Confederate Yankee: Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.

December 19, 2005

Risen's New Lows

New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau continued their assault on America's domestic security today in an article that sensationalizes the scope of Bush's executive order, studiously avoids the Administration's legal justification for NSA surveillance of terror suspects, and avoids addressing their own moral culpability in the almost certainly illegal leaking of classified intelligence information in on-going anti-terror operations.

Risen (who just happens to have a book coming out very soon) and Lichtblau start their article with this bit of willful misdirection:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended President Bush's decision to secretly authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without seeking warrants, saying the program was carefully controlled and necessary to close gaps in the nation's counterterrorism efforts.

To read Risen and Lichtblau today one might get the impression that any and all Americans are subject to a warrantless search. That is not the case, as Risen and Lichtblau themselves state just a few days ago:

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said.

Only those people thought to be communicating and collaborating with al Qaeda terrorists overseas were subject to surveillance. Risen and Lichtblau purposefully conflate the limited number of people affected to drum up hysteria in the American people their nation is spying on them.

This is a dishonest attempt to engender fears (and no doubt advanced book sales) that a narrowly-tailored executive order targeting just a few hundred or few thousand terrorist-linked email addresses and phone numbers, is general surveillance of all citizen communications in a nation of 295 million.

Legally Blind
Risen and Lichtblau are more than willing to mention that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) requires a court order to seek surveillance on suspected terrorists or spies, but somehow, they seem unable to find a legal precedent from 2000 entitled U.S vs. bin Laden (h/t Instapundit) that says in part:

Â“Circuit courts applying Keith [that's the FISA law] to the foreign intelligence context have affirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for searches conducted within the United States that target foreign powers or their agents.Â”

While I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on television), it would seem to me that that U.S. courts have an established judicial precedent for bypassing FISA in certain circumstances - the circumstances that two Attorney Generals, Justice Department, lawyers and White House Counsel all seem to affirm that President Bush was within his constitutional authority in addressing with his executive order to the NSA.

Other useful bits of information the Times crack reporters seem to have trouble findingÂ—or at least reportingÂ—were Executive Order 12333 issued while Ronald Reagan was in office, stipulations of FISA itself, and the President's constitutional authority, as noted by Hugh Hewitt:

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority.

"Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president's executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.

In short, a truthful, competent year-long investigation of President Bush's executive order regarding surveillance of terror suspects should have reflected the legal basis from which the authority was drawn.

It is a shame that honest reporting, or for that matter, the safety of the American people, are of little apparent concern for the Times and its reporters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:12 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 765 words, total size 6 kb.

1 It's questionable whether the Times would publish it, but this should be sent to the NY times in the form of a letter to the editor. You at least have to let them know that you and your readers know what terrible liars they are!

Posted by: Donald Dewey at December 19, 2005 09:22 AM (MKnJt)

2 To Old Soldier, I take exception to the fact you calld them "Useful Idiots". What use do they have?

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 19, 2005 09:41 AM (JSetw)

3 One small (but probably important) correction in the citation above. Keith was a Supreme Court decision that predated the establishment of FISA by 7 years. Keith is not the same as FISA; although the justices in Keith, including the majority opinion written by Justice Powell, argued for a FISA-type of court and laws. So, one could say that FISA is a progeny of Keith.

Posted by: SteveMG at December 19, 2005 09:59 AM (MD9z8)

4 Old Soldier, The rest of your post stands perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. Maybe we could just amend it to "Useless Idiots". Besides, my little tongue in cheek was meant to make you smile even over two boneheads that wouldn't know real news if it bit them you know where.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 19, 2005 12:20 PM (JYeBJ)

5 Confederate Yankee wrote: To read Risen and Lichtblau today one might get the impression that any and all Americans are subject to a warrantless search. ... Only those people thought to be communicating and collaborating with al Qaeda terrorists overseas were subject to surveillance. If there is no oversight to the process, then these two statements are perfectly compatible. Any American can be thought to be collaborating with Al Qaeda terrorists and thus subjected to warrantless search and surveillance. I'm not saying that they are in fact misusing this power -- I'm complaining that I have no way of knowing if they are. You're saying to blindly trust the President because there's no way that the President would misuse his power. I claim that the past has shown that anyone given power without oversight is capable of abusing that power. I agree that domestic terrorism is a theat, but it is important to keep it in perspective to other threats. Compare for a moment the total number of murders within the U.S. in the past three years (over 48,000) to the number of people killed by Islamic terrorism.

