• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Republicans: The threats are dire, but my tickets are non-refundable!

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Balloon Juice, where there is always someone who will say you’re doing it wrong.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

“But what about the lurkers?”

Giving up is unforgivable.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

In after Baud. Damn.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Mobile Menu

  • 4 Directions VA 2025 Raffle
  • 2025 Activism
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / z-Retired Categories / Previous Site Maintenance / Monday Open Thread

Monday Open Thread

by John Cole|  February 6, 20065:28 pm| 113 Comments

This post is in: Previous Site Maintenance

FacebookTweetEmail

There is a lot going on out there, but I am just too occupied with the Steelers and the meltdown of an email server that lost about 45 student assignments. I will be back in the swing of things tomorrow, I swear.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « SuperBowl Champs
Next Post: Bad News for Republicans in 2006? »

Reader Interactions

113Comments

  1. 1.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    anybody watching the Gonzalez testimony has to be concerned about what is going on in this country. Hey, take the Dem Senators out of the picture and just listen to the questions posed by Senators Graham, Dewine, Specter, Brownback etc and Gonzalez’s answers. Scrary shit that a President can do just about anything he wants during this war that is thought to last for generations… my my my… King George

  2. 2.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    After watching the Alito hearings, and then finding out that Gonzalez wasn’t even sworn in, I decided not to watch.

    Did I really miss anything important Slide?

  3. 3.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Oh.. and this is for the Darrells, Stormys, MacBuckets, Maviva’s of the world that told us over and over and over and over that Valerie Plame’s wasn’t a covert agent.

    Plame covert status verified — again.

    Newsweek Feb. 13, 2006 issue – Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge’s opinion.

    The wingnuts wrong yet again.

  4. 4.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Yes you did miss something if you didn’t watch the hearings and I think the best questioning came from a southern conservative Republican Senator – Graham. He also asked Gonzalez if the congressional prohibition against torture is binding on the President. Graham was not happy with the answer needless to say.

  5. 5.

    Hoodlumman

    February 6, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Slide, read more Tom Maguire.

    The wingnuts wrong yet again.

    As long as they keep winning elections, I think we’re good here.

  6. 6.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    Wow, so Graham isn’t the Republican hack I thought he was.

    That’s good news.

  7. 7.

    The Other Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    read more Tom Maguire.

    Wow, that was a load of contorted logic.

  8. 8.

    Par R

    February 6, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    Slide, you may want to do a little more research on this, at least more than Newsweek did, before jumping to such premature and potentially wrong conclusions.

    If you trouble yourself to read the opinion (excerpted here), you will see that Fitzgerald did not trouble himself to actually provide any evidence to support his finding. Note in particular, the Judge’s closing comment, included in single quotations:

    “As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years ‘–representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.’ ”

    In other words, Fitzgerald “asserted” that Plame was in some sense a “covert,” but as the judge put it so flatly, Fitzgerald offered no proof whatsoever.

  9. 9.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    I’d rather take the judgement of the independent, non-partisan, Republican nominated, Patrick Fitzgerald who investigated Plame’s status in depth and with classified information not available to right wingnut bloggers over Tom Maguire thank you.

  10. 10.

    Mr Furious

    February 6, 2006 at 5:52 pm

    Alright, self-plug here, I posted at length on the NSA hearings this morning at my place.

    In a nutshell:

    These hearings are a sham, Spector is a fraud, AG Gonzales is a goddamn lackey, Cheney’s had this in the works for thirty years—it’s got nothing to do with terrorism—and the Dems are not going to get anything good out of this.

  11. 11.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 6, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    These hearings are a sham, Spector is a fraud, AG Gonzales is a goddamn lackey, Cheney’s had this in the works for thirty years—it’s got nothing to do with terrorism—and the Dems are not going to get anything good out of this.

    They should. They got it on record that the Republicans didn’t want Gonzales sworn in to testify on the matter. This is campaign fodder for the Dems to use.

  12. 12.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    They should, but they won’t.

    I’ve never seen a group of more spineless bastards in my life.

    If I was on that Judiciary Committee if they didn’t swear the AG in I would have walked right out.

  13. 13.

    Mr Furious

    February 6, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    They should. They got it on record that the Republicans didn’t want Gonzales sworn in to testify on the matter. This is campaign fodder for the Dems to use.

    Agreed. But is that enough to overcome the preening the republicans get to do on security while the Democrats look like pussies worrying about Al Qaeda’s civil rights? As someone here mentioned, the Republicans are starting these hearings out with the framing advantage—”You’re either FOR alllowing the President’s eavesdropping on Al Qaeda or you’re worried about protecting their privacy.”

    That’s not exactly what the BJ commenter said (I wish I could remember), it was actually even better than that, but you get the idea…

  14. 14.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    In other words, Fitzgerald “asserted” that Plame was in some sense a “covert,” but as the judge put it so flatly, Fitzgerald offered no proof whatsoever.

    What exactly did the ruling say?

    As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits
    specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to
    counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof
    regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.) In addition, Libby said that Plame worked in the CIA’s counterproliferation division (I-53-55, 245-
    46), * * * * * [REDACTED] * * * * *

    Most telling of all, Harlow, the CIA spokesperson, though confirming Plame’s employment, asked Novak to withhold her name, stating that “although it is very unlikely that she will ever be on another overseas mission . . . it
    might be embarrassing if she goes on foreign travel on her own” (II-168-69), a statement that strongly implies Plame was covert at least at some point. While another case might require more specific evidence that a leak harmed national security, this showing suffices here, given the information’s extremely slight news value and the lack of any serious dispute regarding Plame’s employment.

    but.. not good for the faith based right wing bedwetters that will still say that this brave woman who was out there risking her ass protecting their pampered lilly white asses, was simply a file clerk. Scumbags.

