Blub ,
I scrolled from the bottom up and ran across wilson’s post first. I took off to do a scandal check on the next-in-line for prez and didn’t see your post till much later. THANK YOU. I almost always start at the bottom and work up. It very often keys me to the posts I want to scan for and find. I have to admit I shoot by a lot posts because the arguments don’t interest me.
,,,,,,,
Mich

Not to take this personally or anything, but considering I posted the same list Wilson posted some posts behind it, I’m wondering why it was just ignored, or am I just being ignored here and should just go away? :)

Great work, Jane. You nailed him to the wall.

Morin is an asshole to be sure, but so are the Democratic Leadership for not calling for Bush’s impeachment. They should have done so as soon as it became clear there were no WMD in Iraq.

http://www.johnconyers.com/

Conyers is a member of congress last time I checked. He’s calling for an investigation for the purposes of impeachment. So, Morin’s just a liar, albeit one with a “mad-on.” But, he’s a liar with a worthy point: Why aren’t Democrats just coming out and callling for impeachment? Beginning that drumbeat is the first step. I guess the Dems just haven’t gotten mad enough yet to press it. So, Morin’s butt is covered.

aquart — yes, I hear you on that; I’m disgusted with corporations who’ve found ways to use the legal system to bail out of pension plans they negotiated with labor. They are doing everything they can to undermine labor’s right to organize while dumping their burdens on taxpayers.

Unfortunately, labor is not doing itself any favors; they continually bring knives to gunfights. H.R. 2830, for example, was labeled as a so-called “Pension Protection Plan”. (Orwellian, just like “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests”.) The summary text of the bill says it’s a modifier to ERISA laws that govern management of pension plans — but the content of the bill laid out a strategy for changing the computation of required service, not merely the methodology for delivering pensions. At first the UAW leadership fought against this bill, managed to win some changes, is now letting the bill slide through. But the UAW missed the fundamental problem with the bill: it changes the scope of previously negotiated pension terms related to the computation of service. They just let corporations do an end-run on labor’s Wagner Act-protected bargained-for compensation packages. And corporations will use this as precedent to do it again.

I’ve talked with numerous folks from different unions (I live in Michigan, can’t reach out and not touch a union member here); they actually believe it when corporate management says to unions, “You’re a valued partner.” Bullsh*t. Nobody is a valued partner in a corporation unless they have a substantive ownership interest. Unions like UAW and AFL-CIO should have been doing what CALPERS did for state employees in CA: accumulating ownership interests so that they had real leverage.

Secondly, union workers MUST be better educated. Period. It’s in their best interest to acquire a basic understanding of business managment; they would understand where UAW’s Gettelfinger went wrong on H.R. 2830, would understand that ownership is essential. I see that the AFL-CIO is beginning to do some work in this direction, but they have a massive cultural shift to navigate in a short time. I hope they’re going to be able to do it before their constituents and all other unions lose all negotiated benefits including pensions.

Jane jane jane.

Thank gawd someone is afuckingwake.

Curious – you wrote:

“Alaska Jack – Were you describing yourself here?

’so full of hate that it’s morphed into an obsessive compulsion to cherry-pick every item that might fit your pre-conceived worldview, then bend yourselves into pretzels interpreting them in ways contrived to make your political opponents seem like cartoony demons. Take a deep breath. Go outside.’

About

‘What Clinton did, he did for personal and political gain. There is no evidence — none — that Bush had anything to gain personally. To the contrary, he simply seems to have been pursuing *what he believes* was necessary to protect American lives.’

————

No. Not if I understand your question correctly, anyway. I mean, how could I be? I haven’t cherry-picked or interpreted *anything*; simply stated known facts. You’ll note I didn’t even assert that Bush didn’t gain personally; I only pointed out the fact that there isn’t a shred of evidence that this is the case.

In fact, re-reading your question, I’m confused — what exactly are you asserting that I “cherry-picked” or “interpreted”? And how exactly are you “tripping me up using my own words”? Please enlighten me.

– AJ

Mercury: You wrote:

“Alaska Jack: You have no problem with the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying about sex, but when commenters on this blog discuss the possibility of actual high crimes having been committed by the current President — a matter which, as you put it in your post, is “arguable” — WE’RE the ones who are hopeless partisan nutbags.”

Well, hmm. Of course it’s true that I have “no problem” with the fact that Clinton was impeached, though of course sex had nothing to do with it. I can’t speak for others, but I was more concerned about the perjury and obstruction of justice — you know, the actual reason for the impeachment.

Does it make a different if I think Clinton was in most respects a reasonably good president? Or that, had he been removed from office, the president would have been Al Gore, who I think would have been a much *worse* president?

You draw a comparison between Clinton and what you call “possible high crimes” of Bush. But of course a much better test of consistency is Scooter Libby, who is accused of one of the same crimes as Clinton. I hope it mollifies you to learn that, if Libby is found guilty, I hope they throw the book at him.

Finally, contrary to your primary assertion, I have no problem with anyone “discuss[ing] the possibility of actual high crimes having been committed. *That’s* not what gives the impression that you guys are “partisan nutbags” (your words).

– AJ

dembydefault -

Rest assured, your insults expose me for all the world to see, and don’t reflect on you in any way. Well played!

Now, if you’re done destroying me, I have a question. I’ve heard Kaus called an “asshole” (and worse) by other liberals, too. I can understand your not agreeing with a lot of his views; he is a pretty conservative democrat.* But I’m genuinely curious about why you think he’s an “asshole.” Since nearly every one of the commenters around here seem to express themselves much more harshly than he does, and since you presumably do not think your fellow Hamscherites are all “assholes,” it suggests that you think an “asshole” is simply someone who has different political ideas than you. Is that true? I would seriously like for you to provide links to the specific posts of his that led you to conclude he was an “asshole.” It would help me understand your point of view.

– Alaska Jack

* Although, on a side note, have you stopped to think that Kaus and you probably *share* most views on wide range of subjects (like gay rights, to just pick one example)? It actually ties into my earlier post pretty nicely — guys (or gals) like you just alienate anyone who’s not in the hard left wing, and they end up migrating over and becoming classic “Reagan Democrats.” In fact it makes my point almost perfectly.

I think I saw a pig fly today.

I am just a sometimes poster here, but I rely on the conversation here to discuss and digest the news coming out of the manipulated media. when someone comes here with the specific attempt to denigrate our opinions and ideas, I just scroll over them. that is the best response. To engage them, no matter how tempting and how brilliantly we all think we can retort, is just clouding the conversation.

But that is just my opinion. Engaging trollies has ruined many a thread and with all the publicity about this blog and how wonderful it is, the purveyors of idiocy are bound to arrive. Please just ignore the ants at this picnic of truth.

Rayne, well, there’d still be that pension thing.

Anonymous | 12.20.05 – 8:09 pm

I should have been more clear on the issue of healthcare, looking back at what I said. When I wrote that I believed no manufacturer or non-healthcare/non-insurer service business should be forced to be a provider of healthcare, the benefits are two-fold. Not only can a corporation concentrate on business fundamentals, but the corporation stops viewing the cost of labor (including healthcare) as a barrier to competition. Unions are freed to worry less about what is a Maslovian hygiene issue and can concentrate on being a competitive work force. Imagine Unions seeing themselves as highly-trained, well-educated guilds; would employers seek them out rather than outsource overseas? Would it put Unions back in the driver’s seat, become real partners in business? Wouldn’t it be healthier for American employers and workers to be cooperative and collaborative instead of at each other’s throats over healthcare costs?

