic guys were howling about how the FISA court wasn't enough of a check on executive power when it was a Democrat in the White House. But IOKIYAR. Because principles and even consistency be damned, as long as your team wins. Franklin must have run into some of you guys before saying, "A republic, if you can keep it."
11:27 AM
pmain
Not only are you unclear on the illegality of domestic espionage conducted by this administration without constitutionally required, and legislatively mandated warrents, duly sworn for cause, you are unclear on the roles of our respective branches of government.
The judicial branch decides issues arising from enacted legislation, as well as resolution of disputes regarding constitutional compliance.
While the legislative branch exercises many constitutionally vested powers, the legislature is the only branch empowered to enact laws.
The role of the executive branch is to faithfully execute those laws enacted by the legislature.
The chief executive is not empowered by the Constitution to differentially enforce those laws; to decide which provisions of a given law is worthy of enforcement, or which provisions are not worthy of the full weight of the authority of that office. Indeed, the President's Oath of Office requires a positive affirmation by the office holder "to faithfully execute the laws." Violation of the Oath of Office should constitute a "high crime" worthy of removal from service any false-swearing public servant.
Strawman #1: "WH stated that by releasing details of the program NATIONAL SECURITY has been endangered. . ."
Please be specific; which details have been released? What is the nature of the alleged damage? When did the damage occur?
Strawman #2: "finally released just as the '06 elections are beginning." Yes, I, too, think the Bush Administration arguments to prevent the New York Times publication before the Presidential election of 2004 were politically motivated.
Strawman #3: "FISA courts & procedures. . .too limiting. . ." Your assertion contradicts testimony to Congress given by Presidential Counsel Gonzales in 2003.
Valid point: "those that released it should be charged, arrested & given their due in court. If convicted, they should be punished to the full extent of the law."
Surely you're referring to the TREASON perpetrated by those involved in revealing, in a time of war, the identity of our secret agent fighting our covert campaign against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The presence of weapons of mass destruction, at the disposal of Saddam Hussein, necessitated our invasion of Iraq, opening up the central front in our War on Terror. The revelation of Valerie Plame's identity has weakened our hand in that theater of operations in the War on Terror, providing material aid and comfort to enemies sworn to the destruction of our nation. Execution of any individual associated with the unmasking of our operative during a time of war is a fitting penalty, don't you agree? Unless they're a Republican, of course.
11:56 AM
Gedaliya --
Pointing out that McClellan was a Democrat and Grant was a Republican couldn't be more specious. Anyone with even the slightest grasp of political history knows that the Democratic and Republican parties have nearly entirely flipped. McClellan was a conservative who wanted to pacify the South because he sympathized with the cause of SLAVERY. Lincoln and Grant were, by today's standards, liberals.
1:45 PM
gedaliya said...
"That is precisely what they are doing. Political professionals know that this issue is fatal to most Democrats, and will keep it at a long arm's length".
I'm afraid you've missed my (and Glenn's) points:
1. The paid "political professionals" otherwise known as the beltway bandits, are exactly the ones that should be ignored! They cower in the shadow of Master Karl - a man who's only tool is fear!
2. The real "political professionals" are the American public, and as Glenn has stated (and I totally agree), the polls show that we smell a rat. A big, fat Republican rat! These high crimes and attempts at coverup aren't passing the smell test of the American public.
Smart Democrats will realize that there is only an upside to making this an issue!
2:50 PM
mad dog says:
Smart Democrats will realize that there is only an upside to making this an issue!
Um, since no Democrats are "making this an issue," it would appear, using your unassailable logic, that there must be no smart Democrats.
Is this what you're really trying to say?
3:03 PM
Lincoln and Grant were, by today's standards, liberals.
I am sure you're aware that Lincoln regulary ignored the Supreme Court and even suspended Habeas Corpus. He also signed death warrants for thousands of deserters, spys and traitors.
If only we had such liberals today.
