A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
It will forever amaze me how quickly rightwingers switched from the argument that government can never be trusted with too much power to the argument that we should trust government with expanded powers because they would never abuse it, practically without batting an eyelash. People explained the sudden change of heart with the excuse that “9/11 changed everything,” which is transparent bullshit. Every time an act of terrorism happened under Clinton the right practically lost its marbles. It should be too obvious to mention that consolidating government power after 9/11 has the shocking, who-would’ve-guiessed-it side effect of strengthening the Republican party and “sticking it to the liberals.”
I suppose that we should be grateful for the current batch of leaders in DC.
If they managed to handle their massive power grab with any degree of responsibility then a decent plurality of the public may have considered it ok. That would be ten times worse, because the expanded powers would be engraved into common practice and that much harder to roll back when a subsequent administration decided to abuse them. Thankfully for our nation the Executive branch has done us all the favor of illustrating exactly why we don’t trust government with expanded power and limited oversight. To wit, as surely as day follows night leaders with expanded “emergency” powers will start pulling inexcusable sh*t like this.
Mr Furious
Well, if the reporters had nothing to hide…
Perry Como
It looks like DougJ has been busy in the comments over at the ABC blog.
danelectro
this is the whole reason for the database in the first place.
Kimmitt
By definition, anyone who wants this power would use it in this fashion.
ppGaz
Reporters are the weakest link in any democracy.
I say, watch them like a hawk.
Ancient Purple
If we allow a free press, the terrorists have won.
Oh, and quash free speech, too. Everytime someone criticized the President, American soldiers dies.
Pb
But… but… what if that journalist and/or NSA whistleblower was a member of al-Qaeda? There could be a ticking bomb! Even revealing the existence of this program is treason! I hope they hunt down the leaker responsible! To protect America from terrorist attacks, the President acted quickly and decisively, and he had both Congressional authority and Constitutional authority under Article II to eat that baby! etc., etc., etc.
Paul Wartenberg
I wonder if this will have the desired effect of making the mainstream media cower before and kiss up to the GOP bullies more than they’ve already been doing.
Ancient Purple
Oy. Bad morning. Last line should read:
Evertime someone criticizes the President, American soldiers die.
Otto Man
And Baby Jesus. Don’t forget Baby Jesus, you godless Islamofascist liberals.
Ancient Purple
I’m hurt. You forget to say “traitorous” as well.
demimondian
Fine, Ancient Purple:
There. Is that better.
CDB
In Soviet Russia, government reports on press
r4d20
The idea that Bush would use this against political opponents is so off-base and perposterous that those political opponents who insinuate otherwise must have ulterior motives and should be investigated using every tool at the presidents disposal – including this one.
Pooh
Cue the “Nuh Uh!” chorus any time now, with conductor Darrell asking to be pointed to a ‘judicial determination’ or asking for our interpretation of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff before we can proceed.
Mr Furious
Yeah, but the Baby Jesus just cries. He’ll get over it.
Punchy
God I enjoy good spoof after lunch…
Perry Como
I think I’ll wait until more information comes out, but I thought that the White House was doing this all along.
Otto Man
Nice Yakoff Smirnoff. I’m crying here.
Much like the Baby Jesus, but with a little laughter.
Ben
If you ask me the Baby Jesus cries at the drop of a hat…. the big sissy…
Krista
Is that even possible? It’s sad to see an entire industry collectively lose its balls.
Otto Man
They didn’t lose them. They put them in a Health Savings Account. It’s a great idea, really!
slickdpdx
Do you think the government can’t obtain these records lawfully in an investigation that involves a violation of a criminal law? ‘Cause they can (and likely did in the Plame/Libby investigation!) This “power grab” talk is a little hysterical.
I’ll give you your next headline: I hear the government knows exactly where you live! Armed agents of the government can listen to your phone and break into your house! Its true, check it out!
Pooh
Slick, spell along with me
W
A
R
R
A
N
T
That is all.
Gratefulcub
Reagan, Bush1 and W have stocked the courts full of liberal judges that wouldn’t give them a warrant, so they had to go around the courts. They HAD to. To keep you safe from reporters.
slickdpdx
I don’t see anything about presence or absence of a warrant there. I’d also note that the government can likely run its OWN phone records without a warrant.
Steve
Pooh has missed the most salient point: what criminal investigation? What law has been violated? I know wingers love to assert that any leak of classified information is a crime (unless it involves Valerie Plame, of course), but actually, there ain’t no such law, not as a blanket proposition.
I’ll just preemptively share this passage once more before the chirping starts about how these leaks damaged national security.
Pooh
Fair enough, I suppose Slick. At the same time, do you really not see any problem at all with the government tracking reporters? What could possibly go wrong with that?
Tim F.
It amazes me that after all this time some people still believe that the government will go court to authorize this kind of clandestine, wide-net surveillance program. Call me hysterical if it pleases you, I will consider your comment naive. Second, nobody is talking about the government monitoring its own records. The story makes perfectly clear that the government is skimming the reporters’ phone records and tracking any numbers that lead back to government.
Jaybird
Smile!
So long as Kerry doesn’t run again, there will be a Democrat in office in 2008!
Then the Democrats can once again defend the executive having these powers and the Republicans can once again remember why they didn’t like the executive being quite that powerful!
The best part is that all y’all can quote each other from 2005-2006 while you’re arguing.
slickdpdx
Tim: Don’t call ME naive when a fact YOU assumed isn’t in the story.
You can see who called you on your own phone records. Similarly the government has access to its own records. Reporters aren’t always the brightest bulbs. I think, just as the “your own records” thing didn’t occur to any of you, it probably didn’t occur to them.
I’ll assume, as I did during Plame/Libby investigation, that leak investigations are being performed lawfully until I see something that shows me otherwise.
slickdpdx
Pooh: I do see the potential for abuse, particularly when a violation of criminal law is not present. However, the potential for abuse is not the same as abuse. And we shouldn’t be running down a partisan rabbit hole. That’s why I keep bringing up Plame/Libby. We need a free press. We also need a government that can enforce violations of the law and it should do so lawfully. I’m not going to change my position depending on the leak being investigated…
DougJ
Don’t call ME naive when a fact YOU assumed isn’t in the story.
Who’s being naive, Kaye?
Andrew
When slick assumes, he makes an ass out of… himself if he thinks that the leakers are calling from government phones.
Any America-hating CIA agent probably knows not to call a reporter from a government office. Although I can’t promise intelligent behavior from Bush hires.
Ancient Purple
Except, of course, it is doubtful that reporters are calling their government sources at the office. (“Sure, I have a scoop for you… let me just close my office door.”)
It is rather naive to think that reporters aren’t calling these sources at their homes and/or private cell phones.
So, do tell how working for the government means your home and private cell numbers are really government property.
Ancient Purple
Curses, Andrew!!! /shakes fist
You beat me to the punch.
/sigh
:o)
Tim F.
slick, the story does not even suggest that the government is monitoring its own records. I am sure that they do, but yes or no it’s hardly reportable news. You have inserted that into the story for reasons that will remain mysterious to me.