Note that Morin didn’t even reply to the person who brought up the WaPo’s Clinton-impeachment poll.

Caught. Red. Handed.

I’m concerned that crucial documentation of illegal acts may be in jeopardy if they aren’t procured soon.

First and foremost are the records associated with every single NSA wiretap. All the details and documents of the entire spying program. All of the notes of meetings relating to the establishment of the program.

These guys aren’t going to leave any smoking guns around. They remember the Nixon mistakes well.

Question is: is there a single honest mole in the NSA committed to the cause of right and truth who’s able to keep the leaks flowing?

Anonymous | 12.20.05 – 8:09 pm

You’re correct, it’s not all a marketing problem that we face. As I told Mary (last thread, I think), I’d like to spank and purge some DINO’s. We must learn to be accountable to ourselves as well as the public as a whole — that means demanding Dems to be real progressives, not Republican-lite.

Unions and their constituency are a wholly separate problem, although they weight their votes towards Dems; they are facing a sea-change, as Andy Stern and the SEIU give evidence, as does the split in AFL-CIO. For too long unions were complacent; they suffered from entrenched power structures and an unchanging worldview. They are finally being forced to deal with a post-industrial world. What does a union provide its constituents in a world where manufacturing is no longer king? What do unions provide companies who are freely able to shop around the world for labor and resources? Unions need to change their perceptions and the answer to those questions. The other problem foisted upon unions and corporations both in this country is the question of healthcare; this is another cultural sea-change under way, but unfortunately unions are on the bleeding edge and bearing the brunt of this discussion. Personally, I believe no manufacturer or non-healthcare/non-insurer service business should be forced to be a provider of healthcare; companies need to be able to focus on their core competencies if they are going to be competitive globally. But neither unions or corporations are quite ready to have that discussion — very close, but I think it’s going to take the bankruptcy of GM for the issue to get forced. Then Dems will be able to push their initiative — Dean’s already done a lot of legwork on this.

I’ll differ with you on the fiscal responsibility issue. As Dean said, “Social justice can only be achieved through a balanced budget”; we can’t invest in HeadStart if we’re in hock up to our ears. Republicans have lost any credibility on fiscal responsibility; the NSA spying and related Pentagon intel and propaganda spending should make it all too clear. Nor is the Republican party a model of social justice; my home state, for example, insists on balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and disabled as well as children, while giving more tax breaks to the top decile. Immoral rubbish and spendthrift.

Definitely more than marketing challenges — but that’s what Jane was addressing in her “On Image” posts. She’s damned right, spot on.

Alaska Jack: You have no problem with the fact that Clinton was impeached for lying about sex, but when commenters on this blog discuss the possibility of actual high crimes having been committed by the current President — a matter which, as you put it in your post, is “arguable” — WE’RE the ones who are hopeless partisan nutbags.

Right.

I turned down a second raise this year because it would have put me in the Republican bracket.

Hey, Sharky! Where you been tonight?

I thought well myself beyond, years beyond, all media ho astonishment. But I’m fucking astonished at this post.

Sorry Anonymous

Just couldn’t resist it just seemed so easy to use his own words against him. He left it wide open.

T Rex that is the downside:)

this place is special because we usually don’t step in the doo doo and carry along our merry way

why stop now, especially when we are on a roll?

we all now know they illegally “spy” and I guess while they are here, leave a few droppings…

Alaska Jack- I’ve been wondering what kind of asshole reads that asshole Kaus. Now I know. Thanks for the clarification. have fun polishing your gun.

But T Rex sometimes its fun to trip them up with their own words and cherry picking to suit their own world view.

Yeah, but if they think they can get us to argue with them, then they’ll just come back.

I reckon the GOP will still be blaming Clinton for something 100 years from now.

Oh. My. God.

How can we continue, now that the Clenis has been exposed, as the true root of all evil in the world?

But T Rex sometimes its fun to trip them up with their own words and cherry picking to suit their own world view.

Be nice if he closed Halo before refreshing to read the comments.

Holy Batshit, are these wingnuts really that crazy er have they been workin on a sense a humor.

Kids, as your internet Park Ranger, this evening, I urge you to treat the trolls like King George treats our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Ignore them and maybe they’ll go away.

Speaking of rexin’……Janes pretty good with a pen.

You won’t find me taking up that argument. The Morin comment is disgusting because it is not true. People have been talking about it–Barbara Boxer has just asked the opinion of 4 constitutional experts. It may not have gotten a lot of coverage in the MSM, but that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, now isn’t it? This is just one hand washing the other.

guess the snarky remarks about reading blogs while taking a dump don’t look so bad after all, do they?

Holy crap — I visited this site because Mickey Kaus has been linking to it, and came over thinking I’d find a smart, insightful, rational take on current events.

So much for expectations. This is the looniest buch of raving I have seen in quite some time. It’s like a train wreck — I just can’t look away!

I guess I come away with three impressions:

1. I guess mainly I feel sorry for most of you: so full of hate that it’s morphed into an obsessive compulsion to cherry-pick every item that might fit your pre-conceived worldview, then bend yourselves into pretzels interpreting them in ways contrived to make your political opponents seem like cartoony demons. Take a deep breath. Go outside.

2. In a way, though, I also feel pretty good. You guys are crazy, and while in the short run that could, I guess, make you dangerous, in the long run it’s a big disadvantage. You’re always going to be at a disadvantage to people who can see the world calmly and clearly, and express their views in ways that persuade others — i.e., don’t rely so heavily on calling their opponents “batshit” and “Chimpy McBushitler” or whatever.

(Also, I assume — from the way you write, anyway — that many of you are young, and thus will make the classic transition from left-wing firebrands to sober conservatives as you mature. Becoming more liberal as one grows older, while possible, is extremely rare — and, while it’s hard to explain to a college student (or professor!) who’s never spent much time in the real world, there’s a reason for that.

I’m reminded of nothing so much as Homer Simpson leaving the lesbian bar that has no sprinkler system: “Enjoy your deathtrap, ladies!”

– Alaska Jack

PS. I guess I should comment on the actual post. Did you notice that the events of history actually *vindicated* the Washington Post guy’s judgement? I mean, Clinton *was* impeached. (Unless, of course, you think that he *wouldn’t* have been impeached except for that infernal poll in the Washington Post!)

Also, you guys let yourselves get all worked up over this, and the comparisons with Clinton, yet not one of you has the calm sense to point out three obvious differences:

1. Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury. There was no question that what he did was illegal. Yet if you read, eg., Orin Kerr’s long post at the Volokh Conspiracy, you see that there is indeed quite a bit of question as to whether what Bush did was illegal, even among experts in that particular legal field. Not only do interpretations of the law at that level subject to judgement calls, but it’s still not even clear *what exactly the government was doing*.

2. Even it what Bush did was illegal, a lot of Americans (rightly or wrongly) would still consider it the right thing to do against an evil and devious enemy. Now show me one single American who *advocates* that the President should have sex with an intern, then lie about it under oath.