3:06 PM
Glenn, it was my impression that this blog is instrumental in attracting people of like mind and calling them to action. It's more than just another discussion board, isn't it? I think Gedaliya should be banned, and anyone else like her. It makes no sense to have Tokoyo Rose participating in the discussions. It's depressing, unproductive, and distracting. Nobody who agrees with your ideas is interested in what she has to say, and as she will never be persuaded by reason, she serves no purpose on this blog. In fact, she is someone who is working for the Bush administration. Why do they have to be represented here? We're here to try to stop a trainwreck. There's no time for "niceties" like reading those who want the train to crash their "rights", or getting them coffee. Ban her or delete her posts. Either that, or please advise your legitimate allies to refrain from responding to her and to scroll by her posts.
3:16 PM
gedaliya said...
"Um, since no Democrats are "making this an issue," it would appear, using your unassailable logic, that there must be no smart Democrats".
Tsk, tsk...childish gedaliya! This "Smart" Democrat and millions of others are making it an issue, or you wouldn't be here trolling and trying to stop it!
3:17 PM
Gedaliya:
The Republicans can only pray that prominent Democrats continue to attack the president for listening to ocnversations between al Qaeda operatives overseas and their American agents.
Let me know when you hear a "prominent Democrat[]" do that. This is just the standard "talking point" put out by the RW "slime machine", and it's a load'o'c***. No one has said that al Qaeda shouldn't be tapped, and if it's al Qaeda on the line, even Dubya isn't too stoopid to fill out a warrant. And, as Glenn pointed out a ways back, the Dubya maladministration even insisted that no change was needed to FISA and that it wasn't getting in the way of anything a couple years ago. Do try and keep up.
Yeah, I know you have your orders from the Master to keep singing that song, louder, louder, LOUDER, but it's not going to work here. So go sing it somewhere else where people might actually believe it ... like at Freeper.com or LGF.
OBTW, Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
Cheers,
3:51 PM
"anomymous":
We have the strength and intestinal fortitude to run a war and protect the citizens...
Tell that to 2200+ grieving families. But a little correction might be in order. Isn't that supposed to be "Vee haff...."?
Cheers,
4:13 PM
arne langsetmo writes:
No one has said that al Qaeda shouldn't be tapped, and if it's al Qaeda on the line, even Dubya isn't too stoopid to fill out a warrant.
The administration contends (and I agree with them) that the CIC does not now nor will ever need to obtain a warrant for listening to the conversations described above. It is simply his perogative to exercise his constitutional authority in this regard and short of impeaching him (or Congress cutting off the funding) there is nothing anyone can do about it.
In order to stop him, then, his political opponents must challenge his policy in the court of public opinion, and use this challenge to elect enough members of the House and Senate to undertake one or the other (or both) options. Since we don't see that happening, the only logical conclusion that a rational person can deduce is that there is only token opposition to his actions among the vast majority of the electorate, not enough to inspire even the president's most ardent opponents from undertaking the required actions to stop him.
Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
If he is alive, he is huddling in some lonely cave in the barren mountains of Pakistan. One can only hope he is suffering. If he is alive, we will get him. I can't wait for the day we see his bullet-ridden body laying Che-like on some cold granite slab.
4:46 PM
Gedaliya --
If you can't see the difference between the measures required to maintain stability during a domestic insurrection as opposed to foreign terrorism, none of which, incidentally, has anything to do with whether the Bush administration should be allowed to VIOLATE THE LAW whenever they feel like it, then there's little point talking with you. But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war, even a war that may or may not require the active engagement of troops at a given point (such as after we "declare victory" in Iraq just in time for the midterm elections?)
5:32 PM
But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war...
Actually, I'm not. The key word here is "whenever." First all all, each branch of the federal government has the constitutional tools to "cirvumvent" the will of the other two branches when it deems it necessary.
The Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, impeach and convict the president, and/or cut off funds if it deems his actions not to its liking.