  15. 15.

    Par R

    February 6, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    Here’s the missing Link to the lengthy opinion noted above:

    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

  16. 16.

    Mr Furious

    February 6, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    I would have walked right out.

    Yup. I said as much in my post. That bit of stagecraft would have actually gotten the coverage from the direction the Dems need out of this. Even if they stayed and got their licks in, it will be to little or no avail. Walking out and declaring the thing a sham would likely have been more effective.

    But the the hell do I know? Seriously, it could just as likely blown up on them, but it would have been interesting…

  17. 17.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    so Fitzgerald SAYS he has evidence that Plame worked overseas in a covert capacity during the last five years.. and that the CIA was actively trying to keep her identity secret. The JUDGE says that that is good enough for him as he trust Fitz would not say such a thing unless he has evidence to conclude that. But somehow in the betwetting right wing faith based world that is vindication for their argument she wasn’t covert? LOl. .what absolute assholes.

  18. 18.

    Eural

    February 6, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    After perusing some of today’s testimony I’d like to pose a serious though extreme question: are any Republicans who still support the Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez version of government really Republican’s in any true sense of the word? There appears to be nothing traditional, conservative or legal about their philosophy, actions or political goals. I do not understand anyone who still supports their agenda. It’s really scarey to hear Gonzalez (and others) say things out loud that should call for immediate censor, impeachment, arrest, investigation, etc. and to hear only the sound of crickets.

    Would some kind conservative please help me understand your parties involvement in this?

  19. 19.

    Lines

    February 6, 2006 at 6:14 pm

    Paul, do I need to remind you of the 2002 and 2004 elections? The Democrats had massive amounts to use against Republicans, yet failed to do so in ways that earned them more than 2 fence sitters and their retarded dog.

    Why would you think the future is going to be any different? They could have stood up to Alito, they could have stopped Gonzo from being appointed, but they’ve just played the wimps to a near masterful conclusion.

    If you have insider info that they are about to open up their near-bursting can of whoop-ass that was conveniently delivered, can you share it with the rest of the class?

  20. 20.

    Par R

    February 6, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    Slide, I take you at your word that you are an “absolute asshole.” God knows, you prove it with every comment out of your PC.

  21. 21.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    That’s not exactly what the BJ commenter said (I wish I could remember), it was actually even better than that, but you get the idea…

    Pretty sure it was me, I said that the Republicans are already trying to frame the issue as “you either support warrantless wiretaps or you are against wiretapping terrorists”

    I didn’t watch the hearings, but I have a pretty good feeling that is how it was framed for the most part.

  22. 22.

    Mac Buckets

    February 6, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    These hearings are a sham

    There’s another kind? Televised hearings are 100% about grandstanding for politicians.

  23. 23.

    Lines

    February 6, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    oooh, Par, that was just horrible, man. Thats not even a comeback, thats like wiffing on a bitch slap and then crawling away crying.

    Try again, I’m sure you can do better next time.

    And I’m wondering why you are trying to make a fool of yourself? Its evident that there is a pretty good agreement on the court that Plame was covert, or at least “covert” enough to proceed. Is it ignorance or just sheer stubborness that makes you keep doing this to yourself?

  24. 24.

    ppGaz

    February 6, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    The hearings are embarassing to this country. Anyone watching from overseas can only come to one conclusion: The United States’ best days are over, and we are being governed by rubes who have no idea of the value of the thing they inherited from the Founders of this country. they think they are defending a way of shopping, or some fucked up thing called Sanctity of Marriage. But the liberties and safeguards that make this country what it is …. the shitheads in charge now don’t give a damn about those. What they give a damn about is their own power and their own egos.

    The “questioning” carried on today by most of the Republican members is the most pathetic excuse for behavior of a member of Congress since the Schiavo weekend.

    This country is in sorry, sorry condition, my friends.

  25. 25.

    neil

    February 6, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Why aren’t we hearing the _good news_ about electricity production in Iraq?

  26. 26.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Par you put a link to a ruling that supposedly makes your point regarding Plame’s status but when I actually quote from the ruling and its clear to any objective human being not drinking the kool aide that it backs up the contention that Plame was covert as required by the statute, you lash out and call me the asshole? lol

    So, I guess the point about Fitz not providing any “evidence” means that you and your bedwetting friends, think he is just making it up? That when he stated a factual claim – that Plame worked overseas in a covert capacity during the previous five years – he was just lying? Lol.. is that your argument? this very very careful prosecutor was fabricating factual information in his zeal to get Libby? What a moron.

  27. 27.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    I actually thought the hearings were very useful. Yes, yes.. we had out quota of posturing Senators and Bush apologists but some important issues were brought up. The tactic of trying to paint anyone that has questions about the Program as coddling terrorists really didn’t get any traction that I could see. when you had Republican Senators (albeit a few) asking tough questions we have made some progress.

  28. 28.

    neil

    February 6, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    ppGaz: CNN International didn’t cover the hearings live. When I was watching, they gave a dumbed-down ‘recap’ between the chief anchor, and someone else reciting administration talking points and telling us what “the Democrats say” about whether Congress has the power to regulate wiretapping. CNN en Español, for some reason, was carrying a live translation of the hearings.

  29. 29.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    You guys are missing the point. Look at the arguments the Bushbots have made about Plame since day one. She wasn’t covert, because Who’s Who says Joe Wilson had a wife. She wasn’t covert, because her picture was in Vanity Fair. She wasn’t covert, because she went to work at Langley.

    You are actually PROUD of yourselves for rebutting, at long last, these ridiculous arguments? You should be more ashamed of yourselves, as members of the human race, that anyone who claimed to be sentient bought into them in the first place. It’s not so much that they are obviously terrible arguments – it’s that one person makes an argument this terrible and instantly, 30% of the population starts nodding their heads and up and down as if the gospel truth had just been pronounced. It is, indeed, a terrible thing to lose one’s mind, or not to have a mind.