If the government is scanning the records of a broad swath of reporters, as the only reasonable interpretation of the story would imply, then it must have gotten a warrant. But you simply cannot get a warrant for such a broad-brush fishing expedition. Even Janice Rogers Brown wouldn’t sign her name to something so obviously doomed to be overturned by SCOTUS.
You have a right to assume whatever you choose, but your credibility scores higher when you don’t rewrite the story in the process. It is always possible that the story is flat-out wrong, although it is perfectly of a piece with past behavior, but short of simply being wrong there is no innocuous way out of it.
ppGaz
You’ve got us there. Nothing makes more sense with the Bush crew than to assume that whatever they are doing, they are doing lawfully and sensibly.
Lawful, sensible and common-sense competance are the hallmarks of this administration. Always take what they say and do at face value.
I think the visual text effects add punch, don’t you?
Darrell
Let’s see, an unamed federal law enforcement official claims reporters are being snooped on by the govt., an allegation reported not as an ABC “news” story but as a post on the ABC blog. Any other sources covering this story besides the blog post?
I mean, if these allegations were substantiated, seems this would have news coverage. It’s not even covered on the ABC news site
Punchy
Call me crazy, but I don’t think it’s the Bush hires that are making these phone calls. They’re too dumb to know how to actually use a phone…always getting the damn string in knots and the tin can dented up…
slickdpdx
The fact is, you are all making big assumptions. I’m just pointing out that such information could be lawfully obtained and that the story does not have any information that demonstrates anything illegal occured.
Everytime I read about an investigation I don’t assume that the investigation is being conducted illegally. And, I certainly don’t change my position depending on which “side” the investigation benefits politically.
Mr Furious
Yeah, but an alligator ate a woman, Bush is invading Mexico and someone got raped at Duke…
ppGaz
Once again, Darrell arrives, like the cavalry in the old movies, to restore order and calm amid the smoke, dust and noise of unfounded criticisms of the Bush Administration.
It’s almost as if he’s had his late-morning briefing in the White House Communications Office, and then sits down to post here.
We are witness to something quite remarkable on these pages!
LITBMueller
When this program gets challenged (and it will), expect to see this case cited United States v. United States District Court. In it, Nixon claimed that he had broad powers gather intelligence information deemed necessary “to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government”:
De ja vie all over again.
slickdpdx
Re: Evidence of a crime?
I take it back, the law enforcement source has probably committed a crime. As for the rest, not enough information to say.
Gratefulcub
I can’t think of a time that I have sided with Darrell, but this is one.
I expect that the allegations posted on the ABC blog will turn out to be true. If it occurred in the way that I assume, major investigations and jailtime should ensue.
But…
All we have is one anonymous source and an ABC blog.
If there is something there, it will come out in the very near future. Obviously there is some ‘senior something or the other’ that believes it is going on and feels the need to tell us. Today, that is all we have.
Even if it turn out not to be true, this is the problem with the removal of oversight. If the executive branch has a database storing every call made in the US, they will eventually use that against their perceived enemies.
searp
Darrell: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/
I think ABC is covering it.
Darrell
But Tim F. has already declared that the blog reported monitoring is “inexcusable sh*t” without details or substantiation.
ppGaz
You’re right. That’s less than we had on the murder of Vince Foster by Hillary Clinton. And that turned out to be true.
Darrell
I’m not so sure. If you click the links, those links takes you to the ABC blog, not to any ABC News story.
Andrew
Oh sure, Mr. liberal smarty pants who knows how to use a phone. That’s just more Northeast elitism, inside the Beltway talk that will alienate the non-phone using center.
And how do you explain how they could hire those hookers, hmmm? The limo isn’t going to call itself, after all.
Darrell
When you have examples of such abuse, you’ll have a point.
LITBMueller
So…..Any bets on what else is being sucked up by the Giant NSA Information Vaccuum?
Here are some potentials (followed by likely BushBot excuses):
1) Monitoring the subject lines of emails (“But, they didn’t read your message!”)
2) A data base of credit card purchases (“They just looked at where people shopped, and not names or private info!”)
3) Obtaining data from major internet providers to track where and when users surf (“I’m sure they won’t look at what porn sites I visit. Will they?”)
ppGaz
So the right way to make sure there’s no abuse is to give the officials all the information they want, and wait until there is proof of abuse before becoming alarmed?
Is that similar to your well-established policy of letting gay men be scout leaders, until we have proof of actual abuse?
Or ….? Oh sorry, I got it backwards. We can’t let the gay men go camping with our youth because we can’t take the chance that there might be abuse. But we CAN let government officials stockpile mountains of data about citizens because so far we have no proof that they are abusing it.
It’s not easy to follow your logic, Darrell. Help a brotha.
Tom in Texas
Let’s remember that, according to documents released in court (and published online by The Raw Story, The NSA is spying on Quakers.
No matter how desperately you try to spin it, the Quakers are not an insiduous AQ plant attempting to destroy the United States. They are merely pacifists. Does this qualify as a real threat or does it make them one of the “perceived enemies” you insist will never be targeted?
Gratefulcub
See Nixon, Dick
demimondian
I expect that NSA is slurping up all the port 25 traffic it can see. It it isn’t encrytped, after all, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
(No, I’m not joking. I wish I were. If you don’t want it read, either (a) encrypt it yourself or (b) make sure that all the mail servers between you and your destination run either Lotus Domino or Microsoft Exchange. And are properly administered.)
Gratefulcub
And Tice is going to be testifying, I assume in a closed session, that the NSA is using satellites to spy on Americans. I am sure he is selling a book.
There are just too many stories of domestic spying and extra-legal (illegal) activities. The administration is fighting investigations by denying security clearances.
The administration hasn’t denied anything, they just say it is ‘lawful’.
They can look at who you have been calling without a warrant.
Use that info to wiretap you, without a warrant.
Arrest you without charges, enemy combatant.
Ship you to a third world nation for some torture until you confess to something.
(Yes, that is taken straight from Yglesias)
You may trust Bush with that power, but do you trust Al Gore with that ability? He may round up conservatives that don’t believe in Global Warming. Since Global Warming is a threat to national security, the ends definitely justify the means. If these op-eds continue to undermine his presidency, Global Warming will kill us all. So, he is just protecting us.
Steve
Perhaps we could grind up all the people who don’t believe in global warming and use them as some sort of alternative fuel.
ppGaz
This is not amusing to those of us who live in Phoenix.
Have you ever gotten into a car at 2:30 on a July afternoon in the desert? You have to put oven mitts in your back pocket to keep your ass from getting fried on on the seats.
Pooh
It’s almost as if someone could have predicted such a response from the Senator. Almost…
Tim F.
And thus, at long last, conservatism died. Ashes to ashes…
skip
What the Government itself does is only half the story. Friendly states do much of what we legally cannot. Egypt and Syria torture for us. So did ex-IDF Israelis at Abu Ghraib (surely you didin’t believe kids from Cumberland MD were skilled is Muslim humiliation, did you!).
The murky legal areas are easily sidetepped.
Darrell
You’re right. It’s best that I rely on unsubstantiated blog posts first before expressing righteous outrage.
Steve
What’s cute is how Darrell refuses to tell us how he would feel if it were in fact true, thus leaving himself open to asserting the “these criminal journalists SHOULD be investigated!” argument as a fallback position.