The Supreme Court can declare a legislative act or a presidential action unconstitutional.
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
"Coequal branches of government" is a phrase that actually has meaning.
5:39 PM
"Coequal branches of government" is a phrase that has meaning, indeed, Gedaliya, but not if you subject it to the contorted definition you are advocating.
You did fine until you arrived at the Administration's interpretation of executive powers (and yours, by extension, I suppose.) Do you not see how executive powers of that nature are essentially a final "trump card" over the other branches' checks?
Do you really not see the danger here? Until people completely forget about 9/11 (which will never happen, especially with Republicans shamelessly exploiting it for their fear-mongering purposes) or all terrorists are eradicated (which will never happen either,) national security will ALWAYS be a priority issue. So essentially, if either of the two other branches of government passes a law or issues a ruling that the executive doesn't like, they can ignore it because of some vague "national security issue" standard? Who decides what's a valid national security issue? What's to stop the executive, in that case, to say that it is vital to future National Security to indoctrinate our children with Christianity in the public schools because otherwise the terrorists will find it easier to convert them to the Jihad?
I'm not saying any of this is likely to happen anytime soon, but erosions of liberty happen one small piece at a time until people can barely remember how it started.
6:15 PM
An accurate interpretation, I forgot to mention, of executive checking power is the veto. That essentially gives the executive the right to force a 2/3 majority on ANY bill he doesn't like. That's not good enough for the power-grabbing Bushies, though. It's easy to forget the magnitude of that power, of course, when your party controls both houses of Congress.
6:21 PM
gedaliya:
The administration contends (and I agree with them) that the CIC does not now nor will ever need to obtain a warrant for listening to the conversations described above.
And lots of people (including Glenn in prior posts here) have blown that contention out of the water. Look, you may be of the opinion that it's proper, necessary and/or justified for your daddy to do whatever he wants because you're PYPIF. But that's quite a different thing from making it legal (even if it were true). And the law says that a warrant (even a post facto one) is necessary for some surveillances. Now Dubya may disagree with the law. He may flout the law. But he can't change the law.
As Glenn has pointed out, what Dubya (and seemingly you is arguing for is that he gets to violate that specific law on his own say-so and without any check or restraint ... and there is no limit under this rationalization for violating any other law that he decides is getting in the way of what he wants to do.
It is simply his perogative [sic] to exercise his constitutional authority in this regard ....
You're assuming a "constitutional authority" that simply doesn't exist (or, if it indeed does exist, nullifies the entire Constitution itself, which leads one down the path to contradiction and sophistry: "Can Dubya use his unlimited powers to 'write' a law of his own that even he can't violate?").
... short of impeaching him (or Congress cutting off the funding) there is nothing anyone can do about it.
I brought that possibiliy up in ConLaw class one day just to be a contrarian, and Prof. Choper said, "That's a subject for a different class..." Perhaps Comparative PolySci, I dunno.... But Choper was right: Under our system of government, we rely on at least a
modicum of adherence to the basic framework of government, and when the actors refuse to play by the rules, the whole scheme disintegrates ... perhaps to the point of anarchy and complete lawlessness. Take it to its logical extreme: Say I decided that the Constitution and the laws permit me to shoot you if I feel like it, You might say, "Waiddaminnit, that's not what the Constitution says". I'd say, "Of course I disagree. It's obvious, it's right there, and you just don't see it. Now hold still while I aim...." But you say, "The Constitution doesn't say that you get to decide it means anything you want it to mean...." I come back with: "But of course it does, see, it's obvious, it's right there, and you just don't see it...." Note that the reasoning behind this in no way requires that I be Preznit ... nor does Dubya's.
Starting to see the problem here? Starting to see why Glenn is so aghast at Dubya's arrogation of this untrammelled "authority" under whatever supposed basis?
I doubt it ... you're too busy PYP....