  30. 30.

    rob

    February 6, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    I just watched a clip of Glenn Greenwald on crooksandliars.com

    He is amazing. He was able to say in a minute everything you need to know.

    Why isn’t he on the news shows?

  31. 31.

    rob

    February 6, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    Steve said:

    he wasn’t covert, because Who’s Who says Joe Wilson had a wife.

    You are so right. I have heard this over and over. And no matter how many times I hear it, it makes no sense.

    It makes you want to scream, because either they are so stupid you don’t know how they can breathe without help, or they are lying. So there is no way to combat that argument.

  32. 32.

    ppGaz

    February 6, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    CNN en Español, for some reason, was carrying a live translation of the hearings.

    Hm. A nod to the Hispanic audience for Gonzalez?

    Music by Rocio Durcal?

  33. 33.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    It makes you want to scream, because either they are so stupid you don’t know how they can breathe without help, or they are lying. So there is no way to combat that argument.

    My guess is that they are both – stupid and liars.

  34. 34.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    Glenn Greenwald is my legal hero at the moment. Between him and Marty Lederman at balkinization, they’ve sent back every crappy defense of the NSA program, with interest. Trust me when I say that the ‘legal’ positions outlined by the administration are for public and political consumption, not for judicial scrutiny.

  35. 35.

    GTinMN

    February 6, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    In other words, Fitzgerald “asserted” that Plame was in some sense a “covert,” but as the judge put it so flatly, Fitzgerald offered no proof whatsoever.

    It seems obvious that any public proof of Plames or any agents covert status might necessarily involve release of classified information, and in this case, information the release of which might also compromise the ongoing investigation into the other squirming WH conspirators. If the judge had a valid need to know more, Fitzgerald would have provided it.

    Clearly Fitzgerald and the judge are smarter than all the Bizarroworlders who are dutifully parroting the latest, ever more contorted spin on how Plame was never covert, and therefore how there is not now and never was an investigation.

  36. 36.

    Paddy O'Shea

    February 6, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    Anybody noticed that Bush’s approval rating at the usually GOP pally Rasmussen Reports poll have actually gone DOWN since the SOTU speech?

    Didn’t Timmy Russert say that when a president makes a State of the Union speech his ratings are supposed to go up?

    Very confusing.

  37. 37.

    Perry Como

    February 6, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    Slide, I think Sen. Cornyn probably was the best questioner out of the whole bunch. The way he was able to simultaneously deep throat President Bush while he praised Gonzales and the rest of the administration was truly a sight to behold. He reminded me of Mr. Garrison from South Park in “The Entity” episode.

  38. 38.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    Pooh: Assume, hypothetically, that the NSA spying program made it before the Supreme Court somehow, and the administration got to trot out the inherent power argument, the AUMF argument, the whole nine yards. What would you expect the Court’s vote to be?

    Rob: It’s called an echo chamber. One guy makes an argument, and everyone else gets so excited to link to the argument that they don’t even stop and think about whether the argument makes sense. And once enough people have signed onto the argument, it takes on a life of its own – suddenly all your friends believe it, so it MUST be a valid argument. Every once in a while a freethinker like John Cole will call bullshit.

    The best antidote to the echo chamber is blogs that allow comments. If Glenn Greenwald makes a spurious argument, you better believe someone will show up in the comments with a rebuttal. (You don’t see that so much at Daily Kos, since very few righties bother wading through the comments, and at Atrios even I don’t read the comments.) Very few of the major right-wing blogs allow comments, of course. Possibly because they’re afraid they’ll end up like John, perennially swamped by lefties.

  39. 39.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Perry–

    Too funny. At first I was thinking “Cornyn did the best questioning?–No way”, and then BAM!

    Nice work, sir.

  40. 40.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Pooh: Assume, hypothetically, that the NSA spying program made it before the Supreme Court somehow, and the administration got to trot out the inherent power argument, the AUMF argument, the whole nine yards. What would you expect the Court’s vote to be?

    6-3 against, unless Scalia is feeling pissy and then maybe 5-4. Thomas is a less articulate Posnerian policyist, and this is a GOP policy and therefore good. You know Alito is on board because it’s partially his baby. (would he have to recuse himself? Depends on the degree to which signing statements are an issue, I suppose). Roberts is in, based on Hamdan. Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens aare almost certainly “no’s”, as there is a trivially easy distinction to make between domestic spying and Hamdi style battlefield capture. (Indeed, there is the “not a blank check” dicta from that case).

  41. 41.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 6, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    neil, the good news is that they’re producing enough electricity to give one to six hours of service a day to the citizens of Baghdad. The bad news is that they’re using it to torture people in Abu Ghraib.

  42. 42.

    Par R

    February 6, 2006 at 7:49 pm

    Hey, Mr. Slide, otherwise known as an absolute asshole, you might want to return to school for some remedial lessons in English comprehension. Such skills are quite obviously lacking, given your absolute and total inability to understand the plain meaning of English words. To recap from the referenced Opinion:

    The newly-unredacted portion of Judge Tatel’s concurrence (p. 38)refers to a footnote in Fitzgerald’s submission (note 15, p. 28 of the document, p. 30 of the .pdf). The footnote says that, if Libby were to be charged under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the government would have to prove that Libby knew or believed that VPW in fact met the criteria under that act — including being covert, having travelled, and being the subject of active agency efforts to conceal her status —, BUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO EVIDENCE OF LIBBY’S HAVING HAD SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF. (Emphasis added for Slide’s benefit)

  43. 43.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Wow, just wow. From the Washington Journal Call-in this morning:

    Caller: …This is about people who support terrorists. You know, the ACLU and all these people are so concerned about the rights of these terrorists-maybe they should have been in the building 9/11, instead of all those decent Americans who were murdered by these people you are so interested in keeping their civil rights–Thank you.

    I was stunned.

  44. 44.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 6, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    I had the hearings on long enough to hear Gonzales refuse to answer whether or not Bush is having his boys illegally break into peoples’ homes. After all, being safe in our homes is just another quaint idea to Torquemada. And the Republican senator I heard essentially tongued Gonzales’ butt.

    I visit Tom Maguire’s site just to see how the informed right reacts when a new Plame story appears. Talk about drinking the koolaid. They must organize regular walks to whistle past graveyards in the Washington, DC area. In their world Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby et all did nothing, and, in a parallel universe of theirs, they can and should beat the rap. It seems like they are rooting for criminal behavior.

    Anyone else out there read the short story, “A Good Man Is Hard To Find”?

  45. 45.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Wow, just wow. From the Washington Journal Call-in this morning:

    DougJ have you moved to call in radio now? Talk about the breakout star of the blogoshpere…

  46. 46.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    Par is doing the classic wingnut switcheroo, which says that when your argument has been totally refuted, you simply change the subject and pretend the other guy is just confused. To wit, this whole debate was about whether Plame was covert, but since Slide established that there’s really no basis at this point for challenging Fitzgerald’s good-faith belief, now Par wants to completely switch topics and argue about whether Libby knew Plame was covert. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t (perjury makes it awfully hard to know for sure), but that isn’t what the argument has been about for lo these many moons. No, it’s always been about whether Plame was really covert.

    Pooh, I think everyone assumes Scalia will be on the side of justice, based on Hamdi. My guess is that it would come out 6-3 or possibly even 7-2.

  47. 47.

    Darrell

    February 6, 2006 at 7:59 pm

    Trust me when I say that the ‘legal’ positions outlined by the administration are for public and political consumption, not for judicial scrutiny

    The details of the administration’s NSA program are not known.. So how then can you so definitively claim that the administration’s legal claims are bunk, when much is not known?

  48. 48.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    Steve, you think Roberts votes against? I could see that, I suppose. Hamdan troubled me, but more from the standpoint of the “next case down the road” rather than the decision itself, as if he hadn’t really considered were it would all lead. Given that the initial read on him is reverential towards “The Law”, I suppose a stand on principle is plausible.

  49. 49.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 6, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    Oh, evenin’ Senator!

  50. 50.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    The details of the administration’s NSA program are not known.. So how then can you so definitively claim that the administration’s legal claims are bunk, when much is not known?

    We’ve been over this, and frankly I would have thought you were resting after the hearings, Senator.

    But, A) AUMF did not amend nor repeal FISA. B) Whatever the President’s ‘inherent wartime power’, he cannot simply disregard domestic criminal law. C) I have yet to see a credible argument of FISA’s unconstitutionality advanced – Roberts’ memo conveniently skips from hypothesis to conclusion without much in the way (or any in the way) of analysis on that point. To the extent the administration has made ‘legal’ arguments, that’s what they are.

    They have also made ‘Factual’ (in the sense that the concern facts, not that they are true or false) arguments that the program is outside the scope of FISA, that is dealing with wholly international communications – which I suppose is possible, but that’s the latest story, not the first story, so color me skeptical.

  51. 51.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 8:10 pm

    I’m just saying that if anyone’s vote is unpredictable in this scenario, it’s most likely Roberts. Either way, I’d stake my last dollar that there’s no way the administration would win such a case (aside from prevailing on a technical issue like standing, which is of course the most likely outcome in the real world).

    What’s amusing about the legal controversy is that the administration has quite clearly chosen a political strategy of trying to define the debate by self-leaking only the most defensible details of the program (“We listen to calls made by al-Qaeda members! Who could be against that?”). It’s crystal-clear from today’s testimony as well as the WaPo story from yesterday that the actual program goes well beyond this. But even if you take them at their word, even if you assume “the program described by the President” is the full extent of what’s at issue, the majority of their arguments are STILL absurd!

  52. 52.

    Par R

    February 6, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    Steve, you must be a close relative of Slide’s.

    The relevant issue in all of this discussion is whether or not Libby committed an illegal act in outing Ms. Plame, assuming that he did. Remember that Libby was not charged with having “outed” a covert agent. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act specifies the evidentiary hurdles that Fitzgerald must breach before Libby can be found to have violated the law, and these are summarized above in my previous post. And contrary to your ill informed assertion above, it doesn’t mean Jack-shit whether or not Ms. Plame was “covert” if the other elements of the IIPA are not proven….and the Judge says they WERE NOT PROVEN.

  53. 53.

    Darrell

    February 6, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    We’ve been over this

    Yes we have, and in the course of ‘going over it’, you stated that in your opinion the NSA has authority to monitor foreign terrorists outside the country without warrant, even when they call into New York City to talk with an American.

    And all your smoke about ‘inherent wartime authority’ may or may not have anything to do with it, as the president has authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies in peace time and wartime.

    that is dealing with wholly international communications – which I suppose is possible, but that’s the latest story, not the first story, so color me skeptical.

    What changing story? Be specific. The admin’s first story stated that they thought the program was legal.. and they pointed out the program had congressional oversight, which it did. As far as we know, no member of Congress who was privy to the details of the NSA program at the time, thought believed the program to be an alarming overreach, otherwise they would have taken steps to voice their objections. That none took such steps indicates that they didn’t feel the NSA program was “shredding” our constitution

  54. 54.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:21 pm

    Par, your answer is stricken as both non-responsive and unintelligble. “Par” for the course, I might say in my most pun-addled moments…

  55. 55.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 6, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    Lines Says:

    Paul, do I need to remind you of the 2002 and 2004 elections? The Democrats had massive amounts to use against Republicans, yet failed to do so in ways that earned them more than 2 fence sitters and their retarded dog.

    Why would you think the future is going to be any different? They could have stood up to Alito, they could have stopped Gonzo from being appointed, but they’ve just played the wimps to a near masterful conclusion.

    If you have insider info that they are about to open up their near-bursting can of whoop-ass that was conveniently delivered, can you share it with the rest of the class?

    I don’t have any insider info, I’m just saying that the Dems should use this, and use it effectively by pointing out the Congressional GOP is spineless when dealing with a White House willing to break the law.
    But you are right: never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to f-ck up an election. So in all regards it’s up to us, the voters. Even if the Democrats screw up somehow, we still have ways of denying the GOP from retaining control of Congress.
    They’re called third parties. There should also be a process called ‘write-in vote’. We can use both. Vote in enough Libertarians to replace Republicans, for example, and either force the Democrats to take over or force the Republicans to form a coalition with the Libertarians (who should use their position in the deal to force through budget controls and political reforms). Or better yet vote in independents, enough of whom can deny the GOP control of the House.
    I get the feeling Ross Perot came up with his Reform Party a decade too early. Any chance we can revive that turkey in pursuit of genuine political reform?

  56. 56.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 8:26 pm

    And contrary to your ill informed assertion above, it doesn’t mean Jack-shit whether or not Ms. Plame was “covert” if the other elements of the IIPA are not proven….and the Judge says they WERE NOT PROVEN.

    Right, well you just agreed with what I said, which is that since you’ve been proven wrong about the issue of whether Plame was covert, your strategy is to change the subject and do a lot of yelling about some other issue. You’re all like “Jane, you ignorant slut, what about the OTHER elements of the statute???”

    I accept your concession as to the issue of Plame’s covert status. As to the remaining elements, when you say they “WERE NOT PROVEN,” you kinda imply that Fitzgerald even TRIED to prove them, which he didn’t. Fitzgerald has candidly omitted that Libby’s perjury makes it very hard to find out whether all the elements of the statute can be established, and that’s why he brought the perjury charge.

    If your best defense of Libby is that “it hasn’t been proven… excuse me, IT HASN’T BEEN PROVEN THAT HE VIOLATED THE IIPA,” well, gee, he hasn’t even been charged under the IIPA, so I doubt your point will be very controversial. But I fully understand that you weren’t really looking to make a point, you were just looking to bang on the table and distract attention from the point where you and so many others were shown to have been so wrong for so long.

  57. 57.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    Darrell, I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but you beg the question in every single post.

    monitor foreign terrorists

    and

    authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies

    As I’ve said before, you are probably correct that once determinations are made that persons fit those categories, the gloves come off. However those determinations cannot be made by the same power that determines what course of action to take. Hence the judicial branch’s involvement, (including FISC).

  58. 58.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 6, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    Par R Says:

    Steve, you must be a close relative of Slide’s.

    The relevant issue in all of this discussion is whether or not Libby committed an illegal act in outing Ms. Plame, assuming that he did. Remember that Libby was not charged with having “outed” a covert agent.

    That’s not the relevant issue regarding Libby’s actions. What Libby did was to prevent, block and otherwise obstruct an investigation into finding out who did leak Plame’s identity. That’s why Libby’s not charged with the outing, and instead charged with making false statements and obstruction of justice.

    As for the judge saying that Plame’s status as CIA, or that the revelation of her status with the CIA, could not be proven as violating the Identities Act, please do me a favor and copy/paste the judge’s ruling and it’s Westlaw key for confirmation. I’d like to read it. Thanks.

  59. 59.

    Darrell

    February 6, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    Some covert agent, having her husband write a flame throwing op-ed in the NY Times, which he followed up by making the talk-show circuit screaming to the world about “Bush’s war over lies”. That’s not the behavior of someone with a secret identity trying not to blow cover.

    If Libby outed a covert agent, even within the 5 year legal time frame, nail him. But if he’s guilty of doing this, why are there no charges?

  60. 60.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:40 pm

    Senator, that’s nonsense, even from you.

    Some covert agent, having her husband write a flame throwing op-ed in the NY Times, which he followed up by making the talk-show circuit screaming to the world about “Bush’s war over lies”. That’s not the behavior of someone with a secret identity trying not to blow cover.

    Huh? So because she’s has covert status her husband is not allowed to…what exactly? I’m not following.

    If Libby outed a covert agent, even within the 5 year legal time frame, nail him. But if he’s guilty of doing this, why are there no charges?

    The theory is that he perjured himself to avoid implicating himself. If I lie about where I was this morning, it makes it significantly harder to prove I did X while I was there, no?

  61. 61.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 8:46 pm

    Pooh, the wingnut theory is that Wilson should have known that if he went public regarding his trip, it would surely lead to his wife being outed, therefore it’s really his fault and not the fault of whoever outed his wife.

    I mean, no one would ever believe that a former ambassador, a guy with all kinds of contacts in Niger, would be sent to investigate something in Niger.

  62. 62.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Wilson = French for Spy. I get that one a lot.

  63. 63.

    Darrell

    February 6, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    I mean, no one would ever believe that a former ambassador, a guy with all kinds of contacts in Niger, would be sent to investigate something in Niger.

    Especially with his wife recommending him for the trip. Then after he returned, he ran around the talk-shows screaming about ‘forged’ documents that the Bush admin supposedly had rested their entire case for war on. Oops, turns out under Senate questioning that Wilson didn’t have enough info to know one way or another if those docs were forged.

  64. 64.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 8:54 pm

    And that relates to the Plame leak how exactly, other than going to motive to mount a smear campaign?