Pooh
Funny, you usually prefer unvarnished prejudice…
What was it ppGaz, the dangers of those gay boyscout leaders?
DougJ
POtD.
ppGaz
That’s right, you need proof before stooping to crass homophobic bigotry, or other unwarranted prejudices.
You da man, Darrell!
In this relationship, I mean.
LITBMueller
This spying is getting reported in reverse. We first got evidence of how NSA-gathered data is being misused way back in January:
Trust them at your peril!!!
Perry Como
demimondian Says:
Except encryption does do jack when you are doing social network analysis. You can still put together a good bit of information by just looking where the traffic is going.
I think I’ve figured of the MO of the Defenders in a situation like this:
1) This is all rumor and speculation.
2) Okay, it’s actually happening, but there is no law against it.
3) Okay, there is a law against it, but that law violates the President’s Article II powers.
4) Okay, the President doesn’t actually have those powers under Article II, but I have this shiny quarter. Look at this quarter. Isn’t it pretty and shiny?
Tim F.
I bet that you would miss the point, Darrell. Guess what? I won.
Your quoted comment didn’t address the specific question of whether this article is accurate. You already raised that point, which is especially fine with me because I raised it before you. If the whole story is bogus then bogus it is.
This comment made a different point:
Maybe you should say what you mean more clearly, Darrell. It sounds like you are saying that it is fine to give government expanded powers because your “side” doesn’t abuse power. If so then there should be no doubt that conservatism has withered on the vine and in its place personality-cult statism has bloomed. Only the name has changed – people now call it “conservatism.”
Maybe you wanted to make a different point and it got lost on the way. If so then by all means, clarify.
Darrell
Sure Steve, that makes perfect sense. How rational of you.
Therefore, if there’s an unsubstantiated blog “report” that Al Gore ran a child sex ring or smoked crack with Bobby Brown, we shouldn’t wait for details or confirmation before reacting, but instead discuss “how would you feel if it was true”
I think that is such a brilliant idea
Perry Como
Er, *doesn’t do jack. Whether or not encryption has any effect on a jackalope remains to be seen.
slickdpdx
I take it from those of you going personal on Darrel on an unrelated issue that you realize, but do not wish to admit, that you were out front a little early on this. There may be cause for outrage. It may also be a lot of balloon juice. Own up. If you turn out to be right, you can always say, “I told you so.”
ppGaz
Here’s a brilliant idea for you, D-man:
When you are in a deep hole, put down your shovel.
Pooh
Tim, I feel you are missing the point as well. Those like Darrell don’t have any cognizable worldview that goes much further than
hippielibruls = bad, so it’s illogical to expect him to harmonize these new actions with the old arguments made by librulhaters.And when all else fails, Clinton did it too.
rilkefan
Visited a friend of mine in Tucson a few years ago. We pulled up at a deli for lunch and he left the engine running. When I pointed this out to him, he explained he had to leave the AC on.
ppGaz
Personal? It’s his issue, he raised it.
And it’s not unrelated. It goes to his logic and process. On the basis of “most people think so” (his argument), it’s okay to assume that gays are not to be trusted as scout leaders. But when it comes to government abuse, he requires proof before being concerned.
Nothing “personal” about it. He is either consistent in his views, or he just makes shit up. Surely anyone who posts here as much as he does can be held to account for his views, eh?
Darrell
I never said that. I never implied As usual Tim, you’re raising a strawman to hide the fact that you ran with an unsubstatiated story because, well.. because you “felt” it must it be true
rilkefan
slickdpdx, in case you’re late to the conversation, this is issue # 1374 where a little smoke on a blog turned out to be related to Bush’s pants being on fire. Saying “let’s wait to see what happens” is like someone watching a cow falling off a cliff saying “maybe it’ll land ok”.
slickdpdx
ppG: Fair enough. Not sure where you are going though…
Is it okay to assume the worst of scoutmasters and be consistent with the “suspect first” credo? Or do you prefer the “evidence first” credo? That is, waiting for evidence in a particular case (whether its a particular scoutmaster or a particular investigation) before rolling out the tar and feathers?
Darrell’s not the only one that contradicts himself on that count.
Perry Como
This has less to do with one specific instance and more to do with a general attitude towards government power. I used to be able to count on conservatives to distrust government, especially the Federal government. And on that point I think they were correct. Now we are in a situation where self-proclaimed conservatives seem to have no problem with expanding government power. “Show me the abuses”, they say.
Well, when investigations into potential abuses are hamstrung by not providing security clearances and all details of the programs are super duper double top secret, it’s hard to see if abuses are occuring. What’s worse is the precedent it sets down the road. No matter how much you trust this administration with a broad increase in surveillance powers, how much would you trust Prsident Hillary?
I don’t trust either of them. In fact, I don’t trust anybody with that kind of power. Any person that wants that kind of power is the least deserving of it.
btw, I have pointed out one abuse that every conservative I’ve mentioned it to has completely ignored. Bolton had an NSA intercept of the conversation of a sitting Governor (Bill Richardson). What’s that about? Why is a Bush administration official wire tapping a sitting Democratic Governor?
Steve
I would think it was outrageous. Are you saying Tim’s story is about as likely to be true as your hypothetical is?
Let me try to restate Tim’s point, although I think his last post was pretty clear. It’s not about whether this particular story is true. It’s about the fact that we live in a nation without oversight, where we have no way of knowing whether it’s true. That’s a very fundamental problem.
Darrell
How have I “contradicted” myself?
Perry Como
It could turn into a pot of flowers…
Pooh
PoTD?
Darrell
How would we know whether or not this particular story is “true”, when there are practically no details reported? I guess it all depends on how you ‘feel’, right?
Btw, I love the broad brush drama-queen accusations like “we live in a nation without oversight”. Is that a line from West Wing?
demimondian
It’s actually more like watching a crown of lemmings run off a cliff, saying “Maybe they can swim”.
Darrell
You say it as if it’s fact. Has there been a broad increase in surveillance powers under Bush? I thought Echelon had been going on for quite a while. Has the government used information gathered from illegal wiretaps to convict anyone? No?
Bone-In RibEye
That’s very very improbable.
Steve
If this is still where we are in the discussion, I know I don’t have the time for it. Maybe someone else can catch Darrell up since 9/11.
Bone-In RibEye
This has been bugging me all morning. Its sounds familiar but I can’t place it. Where’s this line from?
Gratefulcub
“Your God is too busy with Tax Fraud”
That’s a line from west wing.
Guys, Darrell isn’t a conservative. True conservatives have left W. Self identified conservatives are still 50/50, because half of them are just social conservatives, which was never the same thing.
Conservatism isn’t dead. Unfortunately, neither is the cult of Bush and the hatred of all things liberal.
Darrell
You know what I like? How if anyone supports ANY thing Bush does, no matter how many other issues they disagree with him on.. Using leftwingnut “logic”, such people are therefore part of the “cult of Bush”.
No doubt you people see yourself as normal, rather than extremists, right?
ppGaz
Not sure what the question is.
I’ll just state my own view, and you can go from there.