3. That leads me to my third and most important (and, I would think, most obvious) point: What Clinton did, he did for personal and political gain. There is no evidence — none — that Bush had anything to gain personally. To the contrary, he simply seems to have been pursuing *what he believes* was necessary to protect American lives.

All of this stuff is arguable, of course. But let’s forget about that, because it doesn’t help us paint the Washington Post guy as Haliburton sock puppet.

– cheers

Alaska Jack – Were you describing yourself here?

“so full of hate that it’s morphed into an obsessive compulsion to cherry-pick every item that might fit your pre-conceived worldview, then bend yourselves into pretzels interpreting them in ways contrived to make your political opponents seem like cartoony demons. Take a deep breath. Go outside.”

About

“What Clinton did, he did for personal and political gain. There is no evidence — none — that Bush had anything to gain personally. To the contrary, he simply seems to have been pursuing *what he believes* was necessary to protect American lives.”

There goes the neighborhood.

i wish to bring this up if someone if someone from above has not already so. Perhaps a sign that the tide may be turning is when the smaller newspapers start slamming Bush. In this morning’s Olympian, the paper from Olympia, Wa., which is the state’s capitol, excoriated Bush for all the lies that he has told this country. The paper threw in words like tyrant and Orwellian doublespeak and stated, correctly, that even though Clinton lied, no one died and no prisoners were tortured under his watch. The editorial, which took up a half page in the Opinion section, wrapped it up by recommending that Congress set up a bipartisan commission to ascertain if impeachment is necessary against this president who has found it necessary to lie and spy against the citizens of this country.

wow — now that is the first REAL troll I have ever seen here!

Really, you do pretty good FDL, I am grateful that we get so few of them, whining from certain commenters beside.

well, rayne, what you say is all fine and good — but I don’t think you can show me that at the national level there is a meaningful dialog about how many of the political issues we “debate” are actually economic issues.

It is clear that the labor movement, that was build on this dialog, has been stripped of its message — union membership (and wages) are still falling.

I am glad you can point to some discussions that keep these issues alive — I just hope we can find a way to get them back into the mainstream.

There was a time when labor leaders and democrats used economic issues as the very foundation of their rhetoric.

Now, dems are trying to be more fiscally responsible and war-like than republicans — both of these approaches “sell out” their historical base.

Not sure this is a marketing issues.

Yahoo Asia cites the many times since 2002 when Bush and Big Time have stated that all wire taps are judicially approval.

So Bush and Big Time are again caught lying. But the Bush cabal has built themselves a seemingly impenetrable defense which is the Iraq war–the feeling that no matter what we must stand behind our commander in chief in time of war.

Everybody seems to be in a wait and see mode, to see what happens with the war, with the public outcray. It’s different from Clinton’s tenure when the rabid right wingers launched into calls for impeachment almost immediately.

We do need more push-back from Bush’s opposition; intelligent, strategic, coordinated push-back.

Don’t know if this has been posted yet
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI
By DAVE LINDORFF

One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

are you ready to start “voting” with your dollars?

http://www.buyblue.org has the answers

like any of us really need that crappy “flat iron” steak at applebees…

Anonymous | 12.20.05 – 7:46 pm

I’ll give you the much the same answer I gave carot earlier. There are policy discussions on Economics, Education and Energy at Daily Kos; Econ has been tackled in considerable depth by Jerome a Paris, London Yank, Stirling Newberry and bonddad as well as a host of others. I’ll also recommend GreaterDemocracy.org as well. We progressives are not afraid to do policy at all; this just hasn’t been the preeminent place to do it since we’re Plameoholics first and policy wonks when our Fitz fix is sated.

I’m gettin madder and madder.

Richard Morin makes me mad….

And the Times and CNN and MSNBC…

There was a perfect storm of criticism after it was revealed that Clinton had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Cable TV was wall to wall Bill and Monica. If the heat from the press had been manifest our televisions would have exploded.

It’s infuriating to see how benign the criticism is of Bush, especially in light of all of the revelations of torture flights, Katrina, the lies about Iraq, etc.

If the President of the United States, not only breaks the law, but in fact creates a constitutional crisis by circumventing the proper checks and balances of the judiciary, it certainly seems as though he has committed an impeachable offense.

When I read comments by Richard Morrin such as:

[W]e do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion.

I get madder still.

Wilson posted:

The officials say the National Security Agency’s interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental……..

but the larger number of communications were on purpose.

You know maybe it’s best if Bush isn’t impeached, but that the Dem’s concentrate on showing how corrupt the Repubs are, tell the electorate that oversight is needed and the Repubs won’t do it. Get the public to vote for a Democratic House and Senate in 2006 and leave Georgie as a real lame duck. Am I living in a dream world?

ggggggeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz

how was anonymous suppose to know grandpa had a laptop in the can?

some people just like to argue….. that’s what atrios is for

Chimpy and the repugs are not really our problem — its the corporate interests they represent – we can call them “incompetent” all we want, but their elite base is laughing all the way to the bank. The military industrial complex is making money hands over fist.

To say that we need to “rebrand” and “market”, while not without its merits, cannot possibly solve these problems. After all, its the marketing mindset that created the powerful corporations that are actually behind the chimperor.

Do you really think the same forces that created this problem are going to solve it?

Not saying your wrong — saying we might need to choose a new “model” that is not based on the economic system that created the problems in the first place.

Perhaps democrats have lost their power because we seem afraid to discuss economic issues, yet they slap most of America in the face on a daily basis.

Pretty gut wrenching stuff- the anger about dems- I get pissed at em too- but I’ve been a dem all my life and can’t imagine changing.

Goopers are about takin care of them that’s made it- dems are about takin care of everyone- that’s the difference- it’s always been the difference- and always will be the difference.

love you handle wilson123456789

Warning: lengthy “fisking” follows, sorry; the post deserves appropriate attention, though.

Mary — I’ll respond as in much detail as I can, without “outing” myself. There are folks who may figure out who I am, would rather be anonymous online for a multitude of reasons.

They really are the Stepford Party. — Yes. It’s one of the reasons the opposition is so successful; they’ve invested in developing a farm team for more than two decades, and they feed them on raw flesh to keep them mean and on message. It’s not an accident; you can Google up about the Young Republicans/College Republicans and find all sorts of examples, Rove, Norquist and Abramoff being the ultimate evil fruits of their harvest. The question for progressives: where’s our farm team? how do we institutionalize this same process without the ugly mentality of YR/CR?

rework the party…a new name, new face would fractionalize it too much? — Yes. Think “New Coke”.

That it would, in essence, be tossing away votes to try to vote for candidates in/through a new party? — Yes. Takes too many terms to build brand acceptance; our planet could be devastated by the Repug hordes before a new party could succeed.

…you WOULD vote for a Republican if you liked the candidate? — Depends very much on the candidate and the race. I vote my values and conscience first, pragmatics second, party is third. Having said that, I would probably vote Dem or Green locally if they met my values, have rarely contemplated a Repug because they generally aren’t acceptable to my values on 50% or more of local issues (to Repugs I say prove me wrong, give me a damned good reason to vote for you). At national level, I’ll generally vote Dem because of the weighting in Congress; were I in Vermont, I’d have no problem voting for either Jeffers or Sanders, but look at the candidates; they both meet my values. I’d vote Indie/Green if they were a true social progressive and fiscally responsible, environmentally conservative and would work with Dems towards holding a majority of votes when necessary.