  65. 65.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Par keep posting please. You make my point on how stupid the right wing, kool aid drinking, bedwetting Bush apologists have become. The discussion, which I started with the second post of this thread, was about the covert status of Ms. Plame in which the likes of you and the village idiot, Darrell, have repeatedly questioned (see Darrell’s brilliant post above). To recap this is what I had said:

    Oh.. and this is for the Darrells, Stormys, MacBuckets, Maviva’s of the world that told us over and over and over and over that Valerie Plame’s wasn’t a covert agent.

    The wingnuts wrong yet again.

    The released court ruling shows that Plame was determined to be covert as defined by the statute. That was the question, not whether Libby knew her status or not – quite another question. But nice try trying to confuse everyone.

  66. 66.

    Steve

    February 6, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    Especially with his wife recommending him for the trip. Then after he returned, he ran around the talk-shows screaming about ‘forged’ documents that the Bush admin supposedly had rested their entire case for war on. Oops, turns out under Senate questioning that Wilson didn’t have enough info to know one way or another if those docs were forged.

    Were the documents forged, Senator?

  67. 67.

    Stormy70

    February 6, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Yes, still waiting for Fitzmas 2.0. Waiting, waiting, waiting.

    Face it, Fitzmas is over for you guys.

    Wilson is still a liar, and what covert spy invites Kristof over to meet her leaking husband? Really, did she think noone would find out exactly who sent him, an ambassador who drank mint tea, then lied on the oped pages. He also worked for the Kerry campaign. Yes, he is so credible. Aren’t you glad you have him on your side?

    I will enjoy Libby’s defense team making mincemeat out of the press. I will ready the popcorn.

  68. 68.

    Stormy70

    February 6, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    As for the Senate hearings on the NSA, do the Democrats really want Pat (Leaky) Leahy as the front man on this? I will take it, though.

  69. 69.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 9:54 pm

    Yes, he is so credible. Aren’t you glad you have him on your side?

    errr…. yep. Lets see, Mr. Wilson a career diplomat that has worked for this country for over two decades. A man who stood up to Saddam Hussein and was honored by Bush Sr for doing so. A man who’s wife worked in a highly dangerous covert status fighting for this country also for decades. yeah… kinda proud to have him on “our” side.

    And are you proud to have Abramhoff, Frist, Delay, Cunninham, Doolittle, Rove.. et al on “your” side? I bet you do.

    So what does that say? Our side values public servants, your side values criminals and corrupt politicians.

  70. 70.

    Slide

    February 6, 2006 at 9:55 pm

    Stormy:

    I will take it, though.

    Stormy I have a feeling you would take it anyway you can get it.

  71. 71.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 6, 2006 at 9:59 pm

    Darrell, step away from the kool-aid. Wilson’s op-ed was about the Niger story being bogus, not a specific comment on the bogus documents, which he had not seen.

    Which, of course, is of no consequence to whether or not Libby, Rove and others intentionally blew Plame’s NOC cover.

    It’s been a long time since the indictments, Darrell, so if you want to ask out loud why the charges only involved perjury and obstruction of justice, you are admitting that you didn’t listen to Fitzgerald’s press conference, didn’t read the indictments, and haven’t looked at anything besides right-wing commentary.

    Why not just wear an “I’m stoopid” sign around your neck?

  72. 72.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 6, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    Stormy, tell us what Wilson lied about?

    Now, tell us who you think forged the Niger documents and for what purpose? Because, Stormy, when a crime like forgery is committed, it generally has a purpose.

    I think I hear your brother coming back up the stairs.

  73. 73.

    ppGaz

    February 6, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    You know, the ACLU and all these people are so concerned about the rights of these terrorists-maybe they should have been in the building 9/11, instead of all those decent Americans who were

    So Darrell, now you are doing call-ins?

    Alright, who screwed the pooch and let this turn into a fucking Darrell thread?

  74. 74.

    Ancient Purple

    February 6, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Well, the hearings were quite entertaining at times. However, the best laugh came from this statement by our esteemed Attorney General:

    President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

    Let’s give it up for U.S. Attorney General Albert “Abu” Gonzales. /wild applause

    The General waxes poetic about the great electronic surveillance authorized by … George Washington.

    Sheer brilliance because you couldn’t make this stuff up.

  75. 75.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    A.P., Link please?

  76. 76.

    Perry Como

    February 6, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    a fucking Darrell thread?

    Wait, Darrell is really Sen. Cornyn?

  77. 77.

    Pooh

    February 6, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    I will enjoy Libby’s defense team making mincemeat out of the press.

    Stormy, talk about picking low hanging fruit.

  78. 78.

    Mr Furious

    February 6, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Just watched that Greenwald clip at C&L [link]—he was fucking great. He gets tongue-tied a couple times, but in two minutes he packs in more hard hits and concise summary than the Democrats probably managed in an all-day hearing.

    Put HIM on the committee.

    BTW, the clip seems to jump slightly, but I believe he was responding to the “Darrell-esque” 9/11 caller.

  79. 79.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 6, 2006 at 10:35 pm

    Ancient Purple, what do you think Ben Franklin was up to when he flew that kite?

  80. 80.

    ppGaz

    February 6, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Wait, Darrell is really Sen. Cornyn?

    Suddenly, it all fits together …..

  81. 81.

    AlanDownunder

    February 6, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    “My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,” Gonzales told the panel.

    True. When did an oath ever stop the rodent from lying?

  82. 82.

    Mac Buckets

    February 6, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Anybody noticed that Bush’s approval rating at the usually GOP pally Rasmussen Reports poll have actually gone DOWN since the SOTU speech?

    I told John that Paddy couldn’t do it! It’s no fun being right all the time, I can tell you…

  83. 83.

    GTinMN

    February 6, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    More of Abu G. from today, revealing how our loose lips, uh, tighten the lips of the enemy, apparently, at least until their ADD meds wear off or something:

    BIDEN: Thank you very much.

    General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

    I’m almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn’t think we were intercepting their phone calls.

    I mean, I’m a little confused. How did it damage this?

    GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I’m just the lawyer.

    And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

    But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

    (LAUGHTER)

    WaPo

    Also, for Pooh (more WaPo transcript) re: the Revolutionary war and electronic surveillance:

    Washington cut down that cherry tree to build a nice cabinet for his ham radio

  84. 84.

    SeesThroughIt

    February 6, 2006 at 11:21 pm

    DougJ have you moved to call in radio now? Talk about the breakout star of the blogoshpere…

    I think we will see a DougJ entry in Wikipedia–as a person AND a verb–before this is all said and done.

  85. 85.

    Steve

    February 7, 2006 at 12:03 am

    Wait just a minute!!!! Here’s a comment from the other day:

    Darrell Says:

    Steve Says:

    Just add this thread to the list of places where the right-wingers have been asked to explain what actual harm could have occurred as a result of this disclosure, and have come up completely empty.

    Well if nothing else, it served as a helpful reminder, a wake-up call to the terrorists that we are monitoring every scrap of communication going in and out of the US

    February 3rd, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Note the timestamp.

    And here’s Attorney General Gonzales today:

    I think, based on my experience, it is true—you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

    But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

    There’s only one possible conclusion. Alberto Gonzales is actually Sen. John Cornyn.

  86. 86.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 12:23 am

    There’s only one possible conclusion. Alberto Gonzales is actually Sen. John Cornyn.

    Suddenly, it all fits tog
    Suddenly, it all Fitzgerald
    Suddenly, it Al Qaed
    Suddenly, its
    Suddenly last summer
    Sudan Lee last summer
    Sudan Lee, last
    Sedan, Lee
    Sue, Dan, Lee

    { sound of electrical sparks }

    { lights go out }

  87. 87.

    Steve

    February 7, 2006 at 12:23 am

    John’s blog does not handle nested blockquotes very well, which may, or may not, have ruined any humor in my post. The AG is obviously cribbing from Darrell though.

  88. 88.

    Pooh

    February 7, 2006 at 12:54 am

    Holy Crap, Greenwald is going head to head with Assrocket tommorow morning. To put it mildly, Powerline has been at the forefront of dissemeninating legal disinformation on this case (the most notable example being Hindraker’s…creative quoting of Jackson’s Youngstown concurrence which, naturally, spread like wildfire around the ‘sphere) so I am intrigued to see how Glenn will handle himself.

  89. 89.

    Ancient Purple

    February 7, 2006 at 12:59 am

    A.P., Link please?

    Sorry for the delay, Pooh. I was in the kitchen making homemade scones.

    Here is the link complete with a delicious video of his statement.

    I hope you find it as tasty as my scones.

    Enjoy!

  90. 90.

    Davebo

    February 7, 2006 at 8:43 am

    Gonzales was asked point blank if all the NSA eavesdropping was limited to international calls into our out of the US or if any domestic to domestic calls had been monitored and he refused to answer.

    In other words, even though he wasn’t required to testify under oath, he still felt he had to avoid blatant lies.

  91. 91.

    Bob In Pacifica

    February 7, 2006 at 9:28 am

    Gonzales also wouldn’t directly answer when he was asked if the administration had done warrantless searches of Americans’ homes.

    What do you think that means, folks?

  92. 92.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 9:32 am

    What do you think that means, folks?

    I’m waiting to see what Darrell thinks.

  93. 93.

    Krista

    February 7, 2006 at 10:32 am

    A.P. mmm…scones. Don’t tell me that they’re raisin-cinnamon or you’ll make me weep (I’m training for a 5K and am feeling John’s dieting pain).

    How goes the battle, John?

  94. 94.

    The Other Steve

    February 7, 2006 at 10:54 am

    I’m waiting to see what Darrell thinks.

    I also really care what Darrell thinks.

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    February 7, 2006 at 11:14 am

    ppGaz Says:

    What do you think that means, folks?

    I’m waiting to see what Darrell thinks.

    Without details and context, ‘warrantless’ search of homes doesn’t tell us much. Did the owner(s) of the house consent to allowing a warrantless search of the home? Was evidence in such plain view that a neighbor reported it? That would not have required a warrant

    But don’t let lack of facts or understanding stop you from running around screaming over “Bush’s fascist America”. It never does

  96. 96.

    chopper

    February 7, 2006 at 11:18 am

    Did the owner(s) of the house consent to allowing a warrantless search of the home? Was evidence in such plain view that a neighbor reported it? That would not have required a warrant

    did venusians come down from the sky and replace the homeowners and then specifically allow the search to happen? did these venusians plant evidence in plain sight?

    you’re right, it could be just about anything.

    what i find funny is someone defending searches with hypotheticals decrying others for a lack of facts. it’s almost comedy!

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    February 7, 2006 at 11:25 am

    what i find funny is someone defending searches with hypotheticals decrying others for a lack of facts. it’s almost comedy!

    the phrase ‘lying sack of shit’ comes to mind. I did not “defend” the searches as you claim, I pointed out that there was not enough facts available to know one way or another

  98. 98.

    4jkb4ia

    February 7, 2006 at 11:33 am

    I apologize for general stupidity. Of course Carolina was “the last NFC team to lose the Super Bowl” and of course they did anything but implode last year. The Rams circuit activated in my brain.

  99. 99.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 11:52 am

    But don’t let lack of facts or understanding stop you from running around screaming over “Bush’s fascist America”. It never does

    Produce a post by me that ever used the phrase “fascist America,” you moron. I have never said such a thing.

  100. 100.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 11:53 am

    the phrase ‘lying sack of shit’ comes to mind. I did not “defend” the searches as you claim, I pointed out that there was not enough facts available to know one way or another

    Okay, you’re a lying sack of shit. Produce the post in which I used the phrase “fascist America.”

  101. 101.

    4jkb4ia

    February 7, 2006 at 11:54 am

    I am sorry to say this thread is funny.

  102. 102.

    Darrell

    February 7, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    Produce a post by me that ever used the phrase “fascist America,” you moron. I have never said such a thing.

    Sorry to pick on you ppg. You never used the phrase Bush’s “fascist” America, although others on you side do so regularly. You did not use that term or anything like it that I can remember. But re-read this thread if you want to see overreactions without facts regarding alleged warrantless searches of houses, as if the mere mention of warrantless searches without facts or context is some sort of proof positive that civil rights had been violated.

    It’s a trademark of the left to scream ignorant accusations first, check facts later. See this thread, WP issue, and Fitzmas for recent examples of this pattern

  103. 103.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    I am sorry to say this thread is funny.

    It’s a Darrell Thread.

    It requires considerable suspension of disbelief.

  104. 104.

    Darrell

    February 7, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    4jkb4ia Says:

    I apologize for general stupidity. Of course Carolina was “the last NFC team to lose the Super Bowl” and of course they did anything but implode last year. The Rams circuit activated in my brain.

    What post could you possibly be responding to on this thread? But feel free to vent your mental illness if it makes the voices go away

  105. 105.

    ppGaz

    February 7, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Sorry to pick on you ppg. You never used the phrase Bush’s “fascist” America, although others on you side do so regularly

    Thank you. I agree that the phrase is over the top.

  106. 106.

    chopper

    February 7, 2006 at 12:37 pm

    HAH, keep backpedaling, darrell. lying sack indeed.

  107. 107.

    Slide

    February 7, 2006 at 1:46 pm

    the Darrell:

    as if the mere mention of warrantless searches without facts or context is some sort of proof positive that civil rights had been violated.

    No, but allowing the executive branch solely to do warrantless searches without any judicial review will inevitably lead to civil rights abuses. That’s what our Founding Fathers understood very well when they crafted our wonderful form of government. Checks and Balances. Always checks and balances.

    I can not for the life of me understand how some could trust this President to do the “right thing” with our civil liberties. Haven’t we seen his track record?

    Abu Garib
    Torture memos
    Fake news reports
    Paying commentators to spew propaganda
    Hundreds of millions for Iraq propaganda
    Uranium from Niger lies
    WMD lies
    Mobile Bio Lab lies
    Unmanned aerial drones lies
    Few deadenders
    Democracy is messy
    The Army you have not the one you want
    “Wiretapping needs a warrant, nothing has changed”
    Revealing the identity of a covert agent for political vengence
    Lying to Federal Prosecutors
    Lying to a Grand Jury
    Hiding the true cost of the Medicare bill
    Secret meetings with oil executives
    Abramhoff
    John Bolton’s request for “intercepts” who’s?
    Swift boating of Kerry
    swift boating of McCain
    Swift boating of Cleland
    Swift boating of Wilson
    Swift boating of Clarke
    Swift boating of O’Neil

    yes… these are the guys we can depend on to protect our liberties. They are exactly the ones that should be snooping into our telephone conversations and emails without any check whatsover. just TRUST me. Right.

  108. 108.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 7, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    Darrell probably heard me say the fascist comment at the SOTU. Though it’s not an excuse, I was drunk, and I said that if Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a T-Shirt then we have become a fascist country.

    While I don’t think we are a fascist country, I do think if Bush gets off with his warrantless wiretap policy, we will be clearly headed in that direction. Given the President the power to ignore the Constitution would be the catalyst.

    Remeber Darrell, you don’t have to be a Nazi to be a Fascist.

  109. 109.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    February 7, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    *Giving
    *Remember

  110. 110.

    SeesThroughIt

    February 7, 2006 at 4:50 pm

    It’s a trademark of the left right to scream ignorant accusations first, check facts later. and then never check facts at all but instead settle for truthiness.

  111. 111.

    Pooh

    February 7, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    Steve, if you are still around on this thread, I largely agree with this re: FISA and Constitutionality.

  112. 112.

    Paul Wartenberg

    February 7, 2006 at 6:18 pm

    My question to AG Gonzales: “If there were problems or difficulties with FISA limiting the White House’s abilities to defend us from terrorists, why did you STILL USE the FISA court to obtain thousands of wiretap warrants during the time period between 9/11 and today? What are the differences between the wiretaps obtained by FISA warrant and the wiretaps obtained by the NSA without warrant?”

  113. 113.

    Pooh

    February 7, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    Paul,

    that’s an easy one. To prosecute in court you need to have used the warrant. Any other use (from the laudable, preventing blowtorchings of the Brooklyn Bridge and the like; to the not so laudable, getting prior warnings of vegan flashmobs), admissability doesn’t so much matter.

    Incidentally, that is why we have the FISA LAW, because some of the…less savory uses of information gained by surveilance will never show up in a court of law, but can/will be used to do such things as intimidate political opponents, mount smear campaigns, etc. And it’s not like I’m pulling those examples out of my ass, because that’s exactly the kind of shit Hoover was pulling.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Deputinize America - Moorea 2024 2
Image by Deputinize America (7/14/25)
Donate

Recent Comments

  • Melancholy Jaques on Monday Night Open Thread (Jul 15, 2025 @ 12:16am)
  • Mai Naem mobile on War for Ukraine Day 1,236: Release the Tariffs!!!! (Jul 15, 2025 @ 12:11am)
  • Sister Golden Bear on Monday Night Open Thread (Jul 15, 2025 @ 12:09am)
  • Gloria DryGarden on Monday Night Open Thread (Jul 15, 2025 @ 12:05am)
  • YY_Sima Qian on War for Ukraine Day 1,236: Release the Tariffs!!!! (Jul 15, 2025 @ 12:02am)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!