My view on the scouts is this:
1) I have no information that leads me to believe that gay persons are more likely to be child abusers than straight persons. But I do have information that leads me to conclude that child abuse among straight persons is not exactly uncommon.
2) I have no information that leads me to believe that gay persons are less trustworthy or less ethical in their behavior than straight persons.
3) Therefore, I have no reason to doubt that gay persons would be trustworthy and ethical scout leaders to at least the same degree that I can expect straight persons to be.
In that regard so far, I am taking the “show me the abuse first” stance.
In regard to the subject of this thread, I don’t think I’ve put forth any particular view on the validity of the subject blogger’s claim, one way or the other. However, we already know that the government is amassing a vast database of information of the type being discussed here, and I’d reckon that over time, we will find out a good deal more about it.
If there’s churn and speculation today, well, it’s blogville. And if that speculation is ill founded, then let the government officials who are in a position to do so come forth and state that the activity described in the subject blog never happened, and won’t happen. And if that response is forthcoming, let it stand or fall on its merits.
srv
Drudge quoting from GW’s speech tonight:
ppGaz
But, is it our imagination, or are you the most predictable knee-jerk defender of Bush around here?
What issues do you “disagree with him on?”
Fledermaus
I’d give it the college try, but somehow I would run up against the “Clinton/FDR did it, too” argument. It doesn’t even matter what ‘it’ the Banana Republicans will stand up and with one voice proclaim that ‘Clinton (even days) or FDR (odd days) did it, too’ as if that were some sort of coup de grace to the argument.
Darrell
Read my posts on other threads you’ve posted on yourself numbnutz.
ppGaz
Uh huh. Okay then, as I said, your reputation here, which is well deserved, is one of being a knee-jerk defender of Bush. Defend first, ask questions later. And if the questions are embarassing to your position, then ignore them. Run away, hide, change the subject, or create
LOOK A JACKALOPE!
Perry Como
I have yet to see any rightie on this blog roll a natural 20.
slickdpdx
ppG: We are in agreement about scoutmasters.
Regarding ‘its blogville’. You are right about that too. Why else would we be at balloon juice!?
Beware talk about “TRUE insert-the-faith-here” (liberals, conservatives, religions, whatever).
Pooh
Fear the Clenis.
Tim, is there anyway to have a sticky first comment on all posts that posits that Darrell has already made the following points:
1) Show me where a judge said…
2) Clinton did it too!
3) ppGaz is an asshole
I think it would save us all much time to so stipulate.
DougJ
Where’s this line from?
The Godfather…
Michael: My father’s no different than any other powerful man, any man who’s responsible for other people. Like a senator or a president.
Kay: You know how naive you sound?
Michael: Why?
Kay: Senators and presidents don’t have men killed.
Michael: Who’s being naive, Kay?
Pb
Darrell,
“Trust me.”
LITBMueller
I think Cheney mutters that in his sleep. Right after, “It’s not fascism is we do it!”
I think that’s from Godfather II, Bone. :)
ppGaz
I will stipulate that I am an asshole.
It’s what I do, it’s my job.
I have the credentials and the experience. When you need an asshole, who you gonna call?
So …. you got Darrell, an asshole, and me, an asshole. What’s the difference?
Easy. Darrell is wrong most of the time.
I’m not.
This ain’t rocket science, people.
chopper
I mean, if these allegations were substantiated, seems this would have news coverage. It’s not even covered on the ABC news site.
ah, the wheel o’ darrell lands on ‘nobody’s reporting it’. of course, if it changes, he’ll just spin it again and land on ‘this is old news’.
curse the wheel o’ darrell.
Davebo
Actually Chopper it will spin from “nobody is reporting it” to “it’s a massive conspiracy of the EeeemmEeesssEeeeem in an attempt to make the president unpopular.
Because he’s just so damned popular now somebody had to do something..
Pooh
No, no, I’m not saying that ppGaz, I’m suggesting we assume from the outset that certain people have said so in any given thread.
ppGaz
Well, I am. Lefty Asshole is a job that needs to be done, and I’m your man.
I’ve trained for it, and I deserve the shot.
TallDave
People explained the sudden change of heart with the excuse that “9/11 changed everything,” which is transparent bullshit.
LOL Sounds like someone has started believing his own propaganda. I didn’t think Tim F. was quite that obtuse, but I guess he’s drinking the BDS Kool-Aid now too.
Yes, everything did change on 9/11; 3,000 dead Americans and a demolished World Trade Center will tend to do that. You guys will keep losing elections till you figure that out, which apparently isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Karl Rove thanks God for people like ppGaz every day.
D. Mason
Why would they convict people when they can just throw them in an
eastern European gulagSecret prisonTerrorist detention facility indefinately?Pb
Well, the massive conspiracy to make the President popular already took place–after 9/11, we had the threat of
Osama bin LadenSaddam Hussein, thewar withdemocratization ofAfghanistanIraq, and the elections. But now that it’s after 2004, what does he care…ppGaz
Sure he does. An obscure poster on an obscure little blog that can’t even make up its mind whether it is righty or lefty …. that’s what Karl Rove thinks about.
Jesus, I forgot what a total horse’s ass you were.
TallDave
LOL PPGaz, you’ll never understand it, but people like you are just the puppet on his string.
It’s fun to watch you dance for him, though. LOL You’re doing it right now, and you don’t even realize it.
Perry Como
D. Mason, those don’t exist. But we are still going to crucify the leakers that exposed a non-existent program.
It looks like the frothing moonbats at Cato have picked up on the NSA spying on reporters story too.
ppGaz
You are without doubt the biggest fucking idiot that ever posted here. And that is putting you in some awesome company.
TallDave
LOL That’s right, keep dancing!
Ahhh, the Angry Left. You can’t buy this kind of entertainment.
jg
Just before I checked back in here it hit me, Godfather. The damn thing was rattling around in my head until I finally identified the voice of the guy talking, Michael Corleone.
I’m changing my name back to jg. Its too hard to find my comments when my name isn’t in the thread. I scroll right past Bone-In RibEye everytime.
D. Mason
If he’s the puppet does that make you the string?
DougJ
Does the real TallDave use LOL that much?
ppGaz
CATO is really a chicken with its head cut off these days. I read their material regularly, and recently a lot of it has turned …. incoherent. I think they are completely conflicted. They started out being self-declared Conservatarian (conservative-libertarian). Now they are just …. unfocussed.
ppGaz
It’s the new, shorter Dave.
DougJ
TallDave has used “LOL” four times in his last three posts. Does anyone really do that?
The Other Steve
TallDave is clearly a spoof.
jg
He’s got a point PPG. He and most of the right care for nothing but making libs look bad even if the libs only really look bad in their fucked up little world. Its not about bringing facts to an argument to make a point or convince. They just say shit to piss the left off and then point and laugh and say this is why they’ll never vote democrat. Rove knows he’s got a boatload (a really big boat) of people who will not consider voting anything but republican and he uses that to get his party elected.
ppGaz
Relatively TallDave really wants to come back here and be one of the guys again.
The LOL thing is a posting body-language deferral, a gesture of submission.
Like approaching your boss with your palms up.
Perry Como
Noted Raving Leftist Looney Bush Hater, Pat Robertson, has called the NSA wire tapping program a “tool of oppression.”
ppGaz
We tremble at his mighty power.