[Arne]: Gedaliya: Where's "Dead or Alive" bin Laden? Guess you are "not that concerned about him" too?
If he is alive, ...
Yeah, he's alive. Dubya's little incursion on the laws and Constitution hasn't done a damn bit of good. Still happy you sold your soul for a mess of pottage?
Cheers,
6:40 PM
Anonymous:
But even still, are you really putting yourself in the position of overtly ADVOCATING that any President should be able to circumvent all of the other branches of government whenever they decide that we are in a state of war, even a war that may or may not require the active engagement of troops at a given point (such as after we "declare victory" in Iraq just in time for the midterm elections?)
Just a clarification: Dubya's rationale (and even his argued position, which Gonzales says doesn't rely on the AUMF) doesn't require that a state of war exist. Although, once you cede that Dubya gets to make any "law" he wants (or ignore such), he can declare his own "state of war" just as easily as he can snoop of U.S. citizens without a warrant ... or round up and intern all liberals.
Cheers,
5:32 PM
6:45 PM
Gedaliya:
The Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, impeach and convict the president, and/or cut off funds if it deems his actions not to its liking.
The Supreme Court can declare a legislative act or a presidential action unconstitutional.
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
That way lies madness. Underlying it all is a "gentlemen's agreement" to behave, and if the players don't behave and refuse "follow the rules", so as to precipitate these kinds of conflicts, we have a real Constitutional crisis, and that document is badly scorched if not burned. There may be a "successful" outcome of the measures above (and for the most part inthe past there has been), but that hardly is the end of the question. What if the President refuses to step down when impeached and convicted (I'd note the Constitution is silent on this possibility)? When the rules are busted, in the end the only "final" authority left becomes force ... and I hardly think that you advocate moving towards such a system, do you, Gedaliya?
Cheers,
6:55 PM
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
Yes, he can, in that it is neither a logical nor physical impossibility. However, ignoring legislative acts is, by definition, proscribed in law, so it isn't logically possible for him to do so legally. Unlike physical and logical "can't"s, legal "can't"s aren't self-enforcing -- some sort of coercion is required for enforcement.
7:13 PM
The president can, in the name of national security, ignore legislative acts and Supreme Court rulings, or take actions not prescribed or proscribed in law.
If the president does so, he places himself in a potentially actionable position.
If you mean that the President can ignore said laws without thereby violating the law himself, you are just wrong.
9:02 PM
Getting into psychology, we all understand the dynamic of the lady who doth protest too much.
Am I the only one willing to point out that perhaps the reason that there has been this huge campaign to portray Bush as masculine is, well, you know.....
As a woman, I can tell you that the thought that Bush is masculine has me laughing out loud. I voted for him because of lower taxes and what I mistook as his endorsement of basic Republican, capitalistic positions.
But masculine? Are we looking at the same person? What he reminds me of so strongly is Jack Lemmon in drag in Some Like it Hot. Rent the movie and decide for yourselves....
9:19 PM
prunes...
If you mean that the President can ignore said laws without thereby violating the law himself, you are just wrong.
There are numerous examples of presidents doing just this. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln are two who provide the most well-known examples of the practice, but there are dozens of other cases.
Most presidents have "sequestered" funds allocated for a particular legislative act to prevent its implementation. Other presidents have refused to comply with SCOTUS decisions, and other presidents have simply ignored the will of congress.
If you are not aware of these facts I suggest you do a little reading to familiarize yourself with them.
9:24 PM
arne langsetmo writes:
That way lies madness.
Well, no, it does not. We did not descend into madness when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus or when Jackson simply ignored congressional acts.
I wonder why leftists are so inclined to hyperbole? Perhaps you can provide some insight into this conundrum. It surely does much to undermine your credibility on a wide range of topics.
