Why, the next thing you'll here is that Bush didn't order the levees blown up.

Against the conventional media wisdom of the day comes this report from the L.A. Times:

New Orleans was the site of most of Katrina's fatalities; the state reported that 76% of storm deaths statewide occurred in the city. Of the 380 bodies from New Orleans that have been formally identified, a moderately disproportionate number are white. New Orleans' population was 28% white, yet 33% of the identified victims in the city are white and 67% black.

"The affected population is more multiracial, multiethnic and multicultural than one might discern from national media reports," said Richard Campanella, a Tulane University geographer who has studied which parts of the city were hit the worst by flooding. His research showed that predominantly white districts in the city were almost as likely to flood as predominantly black ones.

Many of the dead were older and were quite capable of leaving, but made the conscious decision not to evacuate in advance of Hurricane Katrina's impending landfall. They chose... poorly.

Kanye West could not immediately be reached for additional comment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Interesting:

President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night.

***

...Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations.

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

"The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens," the official said, adding that congressional leaders have also been briefed more than a dozen times.

If true, Bush's executive order authorizing streamlined NSA surveillance procedures was not a blanket endorsement, but apparently a specific series of case-by-case authorizations designed to save American lives from specific terrorist threats. What's more, congressional leaders were updated "more than a dozen times" on the use of these orders.

It would appear that President Bush operated well within his Constituional rights as Commander in Chief, and America's civil liberties were not threatened in any way while the ability to respond to specific terrorist threats was greatly improved. I think we call that a "win-win" situation, folks.

The knee-jerk reaction of the political left to cry out over apparently non-existent civil liberties violations is shameful, as is their two-faced hypocrisy regarding this leak of intelligence information to news sources.

Hinderaker called it right:

Under the Plame precedent, this case is a no-brainer. The intelligence officials who leaked to the Times should be identified, criminally prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Several decades in Club Fed is exactly what justice demands for those that would compromise America's national security concerns for partisan political vendettas.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:29 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 3 kb.

He also discovered that according to the New York Times, President Bush didn't want to wait for terrorists to catch us with our pants down again, and authorized the National Security Agency to immediately conduct surveillance of suspected al Qaeda terrorists without waiting for a specific court order:

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

In a time of extraordinary circumstances, while the remains of murdered Americans were still being recovered from Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and a field outside Shanksville, the President decided that stopping terrorists from killing more Americans was more important than entertaining the delicate sensibilities of the ACLU.

Thank God we have you, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times to guard our civil liberties! I just wish that you had been able to get this information when it was fresh and still of use to al Qaeda. Oh wait, it still might be, and you don't care:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Some, but not all.

Thank you, Pinch Sulzberger and the New York Times for putting your egos and biases ahead of our national security.

And nice job, Matt, of missing the real story.

Update: And for the 1984 conspiracy theorists Fox News reports that there was indeed Congressional and judicial awareness of the NSA program, despite the ACLU claims to the contrary:

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:08 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The FBI has two basic tools for gathering information on Americans. Both were created in the 1970s to gather information solely on foreign terrorists and spies. Both were greatly expanded by the USA Patriot Act and other laws, and are now routinely used against ordinary, law-abiding Americans who have no connection to terrorism as well as those who might. Together, they represent an enormous increase in police power in the United States. The first are FISA warrants (sometimes called Section 215 warrants, after the section of the Patriot Act that expanded their scope). These are issued in secret, by a secret court. The second are national security letters, less well known but much more powerful, and which FBI field supervisors can issue all by themselves. The exact numbers are secret, but a recent Washington Post article estimated that 30,000 letters each year demand telephone records, banking data, customer data, library records, and so on. Now don't you feel safer?

Posted by: NOTR at December 16, 2005 02:07 AM (izx0t)

2 They can look at my stuff all they want. If you aren't doing anything illegal you should have nothing to worry about. Plus, if they looked me over they'd be bored to tears. A lot of Americans have no true idea anymore what constitutes a "Right" and what constitutes a "Priviledge". I'm not crazy about invasion of privacy but throughout history civilians have had to do their share during crisis/war. This is one of those times. bottom line again, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 16, 2005 06:19 AM (WGcw3)

3 I agree, Old Soldier. We will never become a Police State. Looking over some of my records/purchases is no big deal. If it leads to catching some terrorists because they looked over their records, so much the better. I, like you, spent 20 years defending this country (still work for the Navy but as a civilian now), been there and done that. I've seen what it's like in other countries that don't have the 'rights' or 'priviledges' we have and will say without question we have the best thing going. Getting into what some people say is patriotism gets me on edge because the liberal world thinks bad mouthing everything is what it's about. I have actually tried reading their end of the spectrum to see if I could follow their logic (just got a headache is all that happened). We (the U.S.) need to be actively involved in the world and terrorism from here on out, can't let them get a foothold or rest. Sitting back on our laurels like the liberals want is an invitation to disaster, Clinton did that and we had 9/11.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 16, 2005 07:37 AM (PJ4Iq)

4 What is so hard about getting a FISA warrant? Absolutely nothing. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report (pdf) reveals that there were 1758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004, an all-time high. None of the applications for secret suveillance warrants were denied. In 2004, as in 2003, more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which have more stringent standards.Source: Epic Archive And as far as rights and privileges go, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution still, included in the first ten amendments: the Bill of Um Rights. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized It is quite odd how people panic now post September Eleventh, when our constitution survived previous threats at least as great. An appeal to exceptionalism, that these times are far worse than any previous times and warrant exceptional means (one of which is no warrants) is the road to tyranny.

Posted by: The Heretik at December 16, 2005 10:08 AM (mLyjh)

5 Again I will say I don't believe in a Police State (that includes tyranny). I fully support the Bill of Rights including the fourth amendment. I just see no problem with finding out if someone is checking out bomb making books from the library, buying sodium nitrate/pipes etc... posting to hate groups/hate sites. I still believe in warrents and proper searches but have no problem with the Patriot Act flagging certain actions as questionable like those I stated above. That does not mean that I want people kicking in doors and going through my stuff without probable cause/warrent just because. If, however, someone is getting books and supplies while their actions are dubious at best, I want the law enforcement to have the ability to follow up on them, not have their hands tied. The Patriot Act does not take away any of the bill of rights, just makes it easier for law enforcement to follow up on suspects.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 16, 2005 10:34 AM (y67bA)

6 My big problem with this is that whenever government takes anything for itself (even for the greater good) it almost never gives it back. As an intel community guy I can tell you that I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it. The line in the sand just keeps getting moved and we just take it. My grandfather would be horrified at this development and his grandfather would be ready with a pitchfork. The truth is that it isn't hard to get warrants when it comes to national security. I signed away many of my rights when I joined the military (and later work in the national security realm) but I didn't do so for my kid's rights.

Posted by: The Fastest Squirrel at December 16, 2005 10:48 AM (GzvlQ)

7 I agree with you Squirrel, there is a line in the sand, it was there in WWII but it was moved back. There was a tighter lid on the press, there were steps taken to keep the troops morale up, commodities were scarce so ration cards were used and when the threat went away at the end of WWII, the line moved back. I'm not advocating getting rid of any of our rights, I believe in all of them but a temporary tighter reign on all is in order to stop the terrorist cells already operating in america.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 16, 2005 11:03 AM (xGZ+b)

8 RE: The Heretik, Thank you for a well-reasoned, "non-Chimpy" response. It is a refreshing change from the Oliver Willis and "Fred"-grade posts. From what I understand of how the NSA works (and let's face facts, almost nobody does), most of their work, like Carnivore, is data-mining of electronic information streams. Their primary difficulty is not having enough information, but being able to restrict it and refine it too a point where the information they obtain is actually useful. I think the Bush directive did little more than enable them to apply new filters to information to more effectively use the information they were already scouring. That is all. I think you can understand how issuing a FISA warrant for every potentially intersting email, chat or phone call would bog even a permissive court system down unnecessarily in wait times in very short order. I don't see how using a lip-service judicial process that you yourself describe does anything but slow investigations down and threaten lives. Predating the Bill of Rights are certain uninaleinable rights endowed by our Creator and mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the primary among those being the "pursuit of life." Without life, none of the other rights exist. President Bush, in the context of the day, made a decision that American lives were more precious than a rubber-stamp bottleneck. You care more about paying what you admit to being lip-service liberty than the actual freedom to live. I find that quite sad.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 11:11 AM (g5Nba)

9 Are you kidding me the only things wrong with this act is that so many of you didnt even look into it to see what it was about. It applies to international phone calls and emails. If you are calling someone in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria then you know I want to know what you are saying to! Like retired navy said if you are doing nothing wrong then what do you have to hide in the first place. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at such blatant mirespresentation of the spirit of our bill of rights and constitution. I hope you feel safer knowing that without this the possibility of terrorist action on US soil probably increases one hundred fold.

Posted by: 81 at December 16, 2005 11:26 AM (NmR1a)

10 Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves at such blatant mirespresentation of the spirit of our bill of rights and constitution. That is nonsense. When they wrote the Constitution, our forefathers had just finished the Revolutionary War, during which the colonies were filled British loyalists who had worked against the revolution. They consciously rejected rejected reprisals and infringing on the rights of former and present loyalists. You can see the vast difference between what happened in America and what happened in France just a few years later. France had a reign of terror by the new government who insisted on cracking down on all those suspected of disloyalty. Our forefathers believed that freedom and the rule of law would lead to more security, not less. They were not naive idealists -- they were visionaries who had experienced in full a war where their country was filled with traitors. Despite the presence of traitors, they guaranteed the right to bear arms throughout the country -- which was an unprecedented move. I believe in their vision.