Posted by: jhkim at December 19, 2005 01:55 PM (l3ixn)

6 You're saying to blindly trust the President because there's no way that the President would misuse his power. No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. This executive order, to be the best of my limited knowledge of executive orders, is very heavily "lawyered up." This executive order, before being implemented the first time, went through Attorney General John Ashcroft and the best lawyers in the United States Justice Department, who worked very closely with White House Counsel to ensure that the EE was a legal compliment to FISA. Since its inception, it has been reviewed and approved more than three dozen times by two Attorney's General and the best legal minds in the United States government (career government lawyers that will have to use this evidence in court, not politicians, it bears repeating). It is also created with the knowledge of the FISA court (which few seem to want to acknowledge), which is still updated on the use of the document. Leaders of both parties, in both houses of Congress, have known about this program from its inception, and have been updated on its progress no less than a dozen times. None had any apparent problems with it. Blind trust? Hardly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 19, 2005 02:34 PM (g5Nba)

7 While I can understand your concern that there is no oversight (one I can share if I believed it to be true), there have been briefings to congressional leaders quite a few times. This has not been blanket Big Brother move but more of a surgical strike to look into activites deemed "questionable" in reguards to National Security. I have stated before I fully support our constitiution and rights but this doesn't violate them. If you arent doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about. The American public (Both Liberal and Conservative) would not let any kind of police state to happen. I may be hopefully optomistic but I even believe all of Congress would not let that happen. I do think that you have to protect Life first, then Liberty then let people persue happiness. I believe that on a Global scale, not just for us in the U.S.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 19, 2005 02:35 PM (cqZXM)

8 Retired Navy - Question for you. Why should they not get warrants to listen to the conversations of American citizens? According to the law they are even allowed to listen and then get a warrant up to 72 hours later. But they MUST get a warrant according to the law and the Constitution. Why let them decide to just violate that law? And doesn't the violation of law bother you at all? Doesn't it seem to imply that they were doing soething they COULDN'T get a warrant to do? FYI Both Bob Graham and Harry Reid say they were NOT briefed. Reid has said he was told one sentence four years after the warrantless spying began. (Graham was head of the Intelligence Committee at the time the warrantless spying began.) Apparently four Republicans were briefed - that's it.

Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 19, 2005 05:05 PM (8e8Ir)

9 Dave, Where on earth are you getting your information? Reid has admitted he was briefed, and his words have been reported in dozens if not hundreds of sources. Simply type in his name and NSA in a Google News search. You guys aren't waiting even a week to start revising history. Is that a record? Democrats and Republican leaders in both houses were notified, along with thw House and Senate intelligence committees including Daschle when he was in office. You should really rely on something other than Kos and the Onion as news sources. While getting FISA warrants approved is relatively easy, going through the procedural mechanism to get requests to to the FISA court can take months. That is well documented. You are also completely wrong when you state that they have to have warrants in all circumstances(the courts say no, you don't in terror cases, and I'll provide case law later). Nor did this order violate the constitution, and in fact it derives it power expressly from the Constituion. I'll have more tonight, Dave, so be sure to check back then. I mention it once before and I'll say it again: This is going to be the CBS/Mary Mapes story all over again, but bigger.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 19, 2005 05:28 PM (g5Nba)

10 Indeed. If Congress was so thoroughly briefed, why did, say, Republican Arlen Specter say "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate" -- as stated in the Fox News Story which you yourself linked to? I don't know for sure if what was done had some constitutional justification or not. I'll leave that up to Congress and the courts, eventually. But I think it is irresponsible to say that anyone concerned about the allegations are unthinking Leftists.