TallDave
No, it’s really me. You guys just crack me up with your predictable vitriol (LOL!). Hey, let’s count the number of times ppGaz used obscenities to desrcibe me! We can call it the Angry-Left-O-Meter.
And no, me and “the right” don’t care about making you look bad. But Karl is a master of setting you up to do just that, with hardly any help at all.
Now DANCE, my puppets! Mwahahahahahahahah!
TallDave
Oh, and remember: the angrier, the better!
Ta-ta for now, sweeties.
DougJ
I don’t think that’s the real TallDave. Somebody picked his addy up from Protein Wisdom and logged on as him over here.
ppGaz
I’m pretty sure I have never used a word here that John Cole hasn’t used first, Dave. If you have a problem with the language here, take it up with him.
“Obscenity?” You’re an obscenity, dude.
Sojourner
Why don’t you ever brag about what a great job the Repubs are doing in governing the country? Fascinating that the only claim you ever make is their ability to win elections. Perhaps if you had higher standards for governing, the country wouldn’t be so fucked up.
And why don’t you ever note that the Bush administration was repeatedly warned before 9/11 but didn’t do squat. And they got the warnings without having to resort to illegal activities.
ppGaz
Actually, it’s the same guy who writes Brian and Par.
He’s advanced into spoofing the actual handles of known posters here.
Perry Como
Bush Derangement Syndrome Patient Zero, John Sununu, comes unhinged and says:
ppGaz
Yes, please do. I am keeping an almanac.
DougJ
Do you think we could use our spy satellites to track alligators? When can we begin the war on alligators?
rilkefan
Aren’t you all tired of shouting at each other? How about joining together to shout at the guy quoted here?
Perry Como
“Barely indistinguishable from Michael Moore” columnist, Steve Chapman, has this to say about NSA spying:
jg
Lesson for the right. The left doesn’t like this guy and he hates George easily as much as the left. A quote:
ppGaz
NO GODDAMMIT.
ppGaz
Besides, rilke, where the HELL have you been?
You are weeks behind in your posting. Get to work.
Otto Man
12-year-old girls. And people who think like them.
DougJ
Otto, do you think Tall Dave and scs are the same person? I’m not kidding.
rilkefan
ppGaz, have had to put in some effort at the lab since I need to ask for some more work. Plus Rilkekind is due in a month and house-organizing and cradle-building and clothes-shopping and etc etc have sapped my strength.
Plus it does get tiresome in here after a while – the blog needs more sensible conservative commentators and a less awful admin to make sense.
ppGaz
Is it true that SLAC is going to be turned into the world’s longest bowling alley?
ppGaz
I kid, I kid. About SLAC, I mean.
I agree with you about the conservative commentators.
Is it your first kid? We have a grandchild over here five days a week (see my url) and it is the most fun in the world ….
ppGaz
How to be a male parent, in four words:
“Please swipe your card.”
But it’s worth every penny, and every bit of the energy it will take.
ppGaz
Welp, just listened to GWB for 17 mins.
Mostly, I agree with what he said.
He was reasonable, practical, and made a straightforward appeal for his programs.
Why can’t he be this sensible all the time?
rilkefan
First child. We’ve been looking around for a house for the grandfolks, who have offered to move here, but it’s just insanely expensive. An 850-sq-ft house in our neighborhood with no yard goes for over $900k. No chance for us to find a house for our family like the ones we grew up in – playroom for the kids, den/study for the parents, trees to climb in, grass to run around aimlessly on.
ppGaz
Yeah, I hear that. I’ve lived in San Jose and San Bruno, and as much as I love the Bay Area, I couldn’t do it any more. The price is just too high.
rilkefan
Via TPM:
Looks like the cow did not stick the dismount.
Otto Man
I’m not sure. Frankly, at this point, I’m having a hard time believing Tall Dave is a person.
demimondian
Yeah. One of the companies in the Bay Area offered me a job two years ago. We really, really wanted to move, but just couldn’t afford the house-price delta from Redmond…which is no haven for cheapskates.
Anyway, Rilkefan…enjoy the rilkekinder. They’re fun.
Scott
I’m too old to move to a new country, so we ought to fix this one, First thing is find someone with a backbone to standup in congress and say whatz going on and lets impeach these guys already. How many lies does it take to get rid of this bunch of idiots.
ppGaz
I once thought he might be related to Super Dave, but Super Dave is funny as hell.
Slide.
well, interesting speech. What purpose it served is a bit beyond me. Certainly didn’t help with his base. They are ripping him a new A-hole over at NRO. this is one of my favorite comments over there:
Lou Dobbs is beating him up as expected. David Frum perdicts that Bush’s abysmal numbers will go even lower. One thing he DID do was change the subject, albeit briefly, from wiretapping, Cheney’s notes on Wilson’s Op-ed, revelations that Libby was warened outing Plame would be dangerous, massive database on innocent phone calls made by Americans, monitoring of journalist’s phone calls, hookergate, CIA destruction, Generals calling for Rummy’s resignation, Delay indictment, Cunningham indictement, Libby indictment, HUD scandal, stifling of Justice Department internal investigation. It really is amazing…. I can go on and on and on with scandal after scandal. One unethical conduct followed by another criminal allegation followed by another violation of our constitution. This is truly a remarkable administration. Watching it unravel day by day is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
DougJ
I love Super Dave. He was so funny on Letterman. Back in the day, that show was genius 5 nights a week. All day long I would look foward to watching it. I haven’t felt that way about a show in a long, long time, but I feel that way about Colbert.
ppGaz
From Kevin Drum, the most cautious blogger I know of.
This situation is worse than we thought.
Candidus
How disgusting, but not so surprising, I suppose, that W is now doing the Hildebeest’s work for her. She’ll be standing on extra-high shoulders come January 2009.
Perry Como
Insane in the membrane far lefty, Joe Scarborough, rips the NSA spying scandal a new one. Who knew there were all these closet liberals that had delayed offset BDS?
Davebo
Wow,
If only John Cole cared enough now to open a thread on the speech.
Oh well, I guess constantly scanning Google News for Cindy Sheehan takes a lot of one’s time.
Perry Como
Completely unsubstantiated, but perfectly plausible extension of all of this warantless data collection. Is the FBI turning over gun purchase records to the NSA?
DougJ
Did you make “Hildebeast” up? I’m laughing so hard I’m almost crying.
srv
Neal Boortz has been using Hildebeast since the 90’s I think. Not sure who made it up.
Guess you’re not so worldly DJ. Ever try pranking Talk Radio?
DougJ
I don’t listen to Talk Radio, but I’d like to try pranking it some day.
Ancient Purple
Oh, I can’t wait for Darrell to triumphantly ride in on his white stallion and tell us how this is going to stop terrorists dead in their tracks.
Then, he will tell us all which part of that pesky Constitution should be set aside to save us – SAVE US – from those evil doers.
Candidus
No, I was introduced to it on Usenet perhaps ten years ago. As sobriquets go, it is not so bad. Beyond the cheap and obvious connotation, it has this vague Antichrist-valkyrie vibe.