Posted by: jhkim at December 16, 2005 12:27 PM (hrd7S)

11 I'm with you Navy, I guess that I'm not sure that we have the wisdom in government now that we had in the WWII era.

Posted by: The Fastest Squirrel at December 16, 2005 12:49 PM (5sc9M)

12 What bothers me is not so much the specifics in this case (applying to international calls, not domestic), but rather placing this revelation within the context/fact that governmental powers tend to increase and expand over time. So, while right now it may seem fine and, to some, justified, I worry about it encroaching into other areas. Or, to put it another way, will you guys all feel the same way when a Democrat's in office (which, inevitably will happen someday)? Will you trust them to use such powers wisely?

Posted by: shingles at December 16, 2005 02:09 PM (tCOFk)

13 Absolutely. I may not agree with our elected officials but have and will back them up where I see it for the good of the Country (not just my little world). If I don't agree with them I cast my vote a different way the next time. I do the best I can to be independant and look at all angles to something (doesn't always work but I try). Bottom line is I believe our system works as long as WE THE PEOPLE act accordingly. The Iraq turnout for the election was around 70% (Outstanding by the way) and our Presidential elections may run 50% if we are lucky. I backed up Bill Clinton while I was in, didn't vote for him or believe everything he stood for but backed him up because he was America's figure head. Besides, it's Congress that does most of the day to day stuff (turn out for those elections are pathetic by the way) so vote, vote, vote. I don't genuinely believe people get into politics to cause problems, it's just the way it comes out sometimes.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 16, 2005 02:17 PM (cqZXM)

14 Bottom line is I believe our system works as long as WE THE PEOPLE act accordingly. I agree about our system. But our system was set out to limit the power of the government. We are not supposed to blindly trust our elected officials. There are strict limits on what they are capable of. The problem is that the administration is overstepping the limitations which the system has laid on it. That is the rule of law, and it is there for good reason. I don't trust politicians even if they are well-intentioned. There have always been those who hate us and seek to damage us -- whether it is fascists, communists, or Islamic fundamentalists. That isn't justification to overstep the system which our forefathers set up. I don't believe that coverups, torture, and restricting of our traditional freedoms are necessary or even helpful to safeguarding America. There are many nominally democratic governments which are riddled with corruption and do terrible things in secret -- because it isn't enough for the people to be able to vote. Without information, the people cannot make valid decisions about who they are voting for.

Posted by: jhkim at December 16, 2005 03:07 PM (hrd7S)

15 I spent more than 36 years as an employee of the National Security Agency, and this revelation by the traitors at the New York Times has me so upset that I cannot see straight. These so-called journalists should be treated in the same way I would have been if I had leaked classified information to the public. I would have been living out the rest of my life in prison - or I could have been executed for treason. Are these people so stupid as to not realize the damage this is doing to our efforts to combat and contain terrorism? No. They are more concerned with the story and their own financial position than in the security of their own country. Hang Them High!

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 16, 2005 03:18 PM (AaKND)

16 I agree with Retired Spy, isnt this a case of the Left Wing trying to do anything in their power to turn the attention away from the successful Iraqi elections. We can argue about this til we are all blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact the this was classified information and it has been released out like it was the morning news. There are reasons things are classified and for those who serve or have served we know why. I try to understand the whole freedoms that the left pushes but what I cant get over is you cant have freedom without responsibility and leaking classified material is not responsible. Someone has to say enough is enough

Posted by: 81 at December 16, 2005 03:28 PM (JYeBJ)

17 In that regard, 81, the Left Wing and the mainstream media are pretty much joined at the hip. If there is anything that can be used to discredit Bush and the Republicans, they'll do it. Damn the consequences. And there are still those who choose to show the number of deaths in Iraq since the invasion to be more than 100,000, regardless of the flawed methods used to arrive at those figures. Truth be damned. Get Bush!

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 16, 2005 03:39 PM (AaKND)

18 The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use? That ACLU?

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 16, 2005 05:22 PM (3StSI)

19 I try to understand the whole freedoms that the left pushes but what I cant get over is you cant have freedom without responsibility and leaking classified material is not responsible. Someone has to say enough is enough Perhaps we on the left might take your argument a bot more seriously if you weren't so eager to excuse Bush and his handlers' exposure of a CIA agent. The point you're studiously attempting ignore, however, is that this administration is breaking the law and essentially crapping all over the Constitution and BoR you profess such reverence for.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 16, 2005 06:15 PM (sskuV)

20 The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights. Our enemies overseas know what is going on. The bad guys here know what is going on. US citizens do not. Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 16, 2005 06:22 PM (3StSI)

21 Well, Jadegold, would you care to cite some specific examples of where the Bush Administration is "crapping on the Constitution and BoR" in some detail? Also, what PROOF do you have that the exposure of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak came from someone inside the WH? Isn't it interesting to note, for example, that her self-serving, egotistical husband provided information to Walter Pincus and David Corn BEFORE Novak wrote about it in the NYT??? Who really "outed" whom, Sir?

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 16, 2005 06:36 PM (AaKND)

22 would you care to cite some specific examples of where the Bush Administration is "crapping on the Constitution and BoR" in some detail? Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Essentially, your President has authorized federal agencies to break the law and violate the civil rights of US citizens at will. Look, Bush swore an oath to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." When he issues EOs that permit federal agencies to toss out parts of the BoR, he is in violation of his oath of office. Also, what PROOF do you have that the exposure of Valerie Plame to Bob Novak came from someone inside the WH? Let's see--Novak has said that's the case. Various reporters who testified before the GJ said the same. Fitzgerald, in his comments after the Libby indictment, has asserted the same. Now, you can choose to believe Amb. Wilson or David Corn actually revealed the classified info but they aren't mentioned in any of Fitzgerald's comments.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 16, 2005 07:23 PM (sskuV)

23 You are still making blanket statements without supporting evidence or detail, Jadegold. "Ever hear of the 4th Amendment? Essentially, your President has authorized federal agencies to break the law and violate the civil rights of US citizens at will." Fine. Be specific. "Look, Bush swore an oath to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." When he issues EOs that permit federal agencies to toss out parts of the BoR, he is in violation of his oath of office." As in authorizing the NSA to monitor communications and emails of terrorists outside the U.S. and suspected terrorist sympathizers inside the U.S. to help keep your butt from being fried next time? Be specific as to HOW he has violated his oath of office. Also, show me a Bob Novak quote and the proper attribution to where he stated that someone inside the WH was THE ORIGINAL source. Classified info can be simply CONFIDENTIAL or FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Fitzgerald did not specify. In fact, there were a number of things Fitz overlooked. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 16, 2005 07:43 PM (AaKND)

24 Once more for jadegold; DOES A TERRORIST (CITIZEN OF NOT) HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WITHIN WHICH TO PLAN TO EXPLODE A NUCLEAR DEVICE IN NEW YORK OR ANY OTHER US CITY?

Posted by: Old Soldier at December 16, 2005 09:03 PM (9ABza)

25 RS: You really don't know what the 4th Amendment says? Google is your friend. 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' Let's be clear as to what your President's EO did. It permits federal agencies to spy on US citizens without warrants and without cause. You're also obfuscating by attempting to claim or FOUO material can be divulged inappropriately without penalty. I suggest you review applicable CM documentation.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 16, 2005 09:25 PM (sskuV)

26 The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Source It does not violate the Fourth Amendment, nor even come close. They could care less about your midget porn or basement pot farm.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 16, 2005 09:34 PM (0fZB6)

27 The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use? That ACLU? I was thinking of the ACLU that defends NAMBLA and has an almost pathological phobia about Christianity. Just because the ACLU paid some cursory "lip service" to Limbaugh's legal troubles doesn't mean anything. Another weak attempt to set up a strawman... The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights. Why did the NY Times sit on the story for so long if "ourgovrnment" was "actively circumventing our rights"? Are you suggesting that the NY Times is a tool for the Bush administration? Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt. You forgot to mention the biological abominations known as Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys! (Genetically manufactured by Halliburton and funded by Iraqi oil profits) A paranoid liberal moonbat conspiracy theory just doesn't "cut it" unless includes Rove's Flying Monkey Minions. I guess you didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org... *guffaw*

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 17, 2005 03:07 AM (iAa89)

28 Old Soldier: Your question contains a false premise; in this country, there are concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process. At least, there used to be. Apparently, you seem to believe the Govt. should be permitted to identify you as a criminal without cause and should be granted carte blanche powers to attempt to make that case. By your logic, your political masters--like Tom DeLay and Lewis Libbey--should be incarcerated as the Govt. uses its massive resources to make a criminal case(s) without regard for DeLay's or Libbey's constitutional rights. Ask yourself: should the Govt. be permitted to tap your phone, monitor all your communications and mail, search your records, etc. without cause?

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 08:32 AM (sskuV)

29 So, Jadegold, it seems you are only capable of launching attacks with empty accusations and paranoid conclusions about the government singling you out as a criminal. You did not answer CY's statement on what the real authorized rules and regulations are ubder FISA, nor did you specify any actual laws the president circumvented or which items in the oath of office he violated. You did not show us proof of exactly where Bob Novak obtained the original information on Valerie Plame either. As for classifications I noted, no one said that the leaking of classified information should go without penalties, but leaking questionably valuable information at the FOUO or confidential levels - IF the identity of Valerie Plame was even that important - does not warrant the sort of witch hunt and hysteria or penalties that the Left seems to be seeking through the SP and the GJ. You refer to the president as my president or our president, meaning, I assume, a president for the GOP only. If you are an American he is your president too. That is what a democratic process is all about. He was duly elected by the majority. If you don't like that process or disagree with it, go elsewhere with your pathetic comments. You're really not very good at this, are you?

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 09:19 AM (AaKND)

30 RS: I did not answer CY's question because I didn't believe it was directed at me. CY noted FISA warrants; the EO your President implemented extends far past FISA. Obtaining a FISA warrant is extremely quick and virtually pro forma; IIRC, only 1 request for a FISA warrant has been rejected in the past 6-7 years. Yet, your President's EO doesn't even require the minimum oversight and scrutiny of a FISA warrant. It empowers federal agencies to conduct eavesdropping and other violations of civil rights without cause. WRT your defense of the disclosure of classified information--you simply don't know what you're talking about. You intimate some nefarious conspiracy on the part of shadowy leftwingers and Pat Fitzgerald--yet you furnish no proof. In reality, the known facts militate against your conspiracy theory. Fact: the CIA referred the case to DoJ because the agency suspected a crime had been committed. Fact: Fitzgerald has noted Plame's status at the agency was classified and illegally divulged. Fact: Novak (and other witnesses) have testified--under oath--they learned of Plame's status from 'Senior Admin Officials.' Fact: the indictment against Libbey notes Libbey was actively promulagating Plame's status to reporters. The indictment also notes Libbey learned of Plame from Cheney. I'd suggest you're letting down your side, RS.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 09:33 AM (sskuV)

31 You are wrong again! It can take as long as 6 months to get a warrant. The oversight judge was well aware of this EO, and key members of Congress were advised. As CY noted, the EO did not violate standing laws. The president did not violate his oath of office either. You know nothing about how the Intelligence gathering and processing and evaluation process works. I guess if Bin Laden was in contact with an American al-Qaeda operative and there was a threat of an attack in your neighborhood you would rather protect the operative's privacy than your sorry butt? You would be crying and ranting and raving about how Bush failed you. Are you a graduate of the Michael Moore Academy for idiotic reasoning? And then there is the matter of your psychological projection. You claim that I am intimating some "nefarious conspiracy on the part of shadowy leftwingers and Pat Fitzgerald." I did no such thing. Are you paying attention here? YOU ARE THE ONE making all the accusations to suggest that the president is out to take away YOUR liberties and invade your privacy. You are the one making accusations about conspiracies. Do you understand what paranoia really means? You also assert that I don't know what I am talking about with regard to classified information. Duh! I lived and breathed it for 36 years, Donk. Where is your expertise? When you cite quotations, by the way, cite the complete quotation.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 10:39 AM (AaKND)

32 Sorry, RS, you're still not telling the truth. WRT FISA warrants, they are extremely quick to obtain--in fact, FISA was set up specifically to ensure warrants were speedily obtained. Further, FISA warrants can be obtained retroactively; IOW, an agency can begin immediate surveillance on an emergency basis--without a warrant--so long as an application for the FISA warrnt is made within 72 hours. So--you're essentially making things up as you go along. Frankly, I've caught you on more than one occasion plainly misstating and misrepresenting both intelligence matters and the handling of classified info. Perhaps you do have 36 years at NSA--but it looks like it was as a line cook at the cafeteria at Ft. Meade.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 01:18 PM (sskuV)

33 The same ACLU that took up the defense of Rush Limbaugh in his court battles over his medical records pertaining to his drug use? That ACLU? I was thinking of the ACLU that defends NAMBLA and has an almost pathological phobia about Christianity. Just because the ACLU paid some cursory "lip service" to Limbaugh's legal troubles doesn't mean anything. Another weak attempt to set up a strawman... Actually the strawman is the Nambla case. One state chapter (Mass.) involved in a case which actually has repercussions for anyone interested in our rights. The White House asked the NY Times not to run the story not because of 'national security' concerns but rather because they (the White House) had rather US citizens not know that ourgovernment is actively circumventing our rights. Why did the NY Times sit on the story for so long if "ourgovrnment" was "actively circumventing our rights"? Unlike such as Fox and the Washington Times the NY Times often spends a great deal of time corroborating their stories before publishing and/or broadcasting. Sort of old-fashioned but good for we who read the paper. Are you suggesting that the NY Times is a tool for the Bush administration? Hardly. They have a full toolchest already. Its extremely unlikely the NY Times report will jeopardize any investigations of alleged terrorists but it will alert regular citizens to the degree with which the Bushies hold the constitution and the laws of the land in utter contempt. You forgot to mention the biological abominations known as Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys! (Genetically manufactured by Halliburton and funded by Iraqi oil profits) A paranoid liberal moonbat conspiracy theory just doesn't "cut it" unless includes Rove's Flying Monkey Minions. Guess that conspiracy explains the failure of the 'Patriot Act' huh? The senate has finally figured out the Bush adminstration commitment to our rights as citizens. That there isn't one. I guess you didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org... *guffaw* Don't visit moveon.org. Nor do I receive their email. Sorry pal.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 17, 2005 02:27 PM (3StSI)

34 You continue to show your ignorance, Jadegold. I am pleased to see, however, that you ARE able to read the basic middle-school-level text of the FISA provisions - even though you ARE paranoid and delusional, and you project your own psychological maladies on others as a defense mechanism. Are you under professional care? You may want to get on that soon. Once again, where is YOUR expertise? You have not caught me or anyone else misstating or misrepresenting either Intelligence matters or the handling of classified information. If anyone is making things up along the way it is you. You just accuse, but to most with an IQ above room temperature, you just amuse ... Maybe you should go back to some of those liberal blogs for inspiration. You can all sit around and stroke one anothers' egos - or whatever.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 02:38 PM (AaKND)

35 Wow. What is it that makes America great to you? "If you dont have anything to hide, you dont have anything to worry about?" Have none of you read any of the writings of our founding fathers? With regard to the comment about how American will never become a police state, have none of you seen the wide discretion given to the police when they shoot a citizen versus what happens to a citizen when the police break into a citizen's house? Take some time to read about Cory Maye being on death row when the police broke into his house. But, apparently, none of you care about that. Let the government do whatever it wants to do because none of you think that the government would be interested in you. That sounds like a great rationale to allow the government to have unreviewable power to act in secret. What rights were you protected when you served our country?

Posted by: will at December 17, 2005 03:55 PM (zh3MG)

36 RS: To review, I've furnished you with fact after fact. To date, all you've offered is some ad hominem attacks and a rather cloudy assertion that shadowy leftwingers are in cahoots with a dim and/or corrupt Pat Fitzgerald. You've also suggested that FOUO material is classified material. It isn't; in fact, FOUO material is defined as material that hasn't (doesn't meet classification criteria) a security classification but is controlled material whose disclosure could cause foreseeable harm. Pat Fitzgerald understands the distinction while you can only bluster about your 36 years of experience as Jethro Bodine-Secret Agent. Further, you've suggested the disclosure of classified or FOUO information doesn't warrant investigation because you've abitrarily deemed it "questionably valuable." Again, a quick review of any security manual will reveal two things: 1. it ain't up to you to decide what's sensitive and what isn't; and 2. the penalties for improperly disclosing classified material isn't based on your opinions.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 05:02 PM (sskuV)

37 FISA warrants - in practice not theory - take as long as six months to obtain. That is a fact stated by Mark Levin, a well-respected legal scholar and lawyer who knows quite a bit about such things. That is simply the disconnect between how things are, and how things are meant to be. President Bush recognized this bottleneck and issued more than 3 dozen specific executive orders to the NSA to monitor specific subjects with specific ties to terrorism. He did not authorize wide-ranging, generalized demoestic spying as you have consistantly and hysterically misrepresented. Senators, including Senate Minority leader Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller were appraised of these specific uses of these exectuve orders more than a dozen times. Congressional leaders were appraised as well. None of them will talk, perhaps because they understand how important these executive orders are to on-going investigations. The courts were also notified, and every order was individually reviewed for legality by White House council before Bush reviewed and signed it. I'm sorry, Jadegold. but your paranoia-and-Google-based arguments avoid logic and readily available facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 05:18 PM (0fZB6)

38 Just to cite a couple of your lame quotes again, Jadegold: "a rather cloudy assertion that shadowy leftwingers are in cahoots with a dim and/or corrupt Pat Fitzgerald" Another clear example of your being delusional and paranoid. No such assertions were ever made by me or anyone else. "Further, you've suggested the disclosure of classified or FOUO information doesn't warrant investigation because you've abitrarily deemed it "questionably valuable."" My exact quote was the phrase, "IF the identity of Valerie Plame was even that important" I was not judging anything; I was questioning the importance of that information to national security. "the penalties for improperly disclosing classified material isn't based on your opinions." Once again, no one even implied that my opinions influenced anything with regard to the application of U.S. Statutes. You were not on the debating team, were you?

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 07:34 PM (AaKND)

39 First, Mark Levin isn't a widely-respected legal scholar; he's a rightwing pundit who makes a living as a talkshow host. If he's the best you have, CY, you haven't got much. It's rather like citing Rush Limbaugh as an expert on drug policy. Second, the current FISA warrants are rapidly obtained; what's more, a federal agency can obtain a FISA warrant retroactively allowing that agency to begin surveillance instantly. Additionally, FISA warrants are almost automatic--prior to 2001, out of over 14,000 requests for such warrants, only 5 were rejected. It should be noted a majority of these FISA warrant requests were found to be based on false or groundless information. Yet, this isn't enough for your King President. Now, there is no oversight whatsoever.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 07:36 PM (sskuV)

40 Mark Levin was Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States and is one of this nation's top constitutional law experts. Nice try.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 07:41 PM (0fZB6)

41 Chief of Staff is an administrative position. Nice try.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 07:49 PM (sskuV)

42 Also, CY, I'd take issue that Levin is a top Constitutional scholar. After all, Levin once wrote a book about how the Supreme Court was destroying America. It begs credulity to suggest someone who wrote "Men In Black: How The Supreme Court Is Destroying America" is a Constitutional scholar since the premise of his book is that the Supreme Court should be abolished.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 07:58 PM (sskuV)

43 Did you bother, at all, Jadegold, to listen to the president's explanation today? Or do facts cloud your ability to follow your leftist agenda? “Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used ‘consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution.’ He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have ‘a clear link’ to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.” PROVE the president wrong, Donk .... As CY seems to have implied already, googling information for your flimsy talking points is not evidence of exhaustive scholarly research.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 08:01 PM (AaKND)

44 The book you cite, Jadegold, did not imply or recommend that the Supreme Court should be abolished. That is just more of your own fabrication and distortion of fact. Levin is definitely conservative when it comes to constitutional law. He would like to see strict adherence to interpretation of the Constitution - not to have judges legislate from the Bench as they did with Roe v. Wade. Congress legislates; The Supreme Court interprets law and precedent.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 08:12 PM (AaKND)

45 Your President is a liar, RS. Did you really expect him to come out today and say, "Yeah, the actions I took concerning spying on US citizens is illegal and unconstitutional but I think we really need to do it to fight terrorism'? Of course not. And it doesn't address the central argument--we currently have laws on the books that permit federal agencies to obtain warrants quickly and retroactively, if need be. We also know these warrants are almost always granted no matter how flimsy the case. Yet, for your President, this wasn't enough. Why? Given the fact your President has already allowed the disclosure of an intelligence agent's classified status for the purely political purpose of silencing a critic--does it not seem reasonable your President might also lie about why he thinks violating the US Constitution is necessary?

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 08:14 PM (sskuV)

46 RS: The book in question is as I described it. If you wish to go off on a tangent about Levin's qualifications as a "Constitutional scholar," I'd be pleased to do so. It's pretty amazing that even very conservative legal scholars think Levin's book is crapola. Again, if Levin is the Constitutional scholar you claim--why isn't he some high-powered lawyer arguing before the SC or a widely-respected law school prof. Both are pretty well-paid jobs compared to Levin's rather spotty and poorly-rated radio talkshow duties.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 08:26 PM (sskuV)

47 Correction WRT FISA warrant rejections: According to this website only 4 applications for FISA warrants have been rejected from 1979 to 2004.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 08:47 PM (sskuV)

48 You are really as dumb and as intellectually impotent as a box of stones, GreenGeld. You are beyond the far left fringe of reasoned discussion. You just go ahead and google to get your rocks off. Maybe you can't get off any other way. Don't care. I don't intend to engage in any more discussions with someone so vacant and biased against the rights and responsibilities of the president. You do not have respect for anything - surely not for yourself - because you are no more than an empty shell. Hopefully, others will join in this refusal to engage in intellictual combat with someone so poorly armed.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 17, 2005 09:22 PM (AaKND)

49 "Intellictual combat," RS? Look, if you're going to use hackneyed insults to mask your retreat--at least spell them correctly. Slink away and enjoy what little remains of your civil liberties.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 17, 2005 09:32 PM (sskuV)

50 You're so weak that you have to rely one someone's typographical errors to make you feel like a "man." Retired Spy is right. You are a weakling. I would be willing to bet that you are not man enough to call our president a liar face-to-face with anyone commenting in these exchanges. Someone might just break your neck.

Posted by: Moshe at December 17, 2005 10:50 PM (AaKND)

51 Moshe, JadeGold does have logic problems, but please, let's not stoop to threats. You're better than that, I think.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 17, 2005 11:16 PM (0fZB6)

52 NY Times: "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." You: "Some, but not all." No offense, but do you really still trust the Bush administration when it comes to Americans' access to information? In case you haven't seen this story, a UMass student was questioned by Homeland Security recently for reading Mao's "Little Red Book." He was writing a paper for a class about fascism and totalitarianism. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

Posted by: Thad Anderson at December 18, 2005 01:58 AM (D8zf2)

53 Indeed, CY. Jadegold does have logic problems. He also has problems with respect for the President of the United States and the majority of Americans who voted for him. I do not need to communicate with this sort of person. He does not debate issues with factual data. He attacks with insults and innuendo.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 18, 2005 09:01 AM (AaKND)

54 Shorter RS: Jadegold uses facts; it's unfair to us conspiracy theorists. That aside, it is refreshing to note the rightwingers haven't lost their typical tactics of threatening violence when their lies are exposed to daylight.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 18, 2005 09:06 AM (sskuV)

55 Jadegold: That aside, it is refreshing to note the rightwingers haven't lost their typical tactics of threatening violence when their lies are exposed to daylight. You exposed no lies. You just made accusations without evidence. I made no threats to you. I merely assumed that there might be someone who would like to break your neck. The statement I made was "Someone might just break your neck." I, for one, cannot imagine anyone who would waste their time and energy. You are too much of a weakling - as I noted earlier - hiding behind a computer monitor, given courage by items du jour that you find through google. You're a pathetic example of an American when you insult the Office of President of the United States and the American public with your conspiracy theory nonsense.

Posted by: Moshe at December 18, 2005 11:55 AM (AaKND)

56 Moshe: You refer to me as a 'weakling,' yet you continue to hide behind veiled threats of violence by asserting some unnamed others might wish to do me harm. Be a man and step up; don't be like your President who decided the National Guard billet his father obtained for him took too much time away from his drinking responsibilities and failed to fulfill his commitment.

Posted by: Jadegold at December 18, 2005 12:18 PM (sskuV)

57 Y-A-W-N .... Just some more ludicrous accusations without substance. I agree with Retired Spy. Discussion with the likes of you a waste of energy. Ciao to "Chicken Little" [AKA, Jadegold]

Posted by: Moshe at December 18, 2005 12:43 PM (AaKND)

58 I know demolishing JadeGold is amusing, but I've had enough of his (her?) paranoia, delusions, and slurs. He (she?) has been banned. Thad, I took the time to read your link, and you didn't exactly bother to tell the whole story, did you? There are thousands of books on communism and fascism, Marxism, etc., read by tens of thousands of college students every week, without any visits by authorities. It turns out that the student in question has spent considerable time in foreign countries, and I'd be willing to bet that who this student was in contact with overseas raised the attention of authorities. It was his overall pattern of behavior that triggered the visit, not an interlibrary loan. The loan was simply an excuse, in my opinion, to tweak a suspect, to see how he would respond.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 18, 2005 01:05 PM (0fZB6)

59 No, I did read the entire article . . . and your willingness to guess wildly about what else happened is irrelevant. When was spending time in foreign countries prohibited? Or when was spending time in foreign countries, in combination with researching about communism for a class on totalitarianism, prohibited?

Posted by: Thad Anderson at December 18, 2005 04:35 PM (D8zf2)

60 No one said these things were "prohibited," Thad. A combination of factors makes the profile of interest, however. I don't believe that HLS officials broke down any doors or threatened anyone, nor was anyone tortured or even detained. I surely do not have anything to hide either. Come on down, HLS! I believe it is just one of those small inconveniences that I am willing to live with in an effort to protect you and me and millions of others from more terrorist attacks. Lighten up on the police state paranoia, please. The objective is to protect us all from harm.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 18, 2005 04:55 PM (AaKND)

61 All Things Beautiful TrackBack 'The President's Week From Hell': "I hate to say this, but are you waiting for another disaster to strike, just so that you can stop repeating how "nothing has happened in the last four years"? I suggest you thank God first and our President second for that, and not your pet Islamofascists for lack of trying. The list of attempts in that period is all too clear."

Posted by: Alexandra at December 19, 2005 03:03 AM (9JKJs)

62 Actually the strawman is the Nambla case. One state chapter (Mass.) involved in a case which actually has repercussions for anyone interested in our rights. Wrong. The ACLU represents NAMBLA in all it's legal defense dealings to this day. The only reprecussions the ACLU is trying to prevent is against anyone "interested in" sodomizing a child. Unlike such as Fox and the Washington Times the NY Times often spends a great deal of time corroborating their stories before publishing and/or broadcasting. Sort of old-fashioned but good for we who read the paper. "Corroberating their stories"? From the Jayson Blair fiasco to the totally fabricated "Forged ballots from Iran" story of last week, the last thing the NY Slimes does is "corroberate" their fairy tales er, stories. Hardly. They have a full toolchest already. Spoken like a true (and laughably paranoid) liberal moonbat. Watch the skies Artie! Rove's flying Monkeys are coming for you! Guess that conspiracy explains the failure of the 'Patriot Act' huh? The senate has finally figured out the Bush adminstration commitment to our rights as citizens. That there isn't one. The Patriot Act will get a "makeover" with a few tweaks to fool er, satisfy the "more paranoid" of citizens (who happen to see government spooks and wiretaps under every rock and around every corner) and get approved early next year. This was just political grandstanding by the democrats and RINOS for the 2006 election. Don't visit moveon.org. Nor do I receive their email. Sorry pal. Yeah right. Just like you're not a "liberal", you're a "progressive". Nice try moron er, pal.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 19, 2005 06:11 AM (iAa89)

63 What I don't understand ( forgive if someone's already mentioned this, i might have forgotten amongst all of these posts) is why people talk as if the information regarding the NSA's program is useful to the terrorists. People talk as if the terrorists had no idea the government of the world's only remaining superpower would be attempting to wiretap them.

Posted by: Rick at December 19, 2005 05:20 PM (PunzK)

64 What I don't understand ( forgive if someone's already mentioned this, i might have forgotten amongst all of these posts) is why people talk as if the information regarding the NSA's program is useful to the terrorists. People talk as if the terrorists had no idea the government of the world's only remaining superpower would be attempting to wiretap them. Posted by Rick at December 19, 2005 05:20 PM Bingo. The bad guys know they are at risk anytime, anywhere. It's the rest of us at peril when little bits like habeas corpus and this NSA spying on US citizens without a court order.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 19, 2005 07:29 PM (ZVJnb)

65 It's the rest of us at peril when little bits like habeas corpus and this NSA spying on US citizens without a court order. A bit melodramatic, don't you think? To quote CY from an earlier comment: "They could care less about your midget porn or basement pot farm."

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 20, 2005 12:52 AM (iAa89)

66 That CY is ready to hand over his rights as a US citizen certainly doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 20, 2005 10:20 AM (ZVJnb)

67 Arthur Stone: Could it be that you are totally paranoid? Rhetorical question because the answer is self-evident. Stay tuned, Donk. The real legal scholars have something just for you. You'll probably want your liberals in Congress to take measures to amend the Constitution to lessen the powers of the president as Commander in Chief. This, of course, is after they attempt to file Articles of Impeachment against Bush. First things first, right? Ain't gonna happen, Pal.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 11:34 AM (AaKND)

68 ArthurStone, it may come as a shock to you, but your breathless hyperbole doesn't impress anyone very much. The President's NSA executive order has been reviewed multiple times by two Attorney's General for compliance with applicable U.S. laws, and has been throughly reviewed by the best lawyers of the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Security Administration, White House Counsel, and the two presiding judges of the FISA Court itself. In contrast, its other detractors and supporters are responding and pondering about an executive order that they have not seen, nor, do to natioanl security concerns, are they likely to see. Congress is probably going to be getting a very discouraging lesson in Constitutional law before all is said and done, and the Democrats are going to be exposed once more as nearly incompetent to handle defense matters. No wonder Bush was smiling and joking yesterday. He already knows through extensive legal review that he is in the right, and that the Democrats are setting the stage to hand over the '06 elections, lock, stock and barrel.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 20, 2005 11:47 AM (g5Nba)

69 The president was laughing and joking yesterday because he's too dim to do anything else. Still, that the AG told George this would be okay isn't quite enough. Gonzalez does what he's told. Likewise handpicked attorneys who will tell the president what he wants to hear is anything but 'extensive legal review'. But thanks for getting to the point of the whole exercise in this particular expansion of the office of the president, politics. Wonder if you would be so gung ho if a Demo put forward such an order. We know the answer.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 20, 2005 01:01 PM (3StSI)

70 So the Justice Department, the NSA, and even the FISA court itself is all in cahoots to circumvent FISA? Thanks for establishing your position, Authur, as someone very long on accusation, and terribly short of facts or logic. If you understand Article II of the Constitution even a little, you will recognize that Bush is not expanding President powers, merely claiming those he already has, and in fact the exact same rights claimed by previous presidents. You ask if we'd be so "gung-ho" if a Democratic President put forth such and order. He did. His name was Bill Clinton. "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." But please keep making your outlandish claims. Rachet up the BDS and the paranoia to outrageous levels. Build a drive for impeachment. With folks like you proving why today's Democrats are completely incompetent to protect American lives, 2006 is going to be hard to lose.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 20, 2005 01:45 PM (g5Nba)

71 Thank you, CY, for the additional clarifications. It is patently obvious that those yelling the loudest from the Left - and some from the Right too - have never actually read the Act (FISA) itself. If they had they would know that section 1802 permits the president to order warrantless Intelligence surveillance operations with approval/authorization by the United States Attorney General. Arthur Stone does not know the Law or the constitutional powers of the president under Article 2. Too many people are dead set on being 'Stuck on Stupid', and it will drag the Democratic Party even further into an abyss. That is fine with me ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 02:21 PM (AaKND)

72 When in doubt blame Clinton. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00: IÂ’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security AgencyÂ… There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. The Clinton Administration sought and got FISA warrents when they were required.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 20, 2005 03:29 PM (3StSI)

73 Son, is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you purposefully being obtuse? Gorelick (correctly) testified that the President's foreign intelligence responsibilities mean that their is no obligation to obtain a warrant for related searches. Yes, Clinton got FISA warrants, but he specifically iterated the right to conduct warrantless search as needed by involking the inherent authority of the office of the President as enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and provided for by Executive Order 12333.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 20, 2005 04:15 PM (g5Nba)

74 April 20, 2004 the President said: '... ...there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." To reiterate. The White House problem with the NY Times running the story on the warrant-less searches had nothing to do with nat'l security and everything to do with the president being caught out in yet another lie in the seemingly endless stream of lies which distinguish the entire Iraq/'War on Terror' balls up. Bush told us he was seeking court orders for wiretaps when in fact he was not.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 20, 2005 06:27 PM (3StSI)

75 Arthur Stone: You are most definitely 'Stuck on Stupid,' aren't you? The Intelligence Surveillance authorized by President Bush and performed by the NSA are electronic surveillance operations. They are not wire taps, per se, Sir. Can't you get that through your thick skull? The FBI does wire taps. You are mixing the NSA - a Department of Defense Intelligence gathering entity that does not normally perform surveillance (certainly not wiretaps) inside the confines of the United States or its territories with the FBI - a Department of Justice entity that DOES perform such operations. The NSA can perform surveillance of international communications entities outside the United States via satellite collection. If collection targets transmissions originating in Afghanistan, for example, and the communications involve two-way duplexing with an entity in the United States, no laws have been broken. It is obvious that you do not have a clue as to how all this works, nor do you understand the Constitution, the Patriot Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Are you in middle school or high school? If not you could fool me!

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 10:08 PM (AaKND)

76 Arthur Stone: I found the reference you quoted, and you managed to take that quote completely out of context. The president was discussing the Patriot Act - not the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or the NSA. The president was referring to wiretaps in the context of FBI operations. With wiretaps there DO have to be warrants issued because the operations involve tapping physical entities inside the United States or its territories. So, Mr. Stone, when you made the statement, "Bush told us he was seeking court orders for wiretaps when in fact he was not," you were mixing apples and oranges. He is required to seek court orders for physical wiretaps for most domestic FBI operations. He is not required to seek court orders or warrants to perform "foreign Intelligence" operations against international communications. Give it up. You are losing this one too.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 11:23 PM (AaKND)

77 There seems to be a number of constant posters on this subject. But those of us who are new generally come to hear about the rationales and philosophies behind these opposing viewpoints. No of you on opposite sides of the political spectrum never agree on anything as it is, so why not? Let's having the arguments and facets of this debate brought to the forefront.

Posted by: Rick at December 21, 2005 12:47 AM (PunzK)

78 The president was talking about a range of intelligence gathering activities which include but are not limited to wiretaps. He goes on to stress that such activities would be undertaken in a legal, above board manner. Clearly they have not been which explains his unhappiness with the NY Times. Again, the Times story, contrary to the spin from the White House, bought hook line and sinker by CY and a great many others on this thread, is that to print such a story would reveal our intelligence gathering abilities and 'aid our enemies.' Nonsense. Printing the story is politically embarassing to the president and underscores his inability to convey anything like the truth regarding his 'war on terror.' And your confidence aside, others will decide if laws have been broken. It isn't up to you Geriatric Spy.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 21, 2005 01:17 AM (ZVJnb)

79 Looks like ArthurStoned is going to cling to this latest non-story no matter how idiotic it makes him look. And your confidence aside, others will decide if laws have been broken. It isn't up to you Geriatric Spy. I hate to break it to you Artie, but it isn't up to you either. Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 21, 2005 04:16 AM (iAa89)

80 I rather like that title. It implies wisdom and maturity - something sorely lacking in "Artie." We'll see if Artie comes out from beneath the rocks and pond scum when the Supreme Court, if necessary, rules that President Bush was really trying to protect Artie's sorry butt from being snuffed out by terrorists, and that he did so entirely in keeping with his duties, responsibilities and powers under the U.S. Constitution. Maybe he will just continue to hide like a scared rabbit - in a hole in the ground - like Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: "Geriatric" Spy at December 21, 2005 09:24 AM (AaKND)

81 Merry Christmas Geriatric Spy. Endless lying from the White House as a basis for policy. No clear strategy in Iraq. Cronyism and war profiteering rampant. Usurpation of our rights as US citizens. Not really saving my butt from being 'snuffed by the terrorists'. Sorry. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has hatched a brand new set of terrorists hell bent on snuffing all our butts. Mission Accomplished! Geriatric in your case doesn't suggest wisdom and maturity. Rather, ossification and sclerosis. But Happy Holidays! And Mr. Elephant Man, labelled an idiot by you and this crowd is a compliment. Thanks.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 21, 2005 10:46 AM (ZVJnb)

82 Maybe he will just continue to hide like a scared rabbit - in a hole in the ground - like Saddam Hussein. Hiding won't save Artie from Karl Rove's Flying Monkeys.(Genetically engineered by Halliburton) Those screeching and clawing noises coming down his chimney on Christmas Eve aren't going to be coming from Santa Claus... *guffaw*

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 21, 2005 10:51 AM (iAa89)

83 Endless lying from the White House as a basis for policy. No clear strategy in Iraq. Cronyism and war profiteering rampant. Usurpation of our rights as US citizens. More paranoid and ridiculous liberal moonbat "talking points" from Mr. Obtuse. Not really saving my butt from being 'snuffed by the terrorists'. Sorry. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has hatched a brand new set of terrorists hell bent on snuffing all our butts. Another idiotic and paranoid assertion. Artie must be some sort of liberal moonbat idiot savant, endlessly parroting the same things over and over. Another moron who believes that if you repeat the same crap long enough, it magically comes true. Mission Accomplished! Yes indeed. Our "mission" to goad you into painting yourself as a paranoid fool was certainly "accomplished". Geriatric in your case doesn't suggest wisdom and maturity. Rather, ossification and sclerosis. I see it took you about nine or so hours to come up with that "scathing" insult. Bravo. But Happy Holidays! and a Merry Christmas to you too! And Mr. Elephant Man, labelled an idiot by you and this crowd is a compliment. Seeing that everyone else has "labelled" you a deluded, paranoid, Kool-Aid drinking moron, I can see that merely being called an idiot could be construed as a "compliment". Thanks. you're welcome.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 21, 2005 11:11 AM (iAa89)

84 For a person who claims to work from logic and reason it certainly doesn't take much to get you into the name calling. Tisk. Tisk. The kool-aid thing was old twenty years ago and 'moron' is just feeble. But when you get time you might illuminate just what our Middle Eastern policy is. Inquiring minds need to know. And none of that 'spreading democracy' stuff. Mere talking point as you would put it. Happy Kwanzaa!

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 21, 2005 03:09 PM (3StSI)

85 For a person who claims to work from logic and reason it certainly doesn't take much to get you into the name calling. Looks like I struck a nerve. Tisk. Tisk. The kool-aid thing was old twenty years ago and 'moron' is just feeble. This coming from a person who actually typed "Tisk. Tisk" But when you get time you might illuminate just what our Middle Eastern policy is. Inquiring minds need to know. I might get around to it when I stop laughing at your hysterically paranoid delusions. And none of that 'spreading democracy' stuff. Mere talking point as you would put it. I suppose you would prefer that I echo your forays into paranoia and babble about "secret wiretaps", "cronyism", and "war profiteering"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You can't be serious. You've got to be a "satire troll". Nobody and I mean nobody can be so braindead as to actually believe the cliched tripe you've spewed all over this thread. That Artie, what jokester. For a minute there I actually thought he was serious about all that liberal moonbat pap he was spewing...

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 22, 2005 02:14 AM (iAa89)

86 Perfectly serious Elephant. And your name calling indicates which nerve was actually struck. And thanks for dodging my question regarding our Middle East 'policy'. Figures.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 22, 2005 10:30 AM (ZVJnb)

87 Perfectly serious Elephant. So you actually believe the paranoid crap you've been farting out on this thread. What a pathetic existence it must be where NRA spooks are hiding under every rock and "Chimpy Bushitler's minions" are out to "stifle your dissent". And your name calling indicates which nerve was actually struck. I'm not the one sniveling about it. Stop whining. And thanks for dodging my question regarding our Middle East 'policy'. You're welcome. Given your inane and cliched responses to CY and Retired Spy, answering your question would be a waste of time. Besides, it's more fun to prod you into huffing and puffing with hilariosly comical self-righteous indignation. Figures. No need to pout, Artie. It's not my fault nobody takes you seriously. You accomplished that on your own.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 23, 2005 06:26 AM (iAa89)

88 I think we were discussing NSA types but what the heck. NSA NRA, whatever eh? Lots of people take me seriously Pachyderm. Even you. Can't resist responding can you? Nice for you guys so used to scratching each others backs and whining about 'liberals' to have one turn up. Happy Hanukkah.

Posted by: ArthurStone at December 23, 2005 01:07 PM (3StSI)

89 Correction: That's supposed to be "NSA spooks". Why add another "boogyman" to Artie's repoitire of paranoia..... *guffaw*

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 23, 2005 01:12 PM (iAa89)

90 Actually, we do have NRA spooks, but that is the next scandal. Stop the personal attacks, folks, or I'll lock this thread.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 23, 2005 01:16 PM (0fZB6)

91 Sorry about that, CY. I'll leave Artie alone.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 23, 2005 01:37 PM (iAa89)

92 Almost forgot... Happy Festivus! *grin*

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 23, 2005 01:44 PM (iAa89)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Proud Members of the Democratic Party in Wilmington, NC
after murdering dozens of black Republicans in November, 1898.

Via the News and Observer, from Appendix N, page 2 (PDF) of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report released today:

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, there were several attacks by white mobs on prosperous black communities resulting in the killing of black citizens and the destruction of black homes and businesses . Most notable among these riots are the Danville, Virginia Riot of 1883, the New Orleans, Louisiana Riot of 1900, the Atlanta, Georgia Riot of 1906, the Rosewood, Florida Riot of 1923, and the Tulsa, Oklahoma Riot of 1925.

Although all of the above riots were devastating to their local black communities, the Wilmington Riot of 1898 was unique in America history.¹ In November, 1898, an organized white mob massacred an unknown number of black citizens in Wilmington and at gunpoint forced the resignation of most of the local municipal government. This riot represents a turning point in the history of riots by white mobs on blacks because it is the first time in American history that a legal democratically elected government was overthrown by a government recognized organization, the Democratic Party, with no response by federal or state government officials.

This inset map (PDF) shows where 42 blacks were cornered and cut down by murderous machine-gun wielding white mobs of the Democratic Party.

I can only assume this is what Cary Tennis has in mind for today's Republicans.

It is a good thing that these days people like Mr. Tennis no longer have the majority of the guns.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:50 PM | Comments (83) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Look, I hate to do this.

I really do.

But if I don't get a few, okay, a lot more votes by midnight tonight...

...well, I might just give Brady here to Glenn Reynolds.

Now we wouldn't want that, would we?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:03 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Look! I've voted for you every single day. Don't throw the puppy in the blender.

Posted by: David Earney at December 15, 2005 09:24 AM (1douf)

2 Doing what I can! I'll take Brady. No blender for him! Have you noticed that, in many cases, lefty blogs seem to be doing very well in the balloting? A little ballot stuffing, I bet.

Posted by: William Teach at December 15, 2005 10:12 AM (AkiXU)

3 OK I voted often and early, I almost feel like a Democrat.Now turn off the Puppy Blender and let Brady go!

Posted by: Joe at December 15, 2005 10:47 AM (WGcw3)

4 Turn off the blender. I've voted so much, I may need to put a 'd' behind my name.

Posted by: scgeecheegirl at December 15, 2005 02:15 PM (b3gbN)

5 CY, why do you even care about this crappy award? Do you get a million dollars if you win? No. Does it mean anything to anybody? No. Spend your time on better pursuits.

Posted by: Wayne at December 15, 2005 02:22 PM (3cJC/)

6 A millon dollars? No, but fourth place gets a really cool Spork. Or so I've been told...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 15, 2005 02:32 PM (g5Nba)

7 Wasn't trying to rain on your parade. I hope you win. I just meant that most of us don't judge a blog by the awards it has won, but for the content. I read you before the awards competition, will continue to read you when the dust settles. As long as the content is good, you will have readers.

Posted by: Wayne at December 15, 2005 04:20 PM (h2fcw)

8 As long as the content is good, you will have readers. I didn't realize I was in that much trouble... ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 15, 2005 04:22 PM (g5Nba)

9 That is the cutest puppy I have ever seen! Please don't give him to that evil man to blend up. I'll do ANYTHING YOU WANT. LOL Ok, Ok, those big, adorable eyes convinced me...the PUPPY'S eyes! Going to vote right now.

Posted by: Becky at December 15, 2005 05:51 PM (FVRa0)

10 Okay, okay! I've voted for you! Now put the puppy down and slowly back away.....

Posted by: lady redhawk at December 15, 2005 08:14 PM (YKzgN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Vincente Fox has been sampling product from the coyotes along the border again:

Mexican President Vicente Fox denounced as "disgraceful and shameful" on Wednesday a proposal to build a high-tech wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants.

Concerned about the huge numbers of illegal immigrants streaming across the border and worried it could be an entry point for terrorists, a U.S. lawmaker has proposed building two parallel steel and wire fences running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much.

Mexico has expressed indignation at the idea.

Fox, speaking in Tamaulipas state across the border from Texas, said such extreme security measures would violate immigrants' rights.

"The disgraceful and shameful construction of walls, the increasing enforcement of security systems and increasing violation of human rights and labor rights will not protect the economy of the United States," he said.

Immigrant's rights? I've got a news flash for you Vincente, coming into this country illegally is -- I'll type slow so you can hopefully get it -- i l l e g a l. Foreign nationals do not have the right to enter this country when and where they want, choosing to obey the laws they want, when and if it suits them.

Only Kennedys do that.

The fact that Fox would even back such an asinine argument also shows how shortsighted his leadership has become. By encouraging illegal immigration, Fox is encouraging the most motivated members of his society to leave the country.
That is not only stupid policy, but long-term cultural suicide.

If America wants to keep Mexico a strong and stable ally, we need Mexico to stay independent and viable on its own merits. Siphoning away it's most ambitious workers in not in Mexico's best interests, nor ours. For the long-term benefit of both countries, a solid border must be maintained, and that means developing walls.

Fox should brush up on his Robert Frost.

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

As the sun comes up over Mesopotamia this morning, an estimated fifteen million Iraqi voters will their select their own government and decide their own futures by ballot for the first time in history.

Pajamas Media, led by Iraq the Model will be providing first-hand, on-the ground coverage from eight Iraqi provinces.

As somebody said in the last couple of years, "Freedom is on the march."

And no, he wasn't a Democrat.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Necrophiliac:

Figuratively, the term "necrophilia" describes an inordinate desire to control another person, usually in the context of a romantic or interpersonal relationship; the accusation is that the person is so interpersonally controlling as to be better-suited to relationships with nonresponsive people...

...Virtually all human societies condemn abuse of the dead as a form of symbolic disrespect...

In the analytic social psychology of Erich Fromm necrophilia is a character orientation which shows an increasing tendency toward destructiveness.

Normal mothers don't use their children's graves for a photo op. Cindy... seek help. Now.

More at The Corner and Protein Wisdom.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:49 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Late last night, the NY Times decided to run a story alledging major ballot fraud on the eve of the Iraqi elections:

Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said.

The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border.

But there is one problem with the Times article... the single-sourced story appears to be totally false:

The head of Iraq's border guards denied police reports on Wednesday that a tanker truck stuffed with thousands of forged ballot papers had been seized crossing into Iraq from Iran before Thursday's elections.

"This is all a lie," said Lieutenant General Ahmed al-Khafaji, the chief of the U.S.-trained force which has responsibility for all Iraq's borders.

"I heard this yesterday and I checked all the border crossings right away. The borders are all closed anyway," he told Reuters.

Pinch... you have some explaining to do.

Note: Cross-posted to Newsbusters.org.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Not suprising, sad, but not suprising.

Posted by: scgeecheegirl at December 14, 2005 07:30 AM (JyQt4)

2 Good pickup, CY!

Posted by: William Teach at December 14, 2005 09:02 AM (AkiXU)

3 The loons at the DU are going nuts over this. CNN and the others have picked up on it, and haven't even said that it might be false. Fox News did a piece, and mentioned quietly that it it might be false. Even if it turns out to be true, I have to wonder why no one in the media or on the left is condemning Iran for meddling?

Posted by: William Teach at December 14, 2005 09:05 AM (AkiXU)

4 I am sure I saw film of the truck on Fox this morning.

Posted by: davod at December 14, 2005 09:57 AM (3r2Fq)

5 PPS: Brig Gen Steve Alston just said on Fox that they have been running around all day trying to substantiate the story, but, so far, nada.

Posted by: William Teach at December 14, 2005 09:57 AM (AkiXU)

6 The MSM and our democrat leaders - Kennedy,Kerry,Murtha have been trying for weeks to sabatoge the Iraqui elections. Let's hope they don't succeed and that Americans take note in OUR next elections.

Posted by: denise at December 14, 2005 10:46 AM (cMbjR)

7 All Things Beautiful TrackBack 'The New York Times Caught Out....Again': "The NYT fraudulently reported the story late last night alleging major ballot fraud on the eve of the Iraqi elections... "

Posted by: Alexandra at December 14, 2005 12:08 PM (9JKJs)

8 If this isn't true then it's another case of the lefty MSM trying, yet, again to discredit an Iraqi election. Those chumps don't have a clue that they are on the side of the Iranian gov't that would love nothing more than expand their country and create that super-Islamic state that I've heard alot about.

Posted by: Christie at December 14, 2005 12:08 PM (SuAdu)

9 This morning (14 December 05) NPR was reporting that the ministery said the story was not true BUT that the (who ever is in charge of the border) was still saying that the story is true.

Posted by: Lokki at December 14, 2005 12:21 PM (wSBsc)

10 What possibly could be wrong with the NY Times people? Everybody learned when they were little that lying was and is not smart so what are they thinking about? Yes before, they could and did get away with their nonsense but now in the day of the blogger -why don't they get it? Even Mary Mapes is learning- the hard way but she'll get it soon- Also Dan has learned - check the facts- is there a simpler rule? Do tell us what rule Pinch is using! Hmmmm very interesting! Pat Kennedy

Posted by: Pat Kennedy at December 14, 2005 01:03 PM (hcGhb)

11 REMEMBER THE NY TIMES IS NOT THE FIRST NOR THE LAST BIZ INSTITUTION TO PASS INTO OBLIVION FOR FAILURE TO DELIVER HONEST OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. OR A RELIABLE PRODUCT. DO IT ASAP.

Posted by: L. HYAK at December 14, 2005 01:38 PM (2dP9r)

12 Newspapers are reducing their subscription costs and still losing readers. And, we know why don't we? Say good-bye to the Pink Lady.

Posted by: Richard at December 14, 2005 02:06 PM (du3+W)

13 Freedom of speech has been a monumental achievement over the history of our type of self-government. So many have added to the human cost and effort to get here, and the MSM does not want to join in its' expression of liberty. Pravda had the same motivation didn't they. The difference is NYT and the others are on the outside now.

Posted by: Bill Browne at December 14, 2005 03:18 PM (Kxam6)

14 This has gotta be a mistake. There's no left-wing bias in the media. Is there?

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at December 14, 2005 03:59 PM (Ns5kk)

15 Mary Mapes must have been hired in liew of Jason Blair, to fabricate a lie about the fake Iraqi ballots. Or maybe the DemonRATS from Washington State planted the fake ballots--probably from dead people or convicts.

Posted by: Collins at December 14, 2005 04:02 PM (x/LOi)

16 *blink blink* ...Why is taken as a given that al-Khafaji is telling the truth? At best, it's unclear whether it happened, but the "single-sourced" denial is no more valid than the initial report.

Posted by: M at December 15, 2005 09:53 AM (J/rCS)

17 Ths story is true, only the facts were wrong -- that is, the ballots were misidentified. These were the military mail-in ballots that the Democrats barred from the Florida 2000 Presidential election. They are transported in tanker trucks because they are still too toxic for the Dems to handle and they hoped to dispose of them in Iraq election so that they could fraudulently declare it a fraud also.

Posted by: Random Maniyak at December 15, 2005 10:03 AM (oW92h)

18 M. wrote: the "single-sourced" denial is no more valid than the initial report. How so? The initial report was sourced to an unnamed official, whereas, the denial was sourced to an actual, identifiable person.

Posted by: Carter B. at December 15, 2005 12:02 PM (ZO0u/)

19 How so? The initial report was sourced to an unnamed official, whereas, the denial was sourced to an actual, identifiable person. Ah, yes. Because anonymous sources always lie, and named sources always tell the truth. *headslap* ... The disconnect here is staggering.

Posted by: M at December 15, 2005 12:09 PM (J/rCS)

20 Let me translate "M" for you: "I am far more willing to believe in a single anonymous un-named source, with zero physical supporting evidence, becuase it supports my political ideology." "AND CHIMPY MCHALLIBURTON LIED! FREE MURTHA! LONG LIVE HOWARD DEAN! ARRGGHHHH!!!!" What was that about a disconnect?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 15, 2005 12:43 PM (g5Nba)

21 CY's translation skills need work. I never said that the anonymous source had to be correct; you guys are the ones dealing in absolutes here. Since you're using a report that's disputed and less than entirely clear to bolster your own political ideology, I'd say your grasp of irony could use a tune-up as well. P.S. Nice of you to incorrectly assume that I'm a fan of Howard Dean. Paint with a broad brush much?

Posted by: M at December 15, 2005 02:36 PM (J/rCS)

22 The big joke is how amazingly few reporters there actually are in Iraq. Sure it's dangerous, particularly for white Americans, but come on! Reporters have had dangerous missions before. Deal with it and stop reporting gossip and rumor as fact. How much effort does it take to write another "many say Bush lied" or the "check out how Bush seems to deal with low approval ratings" article?

Posted by: neocat at December 16, 2005 11:11 AM (bXFZh)

23 Perhaps "M" would have been better off if he did his *headslap* after he pulled his foot out of his mouth......

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 16, 2005 12:13 PM (iAa89)

24 Q: Why is it good to have a Liberal passenger? A: You can park in the handicap zone.

Posted by: Wildandcrzyguy at December 26, 2005 07:03 PM (NqKrQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Update: Lieutenant General Ahmed al-Khafaji, the head of the Iraqi border police, denies that trucks carrying ballots were seized, noting that Iraq's borders have been closed in advance of the elections. The single-source NY Times article appears to be false.More here.

A truck carrying forged ballots have been caught trying to sneak across the Iranian border into Iraq on the eve of Iraqi elections.

Via the NY Times:

Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said.

The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border.

As the Times notes later in the article, the Iranians support two main Shiite political parties in Iraq - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party.

An Iraqi soldier gives the 'V' sign before voting in the national election, at Kirkush Military Training Base, northeast of Baghdad, December 12, 2005 Reuters

But it seems highly suspect that these forged ballots were actually intended to influence the outcome of the election. Kurd Sunni, and Shiite alike are very much influenced by clan and community loyalties, and large swings in voting in voting patterns would almost certainly be noted.

It seems for more likely that these ballots were intended to undermine the credibility of the Iraqi election in the eyes of international observers than influence its eventual outcome.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 3 kb.

Look, I know it's an honor just to be nominated, but come on...

Update: Bumped to top...

Update 2: Bumped. Ahem.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:12 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

It is fascinating to sometimes simply watch liberal bloggers in their "reality-based" environment, and how they reflexively strike out against anyone who would change the fragile balance of their self-imposed isolation, even if that change is minimal.

The absolutely incoherent frothing by many in response to this post Sunday by Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell is an excellent case in point.

Howell noted that the Washington Post newspaper and Washington Post.com (Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive, or WPNI) are two separate entities, and that White House reporters from the Washington Post are against WPNI writer Dan Froomkin's column being titled “White House Briefing” when he is not, in fact, a White House Reporter.

Howell writes:

Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter.

John Harris, national political editor at the print Post, said, "The title invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset -- our credibility" as objective news reporters. Froomkin writes the kind of column "that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display."

Harris is right; some readers do think Froomkin is a White House reporter. But Froomkin works only for the Web site and is very popular -- and Brady is not going to fool with that, though he is considering changing the column title and supplementing it with a conservative blogger.

Howell and Harris are of course correct. A columnist should never be confused with a reporter. By blurring that line, Froomkin's opinion column was intruding on the credibility of the Post's print journalists. Changing his column's name and recognizing the fact that his bias is left of center should not even be an issue. Adding a complementary conservative blogger to balance out WPNI's political blog coverage would seem to be an entirely justifiable move.

Yet liberal readers and bloggers created such a tempest in a teacup that Harris felt the need to clarify the Post's position once more:

Â…there is not really a debate: washingtonpost.com should change the name of his column to more accurately present the fact that this is Dan Froomkin's take on the news, not the observations of someone who is assigned by the paper to cover the news.

People in the newsroom want to end this confusionÂ…

In his comments, Dan pleads with reporters to stop complaining about him and start doing more to hold the White House accountable. The reporters on the Post's White House and political teams every day push through many obstacles and frustrations to do precisely this kind of accountability reporting--as I'm sure Dan would agree. But these are the very same reporters who are raising objections to "White House Briefing." The confusion about Dan's column unintentionally creates about the reporter's role has itself become an obstacle to our work.

Reporters should report the facts of the story as best they can, and columnists are free to state their opinion about what those facts mean. It seems to be a simple enough division to separate facts from opinion, but the left-side of the blogosphere is getting riled up all the same, including some people that should know better.

The usually sharp Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine completely misses the boat:

What a terrible insult and slap at a colleague who writes a very good, respected, and journalistic column for online. What a slap from a newsroom snot. But that is what newsrooms are like.

Jarvis is wrestling with a strawman, and losing; the argument isn't about whether or not print or online is better, it is about separating reporting from commentary. As off-focus as Jarvis is in this post, his commentary is still far more coherent than most of the liberal blogs.

Lean Left is absolutely hysteric, announcing in its headline "The Defeat of Journalism." For renaming a column? Hyperbole, much? The Huffington Post is no better, with Marty Kaplan trying to justify the blurring of Froomkin's commentary as journalism, and perhaps predictably, blames Fox News (and Karl Rove?) in the process.

Why is the left fighting so hard to keep the title of Froomkin's column as "White House Briefing" if deception isn't their intention?

One might start to think that among the "reality-challenged" community, a little stolen credibility is better than none at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.

Okay, I love the fact that these Iraqi soldiers are so jazzed about voting that they spontaneously break out with a chorus line.

But I've gotta think that the guy spying for Scotland might have blown his cover...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like disgraced former FEMA foul-up Michael Brown wasn't the only government official worried more about fashion than folks. This gem surfaced in a an email document dump.

Via Brietbart:

"Gov. Blanco might dress down a bit and look like she has rolled up her sleeves," press consultant Kim Fuller of Witt Associates wrote in a Sept. 4 e-mail to aides including Bottcher, Mann and Kopplin. "I have some great Liz Claiborne sports clothes that look kind of Eddie Bauer, but with class, but would bring her down to level of getting to work."

"She would look like a woman, but show she is MOVING MOUNTAINS," Fuller wrote.

She can't move mountains. She can't even move buses.

No, no matter what she wore, Blanco would look like what she still looks like today: a woman completely incompetent to hold her office.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco has got to go.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:20 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that Mother Sheehan is now the subject of a one-woman play. Via al-Reuters:

U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.

"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.

The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.

"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.

But did they quote you accurately, Cindy?

Are we going to get this gem?

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism."

Are they going to take the show on the road? This ought to go over great in the USO tour:

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy."

And I certainly hope that Dario Fo worked in the part where you were an opening act for a convicted terrorist supporter.

Somehow, Cindy, I just don't think they're painting a full, accurate picture of what you really represent.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Via CNN:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the execution Monday of convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams, clearing the way for him to die by injection shortly after midnight.

The high court was the former gang leader's last chance to avoid death by injection after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied him clemency earlier Monday and a federal appeals court panel rejected a request to stay his execution.

On the upside, all those death row push-ups gave Tookie great veins.

Update: Apparently that wasn't even true. According to ABC News, it took more than 20 minutes to insert the needles. In any event, at 12:35 AM he became an ex-Tookie.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:51 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

I just got this in from Marine Corps Moms:

Please forgive the mass e-mail. I've never done it before but this is for our deployed troops. For the last 3 months, volunteers all over the country are making sure that our Marines receive a touch of home for Christmas. We've sent over 12,000 hand sewn Christmas stockings filled with food, games, socks, handwarmers, and other useful items. In addition, we've sent boxes filled with candy, beefsticks, cheese, DVDs, board games, and other things for the guys to share. For troops stationed on the Syrian border and who have been eating MREs for 7 months, we sent pancake mix, syrup and griddles, so that the Battalion Commanders could throw a pancake feed for their Marines. Little things, compared to what they're doing for us. We have no corporate sponsors and we are funded through the donations of parents and military supporters.

On Friday, I got an emergency request from an Army contact who has been in contact with the 1107th AVCRAD, a company of 250 soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their MWR dollars didn't come through and they are facing a bleak holiday. If I priority mail packages tomorrow, there is a high probability that they will get them by Christmas. I've received $500 in funding from a couple of parents, and that might be enough to mail part of the packages. But, I still need to buy the stuff to put in the packages. While I won't have individual Christmas stockings, I do have holiday decorated Ziploc baggies and am trying to fill 250 today. If you could put out an appeal to your readers to help fund this final request, it would be so appreciated. If folks want a tax deduction, they can hit the Paypal button at the Marine Corps Family Foundation site: http://www.marinecorpsfamilyfoundation.org/santa.html

If they don't need a receipt, they can use the Paypal button on my site: Marine Corps Moms. Those funds would be immediately available to me instead of waiting. (Connie holds the checkbook for our foundation and she's out of town until next week.) I've been using my own money, thinking that I can fundraise later, but I think filling this request is going to exceed what I can do personally. Each of you have readerships on your websites that I will never achieve. If you could link to the following post on my site:

http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/2005/12/last_minute_ope.html

or just mention it on your site, I would so appreciate it. And, I'll let you know how it turns out.

Deb Conrad
Proud Marine Mom
www.marinecorpsmoms.com

Help Deb out if you can, folks. They're not only taking care of our Marines, their taking care of our soldiers, too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

According to Drudge:

Today, Senator Daniel Inouye, the Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, released the following statement:

"As a Veteran of World War II, I know what it's like to fight a war and put your life on the line every day. I also know what it takes to win a war, and I know that politics and an attack machine like the President's plays no part in it.

"The Republican Party's latest ad is a shameful and disgusting attempt to distract the American people from the problems in Iraq. It may improve the President's political fortunes, but the American people and our troops will pay the price. I hope that President Bush realizes how shameful it is to play politics when what we really need is leadership, and that he will direct his Party to take down this ad immediately."

Senator Inouye was once part of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated unit in United States military history.

According to his Medal Of Honor Citation:

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on 21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

The fearless 20 year-old 2nd Lieutenant Inouye refused to stop, refused to even think about yielding even when under withering fire. Instead he attacked, and even when wounded twice he continued the fight until the day was won.

2nd Lieutenant Inouye knew how to win wars, Senator.

You win wars by killing your enemy or driving the fight out of him, which is something he knew on an Italian ridge 60 years ago when facing the best Hitler had to throw at him. The side that breaks, loses.

Democratic Party courage, by comparison, offers nothing but disgrace and retreat. Your party doesn't know how to win, Senator Inouye. You haven't known how for a long, long time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:01 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

Doug Thompson of Capital Hill Blue, the liberal version of the National Enquirer, offered up this gem yesterday:

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don't give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It's just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Thompson has cited three whole (yeah, you guessed it) anonymous figures "that were there that day" as his sources.

Perhaps I am alone, but does anyone really buy that a single senior White House staffer or senior Republican leader would come complain to this off-kilter Kenny Rodgers wannabe, much less three of them?

Mr. Thompson should perhaps check into a hospital. His Bush Derangement Syndrome is apparently reaching terminal levels.

Update: Mr. Thompson himself (or one of the other 435 residents of Floyd, VA who might be interested in Technorati links to Capital Hill Blue) dropped by, and left just as quickly without a word in rebuttal.

Apparently he couldn't think of a good reason anyone would call him, either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Drudge reports:

Scientists: Earth's Magnetic Pole Drifting Quickly...

All I could think of was putting a line on Aleksandra Matuszak. You don't want such magnetic Poles drifting away...

Update: Turns out that if you actually click on the link that they were talking about another kind of cold weather beauty drifting away.

Who knew?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.