A third party can be more readily viable at local level — Greens in particularly blue areas or Libertarians in very red areas. But they generally don’t survive the transition to state-national; would take serious money and major mojo to transcend that divide.

…too many of the ineffective speaker/leaders are angling for a 2008 run… — Yup, but this is a democracy (little d) and we have to let them air their positions before we take them out during the primary. You won’t be the only one gritting your teeth until then.

How do you spank and purge some of the Dems…DINO’s. At local level, it’s all about accountability, no different than at national level. Can’t give details, but I can tell you from experience that learning to build a base inside a local party, learning to develop a critical mass of votes, then demanding performance can be incredibly reformational, transformational. We’ve completely changed local leadership and direction simply by doing that.

That’s why I am so sour on the party these days. It’s easy to get bitter when you’ve been burned so often, I know; I have to give a lot of pep talks on this, keep pointing to the progress we’ve made instead of the mountain we’ve yet to climb. This is a commitment, something not unlike getting married or having a baby. It’s not a state, it’s a process and it can be long and grueling at times; we must look at this as a lifetime process, not an easy change with immediate gratification. But it can be realized, I can see it now after only one year. Hope you’ll give it a whirl at local level, kick ass and take names.

I agree with the poster who said we need a progressive cable news station. More people watch the news on TV than read the NYT or WaPo. It could be entertaining as well as informative, but with a more liberal slant.
Been lurking about this site for the a while now and am developing high bp and anxiety disorder – but keep coming back because I’m addicted now.

marky mentioned Morins point that there is no call from the Democratic leadership for impeachment. Not to defend the guy, and not that there was ever any shortage of Rs calling for Clintons removal, but until today the Dems have been avoiding the ‘I’ word as hard as they avoided the ‘L’ word. Much as we’d like the press to work for the common good and get the I word out there, it’s not gonna happen until the Dems get their act together and raise a cohesive voice calling BushCo to account.

Don’t go away. Wilson may not have seen your posting. You are welcome to post your thoughts here.

new thread: “It’s not a religion, it’s a lifestyle.”

ow do i stop being so angry at these bastards in the press?

First, we admit that we are powerless over the MSM and our country has become unmanageable.

This is the brick wall I’m trying to stop beating my head against too. The GOP al-Foxeera types have mangaged to convince most Dems of the Liberal media myth, I think, and that’s why Dems are so lazy about fighting back (this is also what leads to Lieberman/BothClintons/DLCism) The Dems need to get it through their marble and cement heads (it is the Big Tent party, after all) that in the neutral middle lie facts, to the right of facts is the MSM, a little further to the right the elite Beltway Consensus of the Great and Glorious and the Cable TV Gasbags. Then comes David Broder (RIP, if anyone ever tells him he’s had no pulse since 1989), then the Foxxies, then the White House.

I feel a little better after this screed. Now if I can get to sleep without looking at any of those damn facts…

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/21/…..nted=print

December 21, 2005
Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 – A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency’s interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact “international.”

Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the N.S.A. to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cellphone call or sending an e-mail message. As a result, people that the security agency may think are outside the United States are actually on American soil.

Mich

Not to take this personally or anything, but considering I posted the same list Wilson posted some posts behind it, I’m wondering why it was just ignored, or am I just being ignored here and should just go away? :)

http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..-headlines

Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story
-

Raw Story says: Ol’Jacky boy Abramoff starting to sing real purrty!

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/….._1220.html

whiny trolls who don’t even have the decency to come with with a good pseudonym like DeanSucks or BushIsLove are particularly obnoxious in a remarkably troll-free discussion

Mary,

And Kathy Rowely is runnin fer Congress as a Democrat in one a the most Republican districts in the US and can WIN…come on I’m soooo tired a people engaging themselves in political faggot hassels (a term coined by Al Ginsberg, a gay poet) about how to change problems that ain’t problems. The Republican Party represents a minority of the population on every major political issue, at this time, when polls show the Republican Party with 38-40% of the voting population why are you tryin ta find a way ta break up “team Republican”…the Republicans have done that for us.

“even if Cheney did the legwork, in the end the order is over King George’s signature.”

I do see your point. KISS.

karen allen,

That’s how I could trace the source of the microbe! (I did know that.)

Stai zitto! Anonymous.

oh oh — guess we are goin’ to do the 300+ thread of insults where everyone proclaims the post above them is a trol…

ggggeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz

DemByDefault lol

Hey Rainier- The reasons the bondage ads don’t surprise are:
1) I assume that a lot of Repubs, esp the hard-core gender issue, family values types carry a lot of sexual baggage.
2) It seems to me I heard a very smiliar story about another staffer for a hard-righty Congressman, can’t remember the details.
3) I would think that drinking champagne from a marble penis would threaten those cadillac drivin’ types, and even moreso the gunrack fellers.
Cheers

I don’t think I ever really said much about joining Nader (?)(I think I said I would, indeed, be voting Dem as a way of voting *against* Republicans) and while I appreciate a “mad as hell and not gonna take it” attitude, it really doesn’t address the things I wondered about.

Things like, how do we overcome the team mentality that has made people get so entrenched and who do we get rid of the Republican lite, but with just as many calories ;-), Dems? I don’t see that working within the brand name does it. In any event, just my observation of a significant factor (against you even if I’m not for him) but this is not my area, so I won’t beat a dead horse.

On my live horse beating front – the Kristol op ed has me smoking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01027.html

“But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is “probable cause to believe” that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. “

“The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a “U.S. person” — a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant”

Overlooks, the 72 hour requirment. Overlooks the fact that if the they do not have convince anyone of anything if the target is not a US Citizen or a very small category of alien. I also never see “probable cause” used in the statute, but maybe there is case law to that affect? The statute only provides that they have to show the facts they rely on to justify their belief.

But the thing that steams me is the reference to Moussaoui.

“Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI’s attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files”

ARGH! I guess that being such standard procedure in the Justice Department is why Rowley went out on a limb and specifically accused the FBI higherups of rewriting the application to delete the facts in hand and necessary and completely screwing up!!!!!! As has happened over and over in this Administration, the problem was not lackof law, but lack of competene in application!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm

Rowley sure doesn’t sound like she thought the problem was “too high a standard” for the warrant.

But what does she know – she probably doesn’t even have Kristol’s ball.

how do i stop being so angry at these bastards in the press?

First, we admit that we are powerless over the MSM and our country has become unmanageable.

Then we admit that a power greater than ourself can return this nation to sanity…

The troll alert should include J Thomason, too, but not at this moment is he/she commenting.

Jane,

Troll alert…when they go after Gramps it’s time ta nuke ‘em.

Sozzy–You know, don’t you, that the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times?

Thanks for the info Wilson46201.
I had to go down the list as far as Snow before I found a name that doesn’t have a scandal attached to it. Snow probably has a few fleas too, but nothing I remeber right away.

I’m still otherwise occupied, so I can’t keep up on the comments…

Yup, I hate that I can’t access the internet in my bathroom either, miss a lot of good bloggin’ that way.

Join us when you get off the toilet gramps!

Mary–even if Cheney did the legwork, in the end the order is over King George’s signature.

I am personally not for trying to nail them both; I think any impreachment proceedings should be on a very short, simple set of articles. Anything trying to bring in Cheney would be complex–not as clear cut as “signed the order”.