9:27 PM
"Bush tacked on the phrase "and in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President" from order13292
This is sortof like the signing statements, a bunch of smoke and mirrors , assuming powers he does not have, ie the president does not have the right to amend the contitution or amend his own powers or change the powers of his office. He cannot declare that the vice is a coequal and is CIC on Tuesdays between 2 and 6 pm. The ballots we voted on do not say President and copresident. The office is not fungible, one man is president not 2. We should never let the executive get away with this egregious assumption of rule changing: everytime we think we are on the field they change the field rules and goalposts. This is an order not worth the paper it is written on and we should not let them get away with obfuscation like this.
10:36 PM
We at 'Against the War on Terror' agree that there is something rather pathetic about the Democrats' lack of willingness to exercise political leadership. But, as we commented on our blog, we also find it perplexing that so many are surprised at their unwillingness to do so. (See www.againstwot.com) One could trace the Dems passivity back a long way, but just think of their electoral strategy: sit back and hope Bush self-destructs. That's not exactly a confident, self-assertive political strategy.
11:20 PM
Most presidents have "sequestered" funds allocated for a particular legislative act to prevent its implementation. Other presidents have refused to comply with SCOTUS decisions, and other presidents have simply ignored the will of congress.
If you are not aware of these facts I suggest you do a little reading to familiarize yourself with them.
No one has denied these facts, oh weaver of strawmen. Rather, what is mad is to argue that, because they happened, they are constituionally valid, or acceptable.
It's amusing to see someone as transparently intellectually dishonest as yourself talking about "leftists" undermining their credibility. The very use of the term "leftist" here (George Will? Bob Barr?) is hyperbole plus.
11:34 PM
Gedaliya:
[Arne]: That way lies madness.
Well, no, it does not. We did not descend into madness when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus or when Jackson simply ignored congressional acts.
Perhaps you should read the rest of what I said (or at least, respond to it). I said that most such deviations are correcting, because people come to their senses (Lincoln is a particularly bad example because the Supreme Court said that was a no-no, and that was the end of it; no further confrontation). And there are few such incidents too, mainly because people of reason avoid such provocations. And there it might end here as well, if Dubya just gives up trying to pretend he gets to say what the law is and which laws "are inoperative" (to use some famous words) ... or lets the court resolve the matter. But he's asserting that he has no obligation to do that, and that he's just going to keep on truckin'....
That way lies madness. Maybe you think that an impeachment every couple of years is just peachy keen, and a swell way to run the ship of state and keep it on an even keel ... by running it full tilt towards the rocks every couple of years until someone has the sense to mutiny ... but I think most reasonable people would think differently.
Cheers,
12:54 AM
Lincoln is a particularly bad example because the Supreme Court said that was a no-no, and that was the end of it; no further confrontation).
This is incorrect. To wit:
"With Congress not in session until July [1861], Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
"Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.
Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
Referenced Here
1:16 AM
There's more to it than that, gedaliya, as you know. Lincoln at least had the benefit of there being an actual "Rebellion or Invasion" -- the only Constitutional excuse for suspending habeas. And in 1863 Congress exercised its power under Art. I sec. 9 and backed up Lincoln's order with the Habeas Corpus Act.
And Lincoln STILL got slapped down -- yet Bush's supporters still claim that when he arrests American citizens at peaceful airports and ships them to military brigs, he's following Lincoln's venerated precedent.
3:30 AM
Gedaliya:
"Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal."
And there it sits (well, at least until Dubya decides to try and flog a horse 140 years tits-up). Did you think you had some kind of point here?
You should consider for a moment Thersite's comments too...
Cheers,
4:15 AM
"'the UAE still has ties to al Qaeda.' Is this really the case, and if so, why haven't we taken action against the UAE in the past? Why hasn't anyone demanded that we do so?"
UAE is #6 oil exporter in the world.
I'm trying to remember, there's another country kind of like UAE, a dictatorship supporting jihadism that BushWorld never notices anything wrong with . . . Oh yeah Saudi Arabia.
Let's do keep puzzling over this one.
10:09 AM