Posted by: jhkim at December 19, 2005 05:35 PM (l3ixn)

11 Its hard to believe that you guys are bending over backwards to justify wide spread violation of the 4th Amendment. The Executive does not have the authority to impugn civil liberties without oversight of the Judicial branch. Why would Bush do an end run around FISA courts? The only reason that makes sense is that it was done for political, not defense or anti-terrorism, purposes. Bush has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at December 19, 2005 05:39 PM (eHLUP)

12 Any reason is a good reason to proceed with impeachment hearings for Bush, right? Even if he operated within the law? Doesn't matter, right? Just get the SOB outa office at any cost; right, wrong or indifferent! How many times does it have to be referenced that the President acted within his executive powers? Try reading another discourse here: http://crushliberalism.blogspot.com/2005/12/some-much-needed-perspective-on-bushs.html. If the Democrats put just half as much effort into supporting this country as they do opposing Bush at every turn, Iraq would be settled business and we could be having a whole new line of discourse about Iran. I'm sorry, I just find the whole Democrat obstruction gig over the top. I believe it will tell on the party come November '06, too.

Posted by: Old Soldier at December 19, 2005 07:04 PM (9ABza)

13 Oh, please. At least the current complaints have something vaguely to do with what Bush is doing in his role as President. At around this point in Clinton's terms, the Right was screaming bloody murder and trying to impeach him over fooling around with some intern. Pot... kettle... black.

Posted by: jhkim at December 19, 2005 08:21 PM (l3ixn)

14 jhkim, you ask: Indeed. If Congress was so thoroughly briefed, why did, say, Republican Arlen Specter say "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate" -- as stated in the Fox News Story which you yourself linked to? Do you actually read things? Is suspect not, or you would note that the people notified were members of House and Senate intelligence committees and the House and Senate leadership. Specter is neither, and did not need to be notified at the time. John, There are two apparent 4th amendment exceptions (border search and national security) that apply as noted by law professor Orin Kerr, and the Article II point many are making is far from being unconstitutional or illegal, it seems, becuase it has never been tested. By definition, if something has not yet been defined, it is not unconstitutional, nor illegal. It is possibly an untested "first principles" case. Clinton was impeached for perjury, by the way.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 19, 2005 09:23 PM (0fZB6)

15 "At around this point in Clinton's terms, the Right was screaming bloody murder and trying to impeach him over fooling around with some intern. Pot... kettle... black." As CY pointed out, it wasn't about sex, it was about lying under oath; something we would expect the chief executive to NOT do. Oh, BTW, perjury is actually an impeachable offense. Pot Â– black, Kettle Â– clean.

Posted by: Old Soldier at December 19, 2005 09:54 PM (9ABza)

16 What some folks have not discussed here is how Bill Clinton used his Office to instruct the NSA to monitor U.S. citizens inside the U.S. who were employed by foreign companies. The Clinton efforts were not to thwart any terrorists. Thet were reportedly attempts by Clinton to spy on foreign corporations through U.S. employees inside the U.S. It was the subject of a CBS 60 Minutes piece early in 2000. The NSA program was called Project Echelon, according to CBS and others. When I was with the NSA during the Reagan Administration, we were absoltely forbidden to perform such surveillance. It is a different world out there now.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 12:20 AM (AaKND)

17 A couple of observations to separate rhetoric from fact: FIRST, A FEW NOTES ABOUT FISA... It is interesting to read the way FISA defines "Electronic Surveillance"[as found in 50 U.S.C.A. Ã‚Â§ 1801(f), read it for yourself]. Using simple logic, it is even more interesting how those definitions create several gaping loopholes that, taken in conjunction of established case precedent of the presidential power for warrantless searches involving national security issues, would clearly allow monitoring of persons in the U.S. without a FISA warrant. Consider what FISA does NOT regulate as electronic surveillance: 1. The acquisition of any radio communication in which either one of the intended recipients or the sender is outside the United States and the purpose of the interception is not to target specifically a United States citizen or permanent resident of the U.S.(i.e., illegals or non-permanent residents may be freely monitored by the U.S. in this situation, even while in U.S. Cellular phones come to mind). 2. Any interception of a wire communication from any person in the U.S. if the communication is intercepted outside U.S. Territory and, again, the purpose of the interception is not to target specifically a United States citizen or permanent resident of the U.S. (again, virtually any international call may be tapped just outside U.S. territory, as in just offshore, etc.) Thinking creatively, these loopholes allow an intelligence officer to gather a great deal of information under Presidential authority for a warrantless search, even considering the confines of FISA. AND NOW ABOUT FISA IN GENERAL... At first blush, one would assume that FISA is the end-all, be-all of domestic surveillance. This is true only when one assumes that a warrant is necessary under the Fourth Amendment to conduct all searches. Of course, this is not true. Consider the recent case of In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (2002)[heard by the FISA court's own special appeals court, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review], which cogently stated in pertinent part that: "The distinction between ordinary criminal prosecutions and extraordinary situations underlies the Supreme Court's approval of entirely warrantless and even suspicionless searches that are designed to serve the government's "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement." Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2391, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 3168, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987)[stating that "A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, 'when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.'"]. Furthemore, the same court openly assumed in its closing statement that the President had "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance." And therein lies the rub for the recent FISA evangelists in Congress: Congress cannot pass any law that restricts the inherent constitutional authority of another branch -- no more than the President can disband Congress or the Supreme Court can set next year's fiscal budget. In short, implementation of national security is the exclusive province of the Commander-in-Chief, and it will be entertaining to see FISA go down in flames in a future court case as an unconstitutional restriction of the President's authority to defend the country where special needs dictate the immediate surveillance of known or suspected terrorists in our midst.