Chum
If I wasn’t turning 58 next week and didn’t have a dodgy back, I seriously consider having your baby.
The Other Steve
I noticed the President gave a speech, and nobody listened.
Al Maviva
I’m with the NY Times on this, and think this is a complete atrocity, that the FBI is using this tactic against reporters in the Secret Prisons, NSA spying and rendition leak investigations. It’s terrible that the brave whistleblowers (and the journalists they blow) are being witch hunted in this manner.
I also agree with the NY Times on another point: I think it’s a great thing that the FBI is able to do this to get those dirty bastards who outed Valerie Plame. We needed a really aggressive leak violation, one that goes wherever the facts take us, because you can’t be allowed to compromise national security in such a brazen, political manner.
The use of national security letters – a longstanding procedure authorized for use in counterintelligence investigations – to investigate leaks of classified information by FBI counterintelligence units, is just another travesty.
And another thing, I’m simply outraged that chickens often come home to roost. I only asked for leak investigations that gored somebody else’s ox, not my own…
PeterJ
I can’t understand this. When there’s no reporting about all the good things happening in Iraq, like school doors being painted, it’s not because there isn’t lots of school doors being painted all the time, it’s because of the “left leaning Bush hating media(tm)” who refuse to report on anything that makes prez Bush looking good.
On the other hand since the same “left leaning Bush hating media(tm)”, who would obviously report on anything that would make the current administration look bad, now isn’t reporting on themselves being tracked by the government that’s a sign that it isn’t happening?
Please someone tell me when you should trust what the “left leaning Bush hating media(tm)” is reporting (and what it’s not) and when you should…
Slide.
John who?
Slide.
the bloviator:
you’re snarky post might have a modicum of interest had the NY Times supported the government getting phone records of journalists in the Valerie Plame investigation, but of course they hadn’t. Nice try though Al, keep up the good work you’re doing a heck of a job. Not too many can bring themselves to consistantly acquiesce to the chipping away of our freedoms quite the way you can. You fill the entertainment void John Cole’s absence has left us, of an apologist in full throated defense of the undefensible.
chopper
when is talldave coming back to this thread? i just love his antics; seriously, seeing someone who mindlessly regurgitates RW talking points like it’s a sport, calling others ‘puppets’..that kind of projection just makes my loins tingle.
DougJ
Shorter Al Maviva: I’m trying to be sarcastic, but no one reads mhy posts past the first paragraph, so that may not be clear to most of you.
Al Maviva
You really don’t understand the nature of government power, do you Slide? When you call for an aggressive investigation, you, the outraged public, don’t get to pick which tactics you’d like, and which you wouldn’t. You get an aggressive investigation. The cops then use whatever legal means they have at hand to “win” their game, and sometimes will cheat. (And if the FBI is using tools like NLS’s, which are available in *counterintelligence* investigations, they aren’t even cheating; they’ve always been available in counterintelligence investigations, and a leak investigation, a suspected intentional compromise of classified material, falls within that category). With the leak investigations, the Plame investigation let the camel’s nose under the tent, and the rest of the camel appears to be following apace. Why are you shocked? How is that surprising? It is beyond me how you can decry the Plame leak, holler for an aggressive investigation that puts the screws to everybody involved (especially the Bush licker media) and then get upset when the government uses the exact same tools to go after other leaks, only this time targeting leaks benefitting liberals. A full throated defense of the Administration? Hardly. More like a full-throated raspberry directed at your uncomprehending rage. DOJ got nasty in the Plame investigation and you cheered, it couldn’t get nasty enough fast enough for you, and you are still cheering for Rove and Cheney and Bob Novak and Judith Miller and whomever else to get skewered. Treason! Draw and Quarter! Perp walk ’em! DOJ now believes it has permission to target reporters in other leak investigations in the same manner. The latter investigations are probably more negative of fundamental civil liberties than the Plame investigation was, but now the methods are proven and accepted, heck they were called for by Democrats, and now they are being used. That’s the way it works with the exercise of government police power. You probably cheered when RICO was used against anti-abortion protestors. Were it not halted by the Supreme Court, the same act could have been used again PETA and maybe Greenpeace and the anti-WTO protestors. Lawrence Walsh’s perma-investigations made Ken Starr possible. And so forth. When you ask the state to put the screws to a political enemy of yours using legal process, you shouldn’t be shocked when the state turns the same processes on those it perceives as its own political enemies. You gave it permission Slide, and indeed demanded it. The only thing you are quibbling about now, is the government’s discretionary choice of targets.
And for the record, I’m only pointing out the stupidity and inherent contracdiction of your position Slide. I think witch hunts of reporters are about as wrong as the Government can get and don’t endorse the government going after reporters in leak investigations, but the Plame case set the precedent and now we have to live with it.
Perry Como
If anything the Plame investigation was a nice test case for the administration to see which judicial oversight it should skip next. A judge won’t let Fitzgerald get the phone records of journalists? Okay. Next time they’ll skip the judge.
Rule of law Republicans, bitches.
Run It
Plame investigated domestic poitical groups from Brewster’s millions. She probably used NSA assetts and found her own retired friends starting all those 500s. We still are working her agenda.
They spied on the quakers because they are the original excuse for earth quakes.
The laws will be changed id a dem gets in the White House, that is who really abuses the power/
RonB
Al, sounds kinda post-hocky, but I know that wasnt your point. I wouldnt presume to do any arguing for Slide, but I think it’s safe to assume he does not like the idea of the executive conducting high profile smear campaigns using journalists. He also doesn’t care for the idea of the government conducting secret, ostensibly illegal surveillance programs against everyone and their mother to bag potential terrorists, the efficacy of which surely can be debated, and the abuse potential seemingly broadening.
Rather than pointing out the contradiction arising from the resolution of these matters, why not be a little peeved at the people who created these conditions in the first place? Is that all that foolish, really? We already know we can hardly do a fucking thing about what is happening except catapult these bozos out of Washington posthaste, and hope a less scatterbrained group takes the helm.
So, does Mike fuck with you alot because you’re sending the Republicans into the wilderness?
Sherard
It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and white. I suppose it would only be ok to do “inexcusable sh*t like this” if it were to uncover the source of the Plame leak – at least if it were assured to damage the Bush administration that is.
Suffice to say, yes I find it ok that the government would be listening in on press calls in order to smoke out ILLEGAL sources of national secrets. But then, I must be one of them “right-wingers”.
Ancient Purple
Even shorter Al Malviva: Nixon deserved better.
Ancient Purple
Even shorter Sherard: What Constitution?
Otto Man
You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.
DougJ
I suppose it would only be ok to do “inexcusable sh*t like this” if it were to uncover the source of the Plame leak
Nope, I don’t support the use of National Security Letters for any leak investigation. If they want phone logs, they can get a subpoena. That goes for Fitzgerald and it goes for the Cowboy King too.
Are you really too stupid to understand the difference between what the FBI is doing here and the way a normal investigation takes place?
Slide
the blovitor is is full bloviate this morning I see. And the more he writes the more he makes a fool out of himself. A few points:
bloviation #1:
Actually Al I know about government power very well – from the inside. I was a high ranking police official for over 20 years and had to deal with warrants, subpoenas, confidential sources and the delicate balance between trying to gain evidence of wrongdoing without trampling on peoples civil rights. I did this on a very practical level. This is not theory for me Al. So, in short, go shove your condensending smugness up your ass.
I’m not going to go point by point to refute the many ridiculous assertions in your post but a few points. We dont’ know exactly what was done yet so for you to say:
absurd. Lets wait till the facts come out but if they used this massive database of phone records to see the “patterns” or calls made by journalists and they did that without a warrant then we have an out of control executive branch. If they went to a judge and produced probable cause that a particular journalist received classified information in violation of federal law then they can indeed get the phone records of that journalist. I have no problem with that. I BELIVE in law enforcement -having actually done that for my whole adult life. Not a bleeding heart liberal here Al.
But, they can’t go on fishing expeditions. The story seems to indicate that they have been monitoring multiple journalists at multiple news organizations in the hopes of catching someone doing something improper. That is a very very chilling thing to do and conservatives USED to be very much against such an intrusion into our privacy by Big Brother.
What is the track record of this administration so far? They have managed to turn this country into a country that winks and nods at torture. At scooping up and detaining American citizens without due process. Of monitoring electonic communications of American citizens without a warrant in direct violation of the FISA act (despite your absurd contention it was all legal when it was first revealed) We are a country that holds innocent foreigners in our prison in Cuba. We have our military spy domestically in violation of the law. Quakers are entered into Pentagon databases for holding peaceful anti-war demonstrations. Fake news reports are generated by the government and played by news media as if they were independent news stories. Journalists are paid under the table by the government to support the administrations policies. And we now know that the Vice President himself orchestrated the attack on a covert CIA agent to discredit her husband that provided evidence of the administrations misleading comments about WMD.
but with all that you attack me for;
Uncomprehending? What I can’t comprehend is that you arent enraged.
joshua
That is clearly pre-Op thinking and if the FBI can’t send someone a letter and demand all the information they need to discover who told the press that the government is breaking the law then the witches have already won. You need men like Sherard defending those National Security Letters, because those National Security Letters are all that’s keeping you from being turned into a newt. You want to be turned into a newt? You can’t handle the newt!
demimondian
Short demi: POTD.
The Other Steve
Actually it is. As a member of the Sith, I think in absolutes.
And I absolutely think you are a poopyhead.
DougJ
I’m thinking that when they make a movie of this blog, they should have Sam Jackson play Tall Dave so he can say/yell “LOL, motherfuckers, LOL!”
The Other Steve
Wait a minute. Wasn’t Lawrence Walsh the guy who investigated Watergate?
Wasn’t Watergate about a President doing illegal things to go after political foes. Like breaking and entering, wire tapping, that sort of stuff.
So you’re saying that Lawrence Walsh investigating this caused Republicans who were already doing this shit to approve of it?
What kind of fucked up nonsense is this?
Al Maviva
Tim’s words, not mine. Pretty much the same point as I made, but I’m guessing he’s probably more nuanced than me. I never thought NLS’s were emergency powers, but there you go. Sorry to insult you Slide, you’ve obviously held high law enforcement positions. I wouldn’t know anything about that, really, so I’ll have to take your word on it that I don’t know anything about NLS’s, subpoenae, warrants and so forth.
And no, Ron, Mike doesn’t fuck with me about it at all, though you may notice some discussion between us. it is a serious issue, and in spite of our occasional puerile venting about politics, it’s just politics and you have to come to your positions honestly. Mike respects that and I’m cool with where he and my co-bloggers are, and for that matter where other Republicans come down. Each voter is a captain of a little ship, and you have to decide for yourself whether to go down with it, or when to jump off. Conservatives and libertarians face a quandary right now. When the Republicans fall down on the job and pretty much betray everything they claim to stand, the options are few. It’s not like you change your belief system and turn into a hardcore liberal Dem just because politicians who claimed to be sympatico with your belief system are lying to you consistently and padding their own pockets. They are dickheads, but if you believe your positions are correct, their personal failings shouldn’t have any effect on your own positions. Hey, Ted Kennnedy is a ass, and I would hope his failings (and his clan’s many, many indiscretions) don’t have an effect on your belief system; I don’t know why Duke Cunningham would make me change mine.
The real fight on the right these days is between the shock therapy conservatives and the “it could be worse” conservatives, typified by Jim Geraghty at NRO. The shock therapy conservatives would rather spend some time in the political wilderness, in the hopes that the Republicans return to something resembling conservatism, than watch them slowly cruise into an unprincipled rent-seeking statism that pretty closely resembles the Dem machine, circa 1975-1995, except with fewer lefty ideologues. Why vote Dem light, when you could have real Dems? The “it could be worse” conservatives would rather get kicked in the teeth repeatedly, thinking that getting a little from Republicans is better than getting nothing from Nancy Pelosi. It’s an interesting debate, and I’m not willing to flame the other side just yet, though I’ve gotten some scathing abuse from some of our commenters. I’ve even been accused of being a Howard Dean plant, spending years building up an identity as a conservative only to turn into an eeeee-vil agent of influence for the other side. The accuser didn’t believe me when I quoted Reagan – “I didn’t leave the Party. The Party left me.” No matter how bad politics get, it’s good to see that people on the right are still capable of insane delusional fantasies. For a while there it looked like the Kossack and their sympathizers had cornered the nut markets.
Andrew
You mean, “Motherfucking LOL on a motherfucking blog!”
tBone
“I want those motherfuckin’ snakes off this motherfuckin’ plame!! LOL.”
Andrew
Interesting. I’ve never read to the bottom of one of Al’s posts before, so I decided to read that part first. What a somewhat reasonable thing to say! I doubt anyone else will get to it though.
Al Maviva
No, dumbass.
Archibald Cox was the Watergate prosecutor.
Lawrence Walsh ran roughly 20 investigations under the rubric of Iran Contra, including a number that went very, very far afield of his initial charter to investigate Iran Contra, and was pretty widely believed by Republicans to be using his office for purposes of vendetta and political gain. He was the Republican exhibit #1 in the case against the Independent Counsel law. Ken Starr, who was accused of doing much the same thing under the guise of investigating a land fraud case, was Democratic exhibit #1 against the same law. That both sides got burned by abusive independent counsel, led to the law’s expiration. Tremendous power accrued in the office, and a number of individuals appointed to the office abused it. It is the nature of the power granted to them – the power to conduct a star chamber – that invited the abuse. That was my point.
I would wonder how you got from that set of facts and my argument about the nature of government investigations, to concluding that I was defending Nixon’s conduct in the Watergate scandal, but your own error makes it pretty clear how you got to that conclusion: you don’t know what you’re talking about. Those who don’t learn from history, are condemned to be The Other Steve, I guess.
DougJ
Al still hasn’t addressed the fact that Fitzgerald used subpoenas, not NSL, which makes his investigation totally different from what the FBI is now doing with reporters.
Being a Bush supporter means never having to admit you’re wrong. Or use your brain.
DougJ
Tremendous power accrued in the office, and a number of individuals appointed to the office abused it. It is the nature of the power granted to them – the power to conduct a star chamber – that invited the abuse.
I agree. We were right to get rid of Independent Counsels.