I agree with the sentiment that regardless of who’s in succession, when you admit a federal crime on national TV, there are really no options about whether to move forward.

That said, I also think any impeachment movement should float the articles for a very, very long time before even thinking about a vote on them. And losing a vote would be much worse for the nation than not bringing it.

IMHO, the mainstream press has been a tool of the GOP and the economic elites for a very long time. It’s only now that we have the blogosphere that the extent of the bias is being fully revealed.

The Internet is turning their world upside down, because they no longer have exclusive control over information. We should expect ruthless assaults on Internet freedom in the coming years.

OT for FireFox users– I knew that there was a new version of the FF browser available but I’ve been lazy and have not loaded it. Glad I haven’t. Info here: http://www.informationweek.com…..=175007152

Here’s a great LOL is you need one:

Those were the days: House Republican statements on Clinton’s impeachment
Posted by EarlG
Added to homepage Tue Dec 20th 2005, 12:09 PM ET

It’s interesting how these statements read in light of recent events…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

If we could get this message out — some of these people would look like the moron hacks that they really are.

zennurse,

Here’s some newspaper suggestions:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/

This is the Knight-Ridder group, and though up for sale at the moment, they seem far more geared toward accountability than any other US paper. Ron Hutcheson is particularly good. There are a few journalists at the Washington Post, Dana Priest on National Security and Anthony Shadid on Iraq, who are consistently good. Anthony Shadid speaks Arabic and actually interviews Iragis and tells us truly what they said! He hasn’t written anything lately, because I think he’s just published a book. But Robin Wright partners with a person in Iraq, and his or her stories are consistent with the picture you get from Anthony Shadid. Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler also did good reporting on the evidence AGAINST weapons in Iraq BEFORE the invasion, when it counted (though John Harris buried it), and their reporting on the Plame case has been good too. I generally trust them.

Dan Froomkin also works for this organization:

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm

which isn’t a newspaper, but there is lots of news and thoughtful questions and commentary on it.

Hope that’s any help! Our own Boston Globe has been infiltrated by whatever disease brought down the NYT; there are a few bright spots left, only I can’t remember their names.

Until progressives can get the political organizer equivalents of Newt Gingrich, Ralph Reed, Karl Rove and Tom Delay, they cannot organize a potent opposition to the Rethugs.

The progressives do not have to be corrupt and deceitful, but they need the strong organizing, loud voices, the desire to fight, the ability to frame issues with emotional content and the willingness to engage in frontal combat if they are to have any chance of gaining the widespread support in electoral politics.

The middle road does not work as we have seen over the last decade.

Jane: first time, long time, thanks for the vine. You are our west coast Sontag. Only more street. More fun. A dash of Ellroy, the invention of Amis (please Santa, don’t let me be Dascheled in 2006), with the rhetorical muscle of Hitchens before the onset of single-malt bloat. Formidable weapons indeed. A hint of Burroughs to boot. Wounded ?
Obviously. Engaged ? Mais oui. I salute you, considerably past the threshold of influence and entering into elegance. Fierce resistance with style. Literary and political chops to swoon for. A pleasure, dear, a true pleasure, and a premonition of healing when both are in painfully short supply.

PS to my post:

Unless I am mistaken, I believe Rockefeller claims that Cheney never responded to his letter.

DemByDefault–The bondage ads didn’t surprise you?

PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSORS
Impeach them ALL !!!

* The Vice President Richard Cheney
* Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
* President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
* Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
* Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
* Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
* Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
* Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
* Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
* Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
* Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

Guitierrez & Chao are foreign-born and not eligible (not that we’d want them anyway)
Mineta is thus #12

Here is the text of the Rockefeller letter. I typed it up myself (because it is handwritten and a little hard to read) from the facsimile, put up by Josh Marshall. Unless I am mistaken the date on the letter is just a few days after Novak published his Plame column.

The facsimile is here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d…..eney1.html

July 17, 2003

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, Chairman Roberts, and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult counsel or staff of my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John PoindexterÂ’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance. Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to prove that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Separated at Birth:

Richard Morin/The Incredible Hulk

Line of succession:

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff

Mary,

Go join Ralph N and his very small band of no so merry door-knockers. The last thing that the country needs right now is another party. My God, the fascist administration is suckin’ O2 thru a straw, the Repug party is pollin’ behind Dr. Kavorkian, Fitz is about to drop another bomb and you want ta spend resources on another party in order to do what?!!

Good lord, if yer mad as hell get inta the groove like alotta us…find Me3’s site and do some good. E-mail yer congress-critter and Senators…go ta a district party meeting. Watch the polls when ya get depressed but don’t go callin’ for another party…you’ll get plenty a money from the Republican Party but you will only insure the continuation of minority rule.

Come on Mary, I know yer not stupid because you read FDL so remember who the enemy is and it ain’t the Democratic Party…and as far as the enemy goes, bad Democrats are a minority in the Democratic party…you have a lot more chance a gettin rid of a Lieberman than beatin the Republican Party with a new party.

Stop throwin’ yer political power away…USE IT!!!

Hold it. Why Ted Stevens? Next in line is the Speak of the House right? Hastert.

Norm Mineta, a titular Democrat, is Secy of Transportation and might be 382nd in line of succession…

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
If Bush gets impeached Cheney will be president.

If Cheny goes down because of Plamegate I think Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska gets a turn.

Stevens could the dust because of how he became wealthy using the power his committee posts gave him over the Pentagon to save a $450-million military housing contract for an Anchorage businessman. The same businessman made Stevens a partner in a series of real estate investments that turned the senator’s $50,000 stake into at least $750,000 in six years…
and I don’t know who is next in line for the throne.

Hey, you know this could turn into a really good board game. See how far down the ranks you have to go to find a Republican that doesn’t have an impeachable offense.

Why is this jackass “getting mad”? that is a truly bizarre response.

Indeed. How dare we non-Ivy-League, fly-over-country nobodies ask the DC media elite to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS? What presumption! What cheek! We’re treasonous whackos for even thinking it!

I hang my head in shame. From now on, I swear to credulously swallow any claptrap the WaPo decides to offer instead of demanding real journalism.

zennurse: great catch. I remember an editorial a few months ago by Cohen where he called Fitzgerald an “overzealous prosecutor,” or words to that effect. Later, right after the stories broke about “Booby” Woodward’s involvement, I saw Cohen out on the talk shows shilling shamelessly for Woodward. I don’t think Cohen goes to the bathroom without Woodward’s permission. Maybe Cohen’s latest article is a signal that Woodward doesn’t want his legacy to go down the drain with the White House Iraq Group.

filling their glasses at a fountain from which champagne flowed from the penises of cherubs.

This is the only part that surprises me.

Why is this jackass “getting mad”? that is a truly bizarre response. The more I follow Beltway politics, the odder I find the Beltway mentality. First J. Harris blows a minor internal company matter into a full-blown partisan debate, and the whines that he’s being picked on by the “crankosphere”; now this fool can’t ask a question in a civil, logical manner.

I think Katharine Graham must be spinning in her grave looking at what her son has done to her newspaper.

Valley Girl
As for the Dems
They have yet to field a candidate I respect and trust.
I was a big fan of Jerry Brown in ‘92.
But I voted for ‘not George Bush’ Bill Clinton.
Dole, whell, nuff said, Clinton again.
Gore.. almost there,but Tipper, c’mon?
Still passed the ‘not George Bush’ test.
John Kerry…well we can all see where *that* got us.
Feingold, Kucinich (again?)
I don’t know.
Jane Hamsher for President!

Regardless, I will probably end up voting Dem again in ‘08.

I knew that Lukery…..it is the last poll he did. Sorry if anyone misunderstood.

maybe there is a way that we can turn Morin’s words against him. i cant think of the right trick. perhaps we could all him and beg him to poll about the War on Xmas or some nonsense, and then we can mock him when that question appears in a wapo poll

No comments on the 6:11 pm posting?
rainier | 12.20.05 – 6:35 pm

I mentally rolled my eyes and said to myself, oh god, that doesn’t surprise me one bit.

I’m afraid that there is quite a bit of the Lieberman attitude about right now–”We have three more years to live under this turkey in troubling times- we can’t afford to let him become a lame duck yet”

It’s not an unintelligent argument- and it should be explored perhaps- but it is no excuse for the media to scew the news.

ccmask – that rawstory/ zogby article is a few months old now (i’m the ‘defiant blogger’ in the article!)

No comments on the 6:11 pm posting?

Last one, I swear…..these are the polls from CNN:

If the House does vote to impeach Clinton and send the case to the Senate for trial, what would you want your senators to do — vote in favor of convicting Clinton and removing him from office, or vote against convicting Clinton so he will remain in office?

Do you think Bill Clinton should or should not resign now and turn the presidency over to Al Gore?

Rather than removing President Clinton from office, do you think the Senate should or should not resolve this matter by voting to censure Clinton — that is, pass a formal resolution expressing disapproval of his actions?

Regardless of whether or not you think Clinton should be impeached, do you think Congress should or should not vote to censure Clinton — that is, pass a formal resolution expressing disapproval of his actions?

Go check out the charts…
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS…..king.poll/

D*mn – meant to say impeach rather than indicted.

bad typists of the world untie

I don’t see how Bush is impeached unless you also impeach Cheney. Rockefeller’s letter is to Cheney. Briefings in Cheney’s office. Cheney making the pro-torture threats. Cheney holding the briefing with Libby b4 Libby goes and outs an undercover CIA agent. Cheney in the loop (although NOT required to be by FISA – which is directed more to President and AG – were EITHER of them present in the meeting Rockefeller mentions?) at the briefings has to = Cheney indicted too.

Mack 12.20.05 – 6:25 pm

I am glad that you have taken up the “screw stategy” position re: impeachment. (I noted you had changed your mind, when I read an earlier post of yours, but I read it way past “tread time” so I didn’t respond then.)

OT — I was just reading today’s Huffington Post and was struck by the number of entries talking about “King George.” I think that’s his moniker now, his permanent moniker. The imagery is so ripe it’s perfect. America doesn’t have kings. Everyone knows that.

Let the campaign begin.

concerning the fear of impeachment for fear of getting worse: the impeachment process itself will so restrain an unworthy successor such as Cheney, Hastert, Condi, etc.
Political passions would be running high after a successful impeachment; the successor would be hogtied in about everything…

Also, please check out this Clinton Impeachment page hosted by CNN. You won’t believe it. It is huge! A chronology of events, cast of characters, a primer, headline archives, timelines, closed-door statements…Jebus.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS…../lewinsky/

Um, guys?

this is Richard Cohen today:

“Finally, the “responsibility president” would understand that his crew has lost all credibility. He cannot expect a nation, and in particular its military, to accept the assurances of people who will be mocked by history or to have faith in leaders whose failures are sadly obvious in the only ledger that really matters: the body count in Iraq. For instance, just the other day in Iraq, Vice President Cheney said the country had “turned the corner.” Who believes him? He may be right, but by now if Cheney told me that Christmas will fall on Dec. 25, I’d doubt him. The man has been wrong, wrong, wrong — and still he is the president’s primary adviser. He should be relegated to state funerals and demagogic speeches to slow learners in the Republican Party.

If Bush wants us to believe that he truly accepts responsibility for what has happened in Iraq, then he has to act responsibly himself: End the Responsibility Era. Start the Accountability one.”

Only five news reports available on Nexis mention the latest Zogby poll: the Froomkin [WaPo] column, an Investor’s Business Daily editorial, a column in the University of Massachusetts student newspaper, a “Potpourri” feature in West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette, and a column in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

I would love to see Bush impeached IF, Dick cheny were not the next in line for coronation.
Kathi | 12.20.05 – 5:41 pm |

This was my position until Sunday when I though seriously about it.
Regardless of succession (which prosceeds next to “coach” Hassert)
I think the President must be held accountable for his actions.

Zogby responds to call for new impeachment poll

A defiant blogger has taken U.S. pollster John Zogby to task, saying he flip-flopped after stating he would survey the American public again on whether they thought President George W. Bush should be impeached.

Zogby, in turn, told RAW STORY his poll questions are meant to respond to the vagaries of public opinion, not to become part of a “cause celebre.”

Zogby says he hasnÂ’t foreclosed the possibility of polling on impeachment again.

“I might ask it again, but I won’t be pressured to ask it,” he said. “If somebody wants to hire us to ask it, I’d consider that.”

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/….._0921.html

The Morin online is so revealing, isn’t it? The response isn’t – oh, we don’t think it is ripe yet, or, well, we may be doing something with this later depending on public response, …

It is ANGER. MAD that someone would even think of an “anti-Bush” poll. That, with Harris’ and Downie explaining how careful then need to be to not make the WH “mad” …
Really sad.

Rayne (I love your posts) – I do hear Republicans go off too – generally on whenever someone like Hagel breaks ranks. But they do tend to stay “on message” these days to a more than alarming extent. They really are the Stepford Party.

When you say “hell no, I’m not voting for just anything/something else.” are you saying that bc you think an attempt to rework the party to the point of even a new name, new face would fractionalize it too much? That it would, in essence, be tossing away votes to try to vote for candidates in/through a new party? Or were you saying that, unlike my perception that a lot of people out there DO vote “against” the *other side*, even if they are not really *for* their *own side* candiate – you don’t do that (i.e., you WOULD vote for a Republican if you liked the candidate?)

When you say, “Green Party folks did that in 2000 and look what it got them to vote for something else.” I guess my response is that a new party name/new party does NOT have to field candidates every place or everwhere does it? Can’t it just go ahead and endorse/support Dem candidates that are worth the support?

I do agree that we are finally starting to see some good leaders (I would vote for Feingold in a heartbeat) and more importantly, I think we are getting them to a “more airtime” position. When the talking heads line up Hillary et al over and over, that means they become the talking points. Do you see the Republicans letting Ted Stevens or that nutso guy from – is it OK? – handle their talking points? Nope. The problem in part is too many of the ineffective speaker/leaders are angling for a 2008 run and they eat up the face time with poorly aruged positioning.

How do you, “What I’d like to do is spank and purge some of the Dems who aren’t, get rid of DINO’s. Lieberman, for one. Zell Miller, for another.” from within the party, and when you do – have you accomplished something that will allow indies, mods and even some Republicans to make the crossover? It just seems to me that sometimes the best way to get rid of the unproductive is to start a new company.

Doesn’t probably matter a great deal because right now I would have a hard time not voting for almost any Dem candidate to prevent the Repub candidate (but see – that is the “team” mentality – back them even when they are on a losing streak) But I would rather be voting FOR something than AGAINST something else. That’s why I am so sour on the party these days.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason—and less out of genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story

(Newsweek)

Rayne – Well, we know the Wilsons have every reason to pursue a civil suit against Bush, Cheney, Libby, and others, and I hope they do.

It is speculative what effect(s) the NSA story might have had on the 2004 National Election, but what is not speculative in any way is that New York Times employees, including senior management, learned of FISA and 4th Amendment violations more than a year ago and not only did they fail to report those violations, they have enabled additional violations by failing to bring public scrutiny to Bush, Cheney, et al. We have no doubt such scrutiny would be immediate given the responses we’ve seen since December 16, 2005.

In my next “Dear Gov. Dean –” (http://tinyurl.com/bppfh)letter I am going to request that, in addition to his FOIA action, he seek legal advice as to whether the NYT should be held legally accountable.

I hope the ACLU and other organizations evaluate the NYT, as well.

Thank you.
UL

Things have been deathly silent on the Fitz front. I guess Luskin has lost his lust for leaking.

repost- EPU end of thread curse. It’s re: Jane’s previous. Once I get this off my chest, I promise to get back on topic for the thread.

I suspect that what I have to say will be deeply unpopular.

I have completely lost faith in the Democratic party.

First point: I was deeply angry at Kerry’s failure to challenge the outcome in Ohio. There are many many reasons to believe that Blackwell and co. totally screwed the vote in Ohio. I had some very unkind things to say about Kerry, and when I posted them, I was insulted in a troll-like fashion by a Dem Kerry supporter, whose message is “liberals are nut jobs.” I was completely astounded by the attack- sounded exactly like attitude of a right-winger.

I got even more frustrated by the outcome of the OH-2 election– Hackett vs. Schmidt. There were many reasons to believe that 1) Schmidt violated campaign rules and 2) that there conspicuous electronic irregularities especially in Clermont county- in short, election fraud.

Hackett lost by a narrow margin. I believe that had he pursued the campaign violations and the issue of electronic fraud, it would have been a watershed moment in waking up to vote fraud perpetrated by the Rep machine. He did not fight back. Meanwhile, many Dems were celebrating Hackett’s loss, that is, Hackett’s close lose, or, how great it was that he came close to winning. Armando published a thoroughly offensive post over at Kos, banning anyone from even discussing election fraud.

I wrote emails to Hackett and to the Dean site, urging a challenge. I also said that in future I was not going to support any Dem candidate who did not promise to challenge election fraud and follow through with that promise (contra Kerry). The DNC report on election fraud was pitiful– yet typical of the “roll over and play dead” actions of the party.

Second point: the Dems bash liberals, while at the same time assuming that they will provide “knee-jerk” votes for Dems vs. Reps. I am really tired of this. I am so tired of this that I have decided that I will no longer be a “knee-jerk” voter that the Dems can count on.

I will not vote for a Rep, but I also will not vote for a Dem, or lend $ support to the candidate unless I truly believe in him/ her. If Gore were a candidate in 2008 I would likely vote for him. If Hillary is a candidate in 2008, I will not vote for her (or anyone else like her). In short, I will not make a “strategic” vote to support a Dem candidate I do not like or trust.

As a liberal, I am tired of being marginalized by the Dem party, while at the same time allowing them to count on my knee-jerk vote.

So, that’s it, from one voter, with one vote.
-

Rep. MeanJean Schmidt held a cocktail party yesterday evening, by invitation only, in the lobby of her luxurious office building in Cincinnati. The invitees arrived in Cadillacs and Lincoln TownCars, except for those from Jean’s hometown Clermont County, who arrived in pickup trucks with rifles mounted in the rear window. The invitees nibbled on endless shrimp and hors d’oeurvres, filling their glasses at a fountain from which champagne flowed from the penises of cherubs.

Only 30 people attended, most of whom wore black and their somber manner was more appropriate for a funeral rather than a cocktail party. MeanJean wore red, this time without the stars and stripes. What she meant to be a welcoming smile turned out to be a pained grimace like the rictus of death. One expected Jean to lead the way into the leather bondage room at any minute.

Speaking of bondage, Schmidt’s campaign manager, Joe Braun, who was in attendance and who has wisely just announced his resignation, has been reported in several places as posting sadist/bondage dating ads at several sadism websites, although Braun denies this. Braun is a partner at the large Cincinnati law firm of Strauss & Troy, where he represents a sex toy business.

how do i stop being so angry at these bastards in the press?

Jane, I didn’t get here in time to post on the previous thread, but it was a wonderful rant and I’m glad you took us seriously and are letting us decide about these things. We admire your skill and your passion; I hope you will continue to share these intense posts/essays as we move forward in this incredibly important and historical process. I really value the persective you and Redd provide here and want to give whatever encouragement you need to keep up this excellent commentary.

The WaPo, vis a vis the Froomkin thing, has given us plenty of proof that they will shrink from any promotion of the all to obvious need to ask these difficult questions. I wouldn’t know where to go besides Molly Ivins for an honest story anymore. If anyone kows of a paper they can trust, I’d love a link. I miss reading the newspaper so much. Our little daily was bought out by a big gooper family a couple of years ago, so even the police notes are no longer any good.

I wrote heartfelt and honest letters today, however I am represented by Kerry and Kennedy, so I am preaching to the choir in MA. I have signed all petitions and filled in polls. I continue to target certain recalcitrant Senators and send praise to those who are showing that they are willing to open thier mouths, Boxer, Feingold, Reed, Levin. I wrote to Jay Rockefeller that I wanted him to address his experience more fully online.

I am asking them all to work toward impeachment of Bush, Cheney and whatever they can do to Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo and the others who were involved in these crimes. There is no other way to preserve our remaining rights or to stop the erosion of our Constitution. This can happen next month by starting the investigation with priority over other nonessential business in Congress and I think it should. I will not listen to naysayers and I will not argue the point because this is, to me, the only point.

Fitzgerald is continuing his work and I think that will expose more lies and more criminal charges in the White house. These will be significant and will bring more doubt and pressure to the moderate republicans who have likely had enough of the dirt Bush and his cronies are throwing on thier shoes and thier party.

Thanks for listening and thanks to Jane and Redd for our fabulous home.

Semblance, we have to stop pretending that this is a new thing.
It’s MUCH worse now than twenty years ago. Liberal voices have been almost totally silenced, while radical wingnuts are presented as normal.

Last Friday the WaPo’s Dana Milbank began his hour long online chat with this: “Good morning. Many of you out there in what my colleague John F. Harris affectionately dubs “the crankosphere” are evidently of the impression that the Washington Post political staff is distracted by internal battles with washingtonpost.com. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have focused this week on the Iraqi elections, in which the Froomkin turnout was much higher than expected. We have closely monitored the White House’s about face on the Froomkin torture amendment. And today, I write from the Senate press gallery, where Froomkins are attempting to filibuster the Patriot Act. With that, I will be happy to take your Froomkins.”

The once great Washington Post has failed miserably over the last 8 years. I’ll never forget the headline “recount would have favored Bush” which turned out to be in a rare case scenario. They have done a dreadful job of covering election fraud and 9/11. I have to go, It’s time for My Name is Earl.

Bob Adams — maybe you should put a word in for us with entities at even higher levels. Heh.

UL — been thinking that, too; NYT and WaPo enabled, aided, abetted a crime, didn’t they? Might even have covered up treason in the case of the Plame outing? Wonder what price the members of a class action suit would put on a lost presidential election?

Morin (channeling David Banner): “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

WP Readers: “Shit, we don’t like you now!”

OT, and perhaps old news, but I just saw that the Federal court in Pennsylvania has ruled against the Dover School Board, holding that Intelligent Design may not be taught in biology class because it is essentially creationism.

I’m still otherwise occupied, so I can’t keep up on the comments, but you folks are doing a great job. Keep it up.

is it the purpose of the press to cheer a movement?

we need a fox, we need prime time coverage.

it’s rediculous how little play this presidents actions against this country get in corporate media

Remember, Tom Delay said in Jan. 1993 that Clinton should be impeached. For five years, the Republicans were saying that.. not just after Monica’s story came out. Of course the press would ask the public what they thought of impeaching Clinton, because the Fascists had primed them for it. Democrats should have been using the I word since at least Summer 2003.

we did a poll on impeachment a couple of weeks ago using the right-leaning rasmussen. the results were that 32% wanted Bush impeached, 35% for Cheney.

i get the sense that the numbers might be higher when we do our next poll :-)

ya never know, Bob Adams!

“99% of the mainstream press and the media actively fights against the interests of liberals and progressives every day.”

Semblance, we have to stop pretending that this is a new thing. Poor men do not own newspapers. Maybe long ago in the far west, there were some poor struggling fellows with printing presses, but that was a long time ago.

What liberal movement has the press of this nation EVER cheered? Or even told the truth about?

Molin has a point.
If the Dems aren’t talking impeachment, why should the WaPo be polling about that?
He’s RIGHT.

Wilson46201 wrote:

Barbara Boxer is breaking the ice on the impeachment process too… she’s working off John Deans statement that Bush is the first President to afmit to an impeachable offense!

Wow, Dean must have read my post on FDL the other day:

…I think when the history of Clusterfuck’s crash and burn is written, the date 12-19-05 will be noted as the day The Preznit admitted on live TV to breaking the law…
Bob Adams | Homepage | 12.19.05 – 7:52 pm |

(grin)

In the same online chat, Morin admits to tailoring poll results to HIS expectations ….

” Gallup does terrific work. But I found it odd that they had Bush at 41 immediately after the Iraq elections–down insignificantly from 42 in their pre-election poll. Bush didn’t benefit–even a little bit–from the success of those elections and the favorable media coverage that followed? Certainly possible, but I find it hard to believe.”

Really, Morin? Isn’t it funny that your poll has a bunch of problems (outlined in the online discussion), yet somehow mysteriously it fits with YOUR expectations? Funny, that.

conyers has brought up impeacnment.

http://www.conyersblog.us/

Jane,

Thanx again for another great post…do you think that the WaPo and NYT are gettin close to irrelevant in terms of whatever power they are supposed to weld in the formation of public opinion. For instance, when another pollster comes out with results of an “impeachment poll” it’s gunna whip every pollin organization in the country onto the question. The WaPO and NYT will be left mumblin’ on the corner.

I’m hopeful that this scandal will not only bring about Clusterfuck’s demise, but it will also cause the MSM to own up for their bovine acceptance of everything the Repugs feed them.

the Dems will need to get the seats to start the impeachment process…one step at a time, folks.

the public sentiment for impeaching the S.O.B. is definitely out there — Zogby floated a poll this summer. Various recent polls measuring strength of attitudes toward Bush show the hostile voters feel more strongly hostile than the sycophants.

That would be lovely Semblance, but I hadn’t heard that hell was going to freeze over anytime soon.

This is not an easy letter to write, and I’m afraid it may be a hard one to believe.

By now you have probably heard the news that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years and he says he intends to continue the program.

These actions explicitly violate a law designed to protect US citizens. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program’s existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released — Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours:

http://www.democrats.org/foia

This extra-legal activity is even more disturbing because it is unnecessary — the administration already has access to a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That court was created precisely to provide speedy, secure judicial review to the actions of our intelligence agencies.

To allow authorities act as quickly as possible, officials can even apply for a retroactive warrant days after the surveillance has already begun. Secret warrants have been approved over 19,000 times — only five applications were rejected in nearly thirty years. The court, which regularly acts within hours, is hardly a roadblock, but it prevents abuse by providing the oversight required by our system of checks and balances.

This administration must demonstrate clearly what legal authority allows it to disregard criminal prohibitions on unilateral domestic spying. Sign on to the request now — it will be delivered on Thursday:

http://www.democrats.org/foia

In an interview on Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted that the administration asked certain Members of Congress about getting a new law to allow spying on Americans without a warrant. Realizing that even a Republican-controlled Congress wouldn’t authorize such a measure, they decided to manipulate current law and proceed with the program anyway.

Manipulation of a law like this is dangerous. The same Office of Legal Counsel used vague assertions of sweeping authority in the infamous torture memos. The victim of this reasoning is the rule of law itself — when this administration asserts sweeping authority to step over any line of legality, it asserts that there are no lines at all.

Does this administration believe there are any lines it can’t cross? Americans deserve to know. Join our Freedom of Information Act request now:

http://www.democrats.org/foia

Some Republicans will try to pretend that this is just another political fight. But Americans of every political viewpoint are rightfully disturbed by this extra-legal activity. The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, shocked by the report of this activity, promised to convene hearings in January.

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

“What’s wrong with it is several-fold. One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.”

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law — and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request:

http://www.democrats.org/foia

Even after the press found out about these actions, the administration tried to cover up its existence. According to Newsweek, George Bush summoned the publisher and executive editor of the New York Times to the Oval Office to try to stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

We have seen this kind of arrogance of power before.

Richard Nixon once said in an interview that, “if the president does it, it can’t be illegal.”

He found out that wasn’t true. This administration may need a reminder.

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

http://www.democrats.org/a/200…..e_bush.php

Are Risen, Lichtblau, their editors and other senior managers, as well as the executive management team of the New York Times in legal jeopardy because, upon learning of Bush’s (and his minions) FISA and 4th Amendment violations, they did not report the crimes?

Not only should they have acted to bring scrutiny to the violations immediately upon learning of them, they also have been willing participants in any ongoing violation since they learned of the NSA actions, imho.

I would think the victims, under FISA and possibly other statutes, can name all those at the NYT, in civil actions, as well.

Thank you.
UL

I can’t type with my nails…. or maybe it’s the Egg Nog;)

Kathi, both the President and Vice President can be impeached. And they should be!

Let’s just start by having Morin impeached. We’ll deal with his Patron Chimp next.

99% of the mainstream press and the media actively fights against the interests of liberals and progressives every day.

I feel this is the biggest hurdle we face.

I’ll say it again, I would love to see Bush impeached IF, Dick cheny were not the next in line for coronation.

It is funny that I heard a report that the Media has a Liberal bias. I’m not sur which Media theya re talking about, may the Media in Timbuctu?

Barbara Boxer is breaking the ice on the impeachment process too… she’s working off John Deans statement that Bush is the first President to afmit to an impeachable offense!

well today George Will said the President broke the law. It is a start.

Fitz?

Ah, yes, Richard Morin — Putting the “I” in moron.