Posted by: Atticus_NC at December 20, 2005 12:43 AM (3lxJi)

18 There is an added wrinkle to consider - for what it is worth. As Commander in Chief, the president has the responsibility for directing all components of the military, including the Department of Defense. That is his responsibility under the U.S. Constitution. Anyone care to argue with that? Well, The National Security Agency is a Department of Defense organization. It's budget is within the DoD budget authorizations, and its Director has ALWAYS been a military Flag Officer. I just find that an interesting little factoid for the armchair lawyers to consider. Would that not make the president the Commander in Chief of the NSA?

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 20, 2005 12:49 AM (AaKND)

19 Retired Spy: It certainly would!

Posted by: Atticus_NC at December 20, 2005 12:56 AM (3lxJi)

20 "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." George Bush, April 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html#

Posted by: lucas at December 20, 2005 11:25 PM (QhIkH)

21 Congratulations Lucas! You "caught" President Bush talking about domestic wiretaps inside the United States as performed by the FBI under the Patriot Act. I'm starting to understand why liberals can't discuss this issue intelligently...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 20, 2005 11:46 PM (0fZB6)

22 To catch Bush on a "lie" on this topic is akin to sending all intelligence agents to hell for lying in the name of protecting our country. So, it's okay to lie about sex with Monica, but not okay to lie to the American people to protect a covert program to catch terrorists? Get a grip, people. I mean -- really. As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson so deftly said: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Neither is telling the American people the truth all the time, sacrificing full disclosure in the name of putting a terrorist bulls-eye on our foreheads.

Posted by: Atticus_NC at December 21, 2005 08:49 PM (3lxJi)

23 Our new pal, Lucas, is regurgitating the same garbage that Alan Colmes used as 'evidence' on the Hannity and Colmes Show last night. I sent Colmes an email to set him straight. Other liberals were using the same quote. As CY noted, these boneheads provide us with clear insight into why liberals can only accuse - not discuss intelligently. They don't know the difference between physical wiretaps and collection of electromagnetic emissions through the airwaves? Duh!

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 22, 2005 04:11 PM (AaKND)

24 Bravo! I've found an educated, intelligent discussion board. Atticus and Confederate Yankee, thank you -- your comments and references have greatly aided my view of events and debates with the lazy. (Lazy: those that repeat rantings of "Evil!" without researching what really happened; often called ignorant, their ignorance comes from laziness.)

Posted by: globalroamer at December 30, 2005 03:43 PM (B+qrE)

25 I am curious? Why do you discuss things with "Kos types"? They have no intelligence to understand ANYTHING. No left wing DemocRat idiot does?

Posted by: leaddog2 at December 30, 2005 07:02 PM (Dg+Be)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 14, 2005

Did NY TImes Bias Lead to "Wishful Thinking" On Bogus Forged Ballots Story?

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.

The NY Times, bastion of the liberal press in America, appears to have pulled a Mary Mapes, wishing a story to be true instead of verifying it to be true.