Frankly, I think that Fitzgerald strikes a pretty good balance between the sometimes out-of-control Independent Counsels of the past and the do-nothing Congressional investigations of the Republican rubber-stamp congress.
Perry Como
It came to my attention recently that the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is roughly 1 in 88,000. The chance of dying from falling is roughly 1 in 264. The risk of falling is clearly a grave threat to the security of Americans. For that reason I am calling on President Bush to initiate a War on Falling.
Not only would the War on Falling help President Bush’s poll numbers, but it could also revive the music career of Pretty Poison.
Andrew
Understatement of the Day.
Case in point: Conservative Exhaustion, with such highlights as:
“Conservatives are temporarily exhausted by the fight against mainstream media propaganda.”
and
“Under the constant drumbeat of MSM propaganda, Conservatives feel disappointed that everything in Iraq didn’t go flawlessly.”
demimondian
Perry, didn’t you get the memo? It’s not the “War on Falling”, it’s the “Global War Against Return to Terra” (G-WART) now.
Andrew
Where will we intern objectively pro-falling seditionists like Tom Petty?
tBone
We’re going to fight gravity over there so we don’t have to fight it here.
DougJ
Don’t call it The War Against Gravity, though. Gravity is only a theory. I believe that when I fall it’s because the Giant Spaghetti monster is pulling me down with his giant pasta tentacles.
Ancient Purple
Well, are you or are you not defending Nixon?
I ask this because if you are defending Bush, I think it is reasonable to think you are defending Nixon. John Dean (who knows the Nixon situation better than anyone here) has continually stated that what Bush is doing is a rehash of Nixon.
So, either both are/were wrong or both are/were democracy in action.
tBone
It doesn’t matter anyway, because gravity is in its last throes.
RonB
Well, I dunno. Where is there to be found a home for a “real conservative”, anyway? The philosophy(if there is room in politics for such a thing) is an utter impossibility, its planks yet untested as we have really never seen it in control, what we have seen in both Great Hopes for it is nothing but lip service. Basically you guys are probably going to get ratfucked by Republicans repeatedly(you and the libertarians who are also laboring under the illusion that you can change the party)over time.
For you, and I’m asking in all innocence, what is it about conservatism that attracts you, and how can it persuade others that it is the correct philosophy for the country to use as its guide? It seems to me that it is a fringe philosophy, attracting some strange bedfellows much in the way radical leftism does. It’ll never get out of the gate. Neither of them.
The political center of the country plots closer to progressivism than it does conservatism. Have the government successfully create a valuable service for its constituents and they will applaud. Dismantle it? Well, that might be a little less popular.
I’m failing to understand the grand benefit of conservatism. There seems to still be plenty of room to be rich, fat and happy if you want it and be able to wall yourself off from all the great unwashed trying to take what you earned, if that’s the idyll we’re shotting for here. This was even true when the marginal tax rates were over 50% and then some. Perhaps I’ve veered into caricature here. Time for me to shut up and let you explain, if you feel like it.
RonB
We know where the gravity is. It’s east, west, north and south somewhat.
Al Maviva
RonB, that’s like saying “explain how this religion thing works.” If you are actually interested in digging past the caricatures, I suggest you read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.” It will explain a lot about the subset of conservatives presently howling about Bush’s statist, paternalist policies. If you want to understand the conservative viewpoint (as opposed to governmental philosophy discussed by Hayek) then Russell Kirk’s gloss on Burke in The Conservative Mind is a good essay. The fact is, “conservatism” as an organizing principle isn’t a positive agenda with planks. It’s a case by case examination of problems, with a strong preference for the tried, the true, the local and the modest (even where flawed), in rejection of untested, sweeping, centrally imposed society-wide reorganization. Rod Dreher has correctly identified, I think, the whole foods / slow foods movement as a good example of conservatism. Conservatism is often wrong, but the attraction is that when it is wrong, it rarely runs a country off the cliff; or if it does so, it runs rather slowly. The conservative critique of progressivism is that with its grandiose solutions, it often runs away from the status quo quite rapidly with little thought to where it is going, i.e. little consideration of the unintended consequences.
RonB
I think the closest I’ve come book wise to “getting” conservatism was Sowell’s “Vision of The Anointed” where he defines conservatism as tragic realism defined by a series of tradeoffs in the hopes that the trade will be positive on balance. I can abide by this, but just because something is grandiose doesn’t mean it is hopelessly idealistic.
Don’t you think the fight over locality’s gravity has already been fought numerous times in this country, obvious examples being 1787, 1861, and 1963? The tried and the true…well, was fairly fuckin’ awful.
At this point it seems to me the question of progressivism vs conservatism is hinged upon competing economic theories on how to promote prosperity. My limited understanding of economics has perhaps blinded me to the wonders of the free market, but I think there’s something to the idea that prosperity can be enhanced by the targeted distribution of tax dollars to programs and people that exact maximum bang from each buck.
Al Maviva
As for Sowell, he is a Burkean conservative – a conservative more in temperament and outlook than anything else. This gets him to the same conclusion as the Friedman/Hayek/Chicago School thinkers but he gets there a different way, more by inclination and observation of history. Hayek rejected the term conservative, but was really a conservative leaning libertarian. His argument wasn’t so much for preserving the tried and true but for letting individuals and the smaller building blocks of society self-organize, the idea being their informed self interest, on the average over time, would result in efficient solutions to most problems, and that governnment’s role (other than defense, a modest social safety net and a few other functions) was to remedy barriers to these “market” or political/economic solutions, such as improperly accrued information advantages.
On your assertion that the past times all sucked dismally, I’d argue that while there were many problems in the past, you would be highly mistaken to write off the past as nothing but a great history of suckage. People lived there, and many were pretty happy and would even describe their lives as good, in spite of the many flaws. Some great leaps forward were really good – one things about the anti-slavery wars including our own civil war, desegregation, women’s suffrage, and so forth. Other “progressive” causes – like the sterilization of the mentally retarded, eugenics, and scientific experiments on unknowing, unconsenting individuals – were truly unconscionable, yet thought to be the height of cutting edge progressive politics of the day. As for the markets, I think only a fool thinks the markets deliver great things for all people. Your assumption that market proceeds ought to be divvied up, is a great idea if markets are of a fixed size and there is only a limited amount of revenue to be had, like a 12″ pie which grows no larger. They aren’t; markets can grow and provide prosperity for a wide swath of society.
Ahhh, just read the Hayek and let’s continue the discussion after you have. You will probably disagree with me still but at least you’ll understand the arguments then.
RonB
Well, not exactly what I meant…but nevermind. You seem to acknowledge what I said with “great leaps forward”.
Al, I don’t think these progressives you speak of have any lineage whatsoever to today’s progressives. Focus seems to be on economics and social justice.
Never said they don’t. However, I believe that liberal economics understands that wealth is misallocated, underused to the detriment of everyone. Someone better versed in this care to flesh this out?
I will definitely buy the book you recommended, though.
DougJ
What if Snow had said “hug the suitcase nuke”? Would that have made you happy, moonbats? Because that’s what you did when you embraced Saddam. And it’s what you’re doing now when you embrace Iran, Castro, Ward Churchill, and amnesty for illegal aliens.