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

December 06, 2005

WaPo Writer Seriously Injured in Collision with Reality

Washington Post Staff Writer Daniela Deane was seriously injured Monday in a collision between media arrogance and reality, when a disdainful article she wrote about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was impacted forcefully by a pair of sidebar items that refused to yield to stop for her partisan sarcasm.

Rumsfeld, speaking at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, delivered a blistering attack on the U.S. media, saying that in the present 24-hour news cycle, events in Iraq can be reported too quickly and without context.
He said there was a "jarring contrast between what the American people are reading and hearing about Iraq and the views of the Iraqi people." The Iraqi people and the U.S. military deployed in the country, he said, were optimistic about the progress of the war there.
"Which view of Iraq is more accurate?" Rumsfeld asked. "The pessimistic view of the so-called elites in our country or the more optimistic view of millions of Iraqis and some 155,000 U.S. troops on the ground?

Caught in mid-article as her disdain increased, Deane was first hit by a contextless sidebar screeching "2,000 Deaths in Iraq" towing a death map. As her mangled syntax came to a rest, another sidebar blaring "U.S. Fatalities" hit her head on, crushing her with under a tangle of jagged irony.

Guarded by a point well-proven, Rumsfeld was uninjured in the collision.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

December 01, 2005

Which President Were They Protesting?

This is CNN:

The caption claims that, "a protestor watches a presidential helicopter fly overhead," but I have a simple question for CNN and the Associated Press... president of what?

The helicopter pictured above is a CH-46 Sea Knight, which doesn't even remotely look like the Sikorsky VH-3D flown by Marine Helicopter Squadron One and used to transport President Bush, pictured here:

The helicopter in the CNN/AP photo has twin main rotors. Marine One, the helicopter used in presidential transport, has one main rotor, with a much smaller tail rotor.

While dramtic license certainly makes for a dramatic photo, I have ask again: Which president were they protesting? It certainly wasn't ours.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:16 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

1 CY, The caption is right -- the protester was protesting President Bush. The AP photographer blew it and photographed the wrong helo. I saw President Bush's helicopter last fall, when he was enroute to a nearby campaign appearance. Actually I saw two helicopters: one was Marine One, the other was a CH-46 Sea Knight. I thought at the time that the Sea Knight was carrying either presidential aides or reporters or both. It's not much of a sample, but I'd guess that this CH-46 accompanies Marine One on any flight to a public appearance, and it was that helo that's pictured.

Posted by: wolfwalker at December 01, 2005 10:28 PM (FraeS)

2 The President also uses UH-60 (VH-60?) Blackhawk helos for short range transport, but most definitely not Sea Knights, as shown in that photo.

Posted by: Nathan Fortner at December 02, 2005 08:02 AM (7fS8G)

3 HMX-1 flies the following aircraft, VH-3, CH-46, CH-53, & VH-60. The President flies in the VH-3 most of the time (when I was in this squadron, there were 9 of these). He will fly in the VH-60 when the mission profile (size, range, speed, altitude, manouverability, transportabilty to remote locations) is applicable. The CH-46's & CH-53's are used as support aircraft and carry maintenance and security personel. They also carry some reporters (got to sit beside Cronkite one time, whoop-te-doo). Ignorant protestors do not who flies on what. They are just hamming for the press and the press is ignorant (they cover the President and should know the facts) and above thier head in BDS.

Posted by: Mike at December 02, 2005 08:28 PM (ZGrgh)

4 I was at the event in Baltimore on Wednesday. We passed a little posse of about 5 scruffy protestors on our way to the parking lot. We watched the President arrive from his event at the Naval Academy. There were a total of 5 helicopters, one landed a press gaggle. It was great fun to stand at the windows of the club level of the (Ravens) Stadium and watch the arrival process. An abbreviated motorcade brought the president from Marine One into the stadium.

Posted by: Maica at December 04, 2005 12:13 PM (MDPFu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

62kb generated in CPU 0.0258, elapsed 0.1051 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0898 seconds, 204 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 15164
Files: 105
Bytes: 439.6M
CPU Time: 15:03
Queries: 788455

Content

Posts: 3653
Comments: 35960

Feeds

December 19, 2005

December 14, 2005

December 06, 2005

December 01, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds