Thursday, May 11, 2006

FISA in One Syllable Words.

First, I'd just like to say that the NSA is filled with tall, good-looking heroic agents concerned only for our welfare.

I'm not even going to try to get into the legalities or none-legalities of the latest hoo-ha -- primarily because no one can seem to get revved up about the LAST scandal, in which the NSA/Administration circumvented the FISA court in a plainly illegal manner and yet garnered barely a peep.

Seriously, let's go back to the first FISA case again before we dive into the new stuff. Maybe it wasn't explained simply enough. I know -- let's revisit it using only one syllable words, except for proper nouns like "Congress" or "Bush Administration". Oh and"warrant." Spot me "warrant":

*******************************

Say the Bush Administration thinks a man is a terror- ... bad-dark-man who wants to kill us, and would like to tap their phone to hear their bad plot. The Bush Administration must get a warrant from some smart folk, the FISA court. The FISA court's job is to hear why the Bush Administration wants a wire tap, and to and then to hand out the warrant.

That is the law. It is a law made by Congress. The Bush Administration must heed the law. It does not matter if the President likes the law or not. That is his job in what I like to call the Constitution. The Constitution is good.

Q: What if the court takes too much time? We could die from bad-dark-man plots and bombs!!

A: The way the FISA court works, you don't have to go see them that day. You can start the wire tap first, then go see the FISA court in three days.

Q: Hmmm, but what if the court wants too much proof, and the NSA does not get its wire tap? We could die from bad-dark-man plots and bombs!!

A: It is not hard to get a "yes" from the FISA court. It is, in fact, no sweat, child's play, slight, smooth, a snap. It is the town bike of courts. It is the Paris Hilton of courts. Pet the dog, buy the third drink, and you are in. Through the end of the year 2004, the FISA court said "yes" to 18, 761 warrants. They said "no" to five. 5 is much much much less than 18761.

Q: Hmmm. It is cinch to heed the law then, and still keep us safe. YAAYYY!

A: But the Bush Administration did not heed the law. With no warrants, it spied on some phone lines. It spied on a LOT of phone lines.

Q: Why? Did they say why they broke the law?

A: They gave two "why"s. First, the Man who ran the NSA wire taps said that to go to the FISA court, and do what the law and Constitution say --

Q: The Constitution is good!

A: ... yes. The Man who ran the NSA wire taps said that to go to the FISA court would take too much time, and they would have to fill out a lot of forms!

Q: Ummm ... huh.

A: Yep.

Q: That does not seem like a good "why."

A: Nope.

Q: You would think they would have guys whose job it is to fill out forms.

A: You would.

Q: That guy is a bad boss for the NSA! Did the President fire him?

A: No. The President wants him to run the CIA.

Q: ... What was the President's "why"?

A: The President said he does not have to do what the law says.

Q: ... wait. Wait one bit. That is not a "why". This is, um, weird. The President has to do what the law says. That is how we know he is not a king.

A: We are at war, and so if the President thinks a law gets in his way when he wants to catch a bad-dark-man, he does not need to do what the law says.

Q: ... the President can break the law? All laws?

A: No.

Q: Phew.

A: No, I mean you don't get it. This President says that if he breaks a law when he thinks it is the right thing to do to catch bad-dark-men, he did not break the law at all. The law, for him, does not work. He claims this part of the Constitution says that he can do this.

Q: Wait. Wait. That is -- but laws that don't help him fight the war. He has to do what those say! Right?

A: No. Bush claims that for more than 750 new laws, he ... just does not care that they are laws "of the People, for the People and by the People". He does not like them. He does not have to do what they say. Just 'cuz.

Q:
... fuuuuuuck.

A: Now you get it.



***************************

It literally does not get easier to understand than that. To recap --The Administration actually admitted that it broke the law because a.) it involved too much paperwork and b.) the President can ignore any law he needs to, as long as he does so when, in his own personal judgement, he is defending the nation. The fact that this is an eternal war, where there's no end zone, no definable victory condition (as "Terror" very well can't show up and sign the surrender papers aboard the USS Missouri), and the enemy is whoever the Administration declares, that should not worry you. After all, we promise, it's not you we're spying on. It's bad people.

Then, we found out it wasn't just NSA arcana. The President just picks and chooses which laws he's going to have the Executive Branch obey. And somehow we all moved right along. Given that and we couldn't rouse people, I have no hope of the public understanding the niceties of pen register laws.

Glen Greenwald, as always, has the cautious, thorough examination of this new issue which will, of course, immediately get him labelled a traitor.

I'm sorry you need a daddy, a priest or a king in the White House to feel better. That's not patriotism -- that's fear dressed up as patriotism. I'm going to go with Madison here:

From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.

His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority.

Oh, and to save some time in the Comments section:

Comment: You can't ask the President to protect us, and then not let him do his job!
Answer: There is nothing stopping the President from doing his job. That law may well be the easiest law in the world to follow, subject to the loosest court in the land. To boil it down mathematically, if you had an arrangment by which you could fuck other women, then three days later tell your wife, and 98% of the time your wife said "Sure, whatever," you would still be working under stricter rules than the FISA law.

To extend the metaphor, if you told me you can not get laid enough under that relationship, I can only surmise that is because you are up to some very, very dodgy stuff. The legal equivalent of furries. Trek Furries. Scat Trek Furries. With Electro.

Comment: "This is no big deal, and you have to trust the people in power to do the right thing."
Answer: Ahem. The entire FUCKING POINT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS THAT YOU DON'T "JUST TRUST SOMEONE" BECAUSE THEY ARE IN POWER. Thomas Jefferson would stab you in the neck with a spoon if he heard you say that.*

On a more specific note, there may be some Administrations I would barely consider trusting with this sort of behaviour. The one with Karl Rove in it? Not so much. Even if there's no malice aforethought, these are the people who fucked up New Orleans. These are the people who fucked up Iraq. They are just very bad at their jobs. If they were at least efficient, I would sleep better. As far as I know, a list of all my phone calls are currently sitting in a dumpster next to the name of the guy carrying the nuclear football.

Comment: "We need to catch the bad guys, and anything is worth --"
Answer: Have you secured the ports yet? Secured the chemical plants? Figured out a way to scan all the luggage on US flights? Worked out the kinks in the retarded "No Fly" list? Started buying up some of the 2,000 loose nukes in Russia? Gotten first responders the equipment they need in case of emergency? Fixed FEMA and Homeland Security? Caught Osama Bin Laden? Tell you what, nail down the jobs that don't require you to wipe your ass with the Constitution first.

There. That should save some time. Now you can jump straight into "Credit cards sell these kinds of records all the time" and "This is an MSM plant to derail Hayden's hearings for the CIA." Keep up the pace, people.




* Oh, and in in the name of Christ don't pull the FDR case out either, and start crowing about the big win. He thought he was working within the scope of the law. These laws we have now were put into effect to ...never mind. Glenn explains that here, too.


EDIT: Thanks for all the links, folks. I hope it's not an imposition to remind you that we're raising funds for a facility for families of wounded veterans of the Iraq war here, so if you found this useful or linkworthy, please toss a buck or two into the pot.

80 comments:

Amandarama said...

The legal equivalent of furries. Trek Furries. Scat Trek Furries. With Electro.

And that's where I snarf Diet Coke and now need a new keyboard.

I, too, am dismayed...no, I actually think I'm angry...about the President's position that the law doesn't apply to him when it's inconvenient. And then to nominate that NSA guy to run the CIA? I think I want to move back to England.

moleboy said...

I'm surprised you haven't done a thing on this whole presidential signing statements story

Anonymous said...

I guess what leaves me so baffled, and also frightened and angry, is why there is such a strong contingent (I don't necessarily think it's a majority contingent) in this country who want a king?

The whole point of this country was/is that we DON'T want a king! No kings! Not even a kick-ass duke!

Kings are problematic, what with their tendency to invent overly complicated and incompatible measurement systems (the yard was the length of one particular king's arm from shoulder to fingertips, as I recall. Nice. So is it still a yard when the next king comes along, and what happens if that king happens to be the same height as Ronnie James Dio?), to say nothing of their abuse of law and rule (face it, for every example of a "benevolent," and I use that term reservedly, monarch, there's 10 others that are really, really bad. Their track record just blows).

Why do people want a king? I don't want a king! Is it because they're scared and think that a king will protect them?

I'm scared of these people, but I don't want a king to come along and protect me from them. I want the people to get together and call them on this bullshit. That's Democracy, which is another way of saying we, The People, protect our own damn selves.

Rob

Anonymous said...

To clarify: I don't necessarily think it's a majority contingent, but they sure seem to be awfully vocal, and awfully powerful, and awfully prominent, and who knows, maybe they are a majority contingent. I don't know. Are they?

Eep?

Rob

Anonymous said...

"Oh Canada, Our home and Native Land
True patriot Love in all our hearts command......"

It's not perfect, but its alot closer to sanity

Alex Epstein said...

You really ought to crossblog these to the Daily Kos. This is brilliant.

Unknown said...

Have you secured the ports yet? Secured the chemical plants? Figured out a way to scan all the luggage on US flights? Worked out the kinks in the retarded "No Fly" list? Started buying up some of the 2,000 loose nukes in Russia? Gotten first responders the equipment they need in case of emergency? Fixed FEMA and Homeland Security? Caught Osama Bin Laden? Tell you what, nail down the jobs that don't require you to wipe your ass with the Constitution first.

John, this just got posted on my wall in very large letters. Excellent work, sir.

Geoff Thorne said...

Damn, John.

Somebody ate their Wheaties today.

DJ said...

“Thos who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither”
-Benjamin Franklin-

It’s almost like the Founding fathers knew what they were talking about.

Ben Jones said...

Electro?

Is that some weird new fetish or something? The only Electro I know is the Spider-Man villain, and I don't see how he fits in that joke.

Anonymous said...

Could the "let him do his job!" contingent please explain to me what they think the President's job is? Because I'm pretty sure obeying laws is pretty high up on the list, while ending terrorism worldwide forever isn't in the Constitution. In fact, I believe there is something about armed uprisings being occasionally necessary.

Anonymous said...

From dj: "It’s almost like the Founding fathers knew what they were talking about."

I hear tell they were some purty smart fellers.

Rob

DJ said...

I thought it was Canadians who didn’t understand sarcasm? Or is that irony?

Big fan of all the Founding Peres.

Anonymous said...

From dj: "I thought it was Canadians who didn’t understand sarcasm? Or is that irony?"

Sorry, now I'm confuzzed. Did I misread your comment? If so, I apologize. Also a big fan of the political wisdom of the Founding Fathers here. Also, not Canadian. Unless that comment wasn't for me. In which, as you can plainly see, I'm still really, really confuzzed.

Rob

Anonymous said...

To continue with words of one syllable:

Q: What if the President is right, that the law makes us not catch the bad-dark-man who wants to kill us? What can he do? Must he break the law? Does he have no way else to keep us safe?

A: No, no. He can do at least two things to keep us safe and, at the same time, heed the law. One, he can call his friends in Congress and have them pass a new law that makes it fine for him to do what he says he must. His friends in Congress like him and do what he says most of the time. Or two, he can go to court and ask the judge to say that the law is wrong and his plan is fine by the Constitution. Or he can do both.

Q:But won't bad-dark-men then know what he plans to do?

A:So what? It won't hurt us. Just 'cuz they might know how the plan works does not mean they know what we learn on them from the plan.

Q:Why should I care, though? I am not a bad-dark-man.

A:If Bush can claim he does not need to heed the laws he does not like, then he is no more than a king. And let's say Bush is good and nice. It's still bad 'cuz Presidents to come might not be good and nice. If we give up our rights now, we might not get them back.

Anonymous said...

I've been talking over this article with a few of my friends. I'm not even a U.S.A.ian, so I don't know the answer to the questions I'm going to ask. However, I see a lot of people raising their fists and saying, "Hellz YEAH!" in response to this, all over the so-called 'blogosphere'. I also see a lot of people who feel bummed out and despondent. And then I see a small number of people who ask, "So if they're a bunch of proven crooks, why aren't they being impeached?"

This highlights a problem with these things, I think. In this information age and especially online where transmitting information is so easy and powerful, we have an obsession with awareness. You know that "Fat Man Walking" guy? He walked across the country to raise awareness of obesity in America. I have a lot of views on that topic, most of which don't align with his, but even so, I'm incredulous: To raise awareness of obesity? The "war on obesity," and the "obesity epidemic," are on every television, every radio programme, every magazine cover. Dieting and exercise and so on are one of the most frequent topics of human conversation. I do not think you can find a single living human being in a first-world nation (i.e. anywhere this guy's efforts will be broadcast to) who is not aware that there are fat people in America (whether they view that as a crisis or not). And yet, he walks across the country to raise awareness of the issue.

Ultimately, awareness does not transmute into action or results. Posts like these are great for getting the idea out to a whole bunch of people who all already had the idea. However, I do not think that there are people out there who are potentially going to think that Bush and his administration have committed crimes who are not already aware that Bush and his administration have committed crimes.

So am I just verbosely telling you to shut up? No. But there are obviously some folks, possibly you, who are trying to 'raise awareness' who know something about politics. I'm suggesting that somebody, maybe not you but maybe you if this sounds like a cool idea that you have the skills for, needs to put together an actual action list. I'm not talking about a vague list of attitudes people can have or concepts people can explore or things like, "Get the word out!". I'm talking about, "In order to do your part to help impeach Bush (or whatever other goal you have in mind), you can do the following eight things: 1. Write a letter outlining the following things in your own words to this specific person. 2. Donate money to this specific organization. 3. Attend this event and register your opinion. 4. Punch this particular guy in the nose," and so on. (Please do not recommend that people should punch people in the nose.) I think that by and large people have no idea what to do from this point (other than just pass your and other links to the four winds). A concrete plan of action could make a big difference. I don't have the skills or background to put one togehter, nor, as mentioned, am I from your country. But heck, if you even could give me a concrete list of steps I'd take to begin compiling such a list or finding one that's been compiled or who I'd talk to, I'd be happy to pitch in.

Outrage is fine -- it fuels the fires of the heart. But at some point it's absolutely necessary to take those fires and make some steam and turn some generators -- to take the outrage and arm the people with the tools to *do something concrete about it*.

DJ said...

From Desert son:” Sorry, now I'm confused”

I am Canadian. And I think we are both confused or I might have missed your obvious sarcasm. It’s that damn Canadian thing again. No harm no foul. Unless you were being ironic, then I am totally screwed.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry you need a daddy, a priest or a king in the White House to feel better. That's not patriotism -- that's fear dressed up as patriotism.

Pure-D Hetro love for you, man. I'm struggling with which snip to clip to my blog, 'cause it's all cherry with you, dammit.

I'm angry at the Admin -- but I'm furious that we, the people don't give a crap. And it's a struggle, within myself, to determine if it's something we've had beaten into us, or if we just don't care anymore. Is it the 24-hour news, and information overload? Is it the easy entertainment we can afford? Or, perhaps, the simple fact that we feel no pain, anymore, when the gov't goes stupidly overboard?

Anonymous said...

How about today's quote in the LA Times of Sen Trent Lott (R-Miss), member of the Intelligence Committee:
"Do we want security . . . or do we want to get in a twit about our civil libertarian rights?"
And these are the people we elected to represent us, "we the people," who in writing anyway, are the government . . . the hubris of our elected representatives is numbing.

Anonymous said...

From dj: "I am Canadian."

I respectfully submit a genuine, laid-back, non-sarcastic "cool."

"And I think we are both confused"

I am definitely confused. Welcome to my world! :)

" or I might have missed your obvious sarcasm."

No, I hadn't intended any sarcasm. My comment about "hear tell they were some purty smart fellers" was a poor attempt at translating to the electronic screen a stylyzed colloquial accent to lend a good-natured, humorous tone to the fact that I am in full agreement with your apropos quote of Ben Franklin. Franklin's words have been scrolling across my mind's eye like the news brief at Times Square on hyperdrive lately, what with thinking about all these issues.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, I agree with your apropos comment from Ben Franklin, and with your support of the Founding Father's political acumen.

"It’s that damn Canadian thing again."

No idea what the damn Canadian thing is, but everything's cool as far as I'm concerned.

"No harm no foul."

My sentiments exactly.

"Unless you were being ironic, then I am totally screwed."

And I'm back to confused (what can I say, I do confusion well). I don't think I was being ironic. I think I was just trying to affect a funny accent yet nevertheless endorse an earnest position, that of the Founding Father's really were smart and knew what they were doing, as you observed.

Once more, I have blathered on at too great a length. Short version: I was cheering in support of your post.

Is it the weekend yet? I'm fried. Gotta go pour myself a cold one, contemplate the upcoming World Cup, and stew some more in my anger, as woodrow jarvis hill adroitly observed, at the administration and the people who seem to roll over for it.

Hope everyone has a good weekend. John, thanks again for the blog. Enjoy visiting here immensely, and thanks to the commentators, as well.

Rob

Geoff Thorne said...

From dj: "It’s almost like the Founding fathers knew what they were talking about."

They sure swung a mean quill.

DJ said...

RedJack-

Testify my Brother. Testify.

Anonymous said...

My take:

The problem is that the cowering masses believe that they would never be a target of government surveillance because they have nothing to hide. Because the topic is unlikely to come up during small talk with Brandon Mayfield in the supermarket checkout line, you'll need to make the point yourself. I suggest the following approach:

Over the next week, take a moment to telephone your “conservative” friends. I don’t mean real conservatives – small government libertarian types. I refer instead to the “anything the President wants to do to protect me from the terrorists is fine by me” brand.

Before calling, drum up some elaborate and salacious story with which to begin the conversation. Make sure it’s not an actual elaborate and salacious story from your college days. You don’t want to embarrass anyone just to make a point. (For that reason, you should take extra care to fabricate a truly fantastic story if your friend happens to be a Republican Congressman or CIA executive.) I suggest something like “Hey, Joe. It’s Tom. My wife and I were just watching HBO and it reminded me of that time we all went down to Tijuana and got so drunk that those hookers stole our wallets and made off with all of our drugs while we were passed out. Remember that? That was hilarious.” Something like that.

Call each friend on your list, and hit him with the tale as soon as he answers the phone. When your friend begins to stammer, tap the receiver with a pencil a few times, then ask whether he heard that clicking sound. (It works just as well if you leave the message on the machine). Abruptly hang up and move on to the next acquaintance on your list.

If even a small percentage of Americans engage in this simple educational exercise, public sentiment on this issue will change quickly and dramatically.

Anonymous said...

Yep.

I'm one of those who sees most of the political posts here and the related comments as so much childish sniping, but you're absolutely right on this one (overlooking some of the usual side jabs).

This wiretap business got my attention when it first broke. I believe that the admin thinks they're doing an okay thing for the sake of saving lives, but the potential for abuse is too high and it violates the fundamental design of our government. I'm not at all happy about that.

What am I doing about it? Probably not enough, but I am bringing it up with my fellow right-wingers and getting them worked up about it, too. Frankly, that's something you guys in the "Bush eats babies for breakfast" crowd have no power to do, so that's something.

And yes, I do believe that many people want a king. I'll just add that in my little circle of friends and acquaintences, I hear indications of that mindset from lefties more than anyone else. Usually, it comes in the form of wanting the President to solve a problem over which he has little or no legal control.

Now that I'm really popular here, I'll just point out the main page is a bit of a jumbled mess in Mozilla right now. The sidebar content seems to have been dropped over a portion of the blog entries. It wasn't so a couple of days ago.

Anonymous said...

And I'm sure you had no problem at all with the NSA's "listening" when Bill Clinton was president.

Right?

Anonymous said...

I think I'm going to steal your technique at some point. Just so you know.

Because the one-syllable thing is hilarious.

Unknown said...

And I'm sure you had no problem at all with the NSA's "listening" when Bill Clinton was president.

a.)Just so you know, anyone here who pulls the "But Clinton did it" argument immediately losses 1000 points. Because, as explained in the link, it means you have so little kung fu in defense of the subject at hand you must attract attention elswhere. It is, in effect, an instant default. But we'll spot you that, as you may be new ...

b.) Clinton obeyed FISA. He. Obeyed. the Law. You can tell that because we didn't have FISA judges quitting in protest during Clinton, etc. etc. pull your head out of Hannity's ass and go read some facts. Start with Glenn's website. He's smart and approaches all this stuff from a legal standpoint.

You understand, it's not about wiretapping in general. Everybody, except for the sad straw-man liberal some conservatives need to argue with in order to win some argument -- wants you to spy on bad guys. The problem is that there is a way to do it which allows you to spy on bad guys and obey the law, or there is the way to do it which breaks the law. The President and the NSA are not only breaking the law, we now seem to be finding out that this is the leading edge of of further very disturbing behaviour. Personally, I seem to find it all of a type, a disregard for the legislative process as laid out in the Constitution, representative of a disdain for the American people.

Unknown said...

Matt:

Thanks for the insightful contribution from our conservative brethren. (to avoid the flame war from lack of vocal inflection, that's not sarcasm). It is interesting to see that this seems to be the issue finally tweaking the conservatives.

I'm not a member of the "Bush eats babbies" crowd. I'm more in the "Bush is relentlessly, demonstrably bad at his job, to the point at which if you still support him you are completley ignoring all standards of competency rational human beings use."

Oh, and I feel the "lefties want a king" argument is a bit odd. Progressives often feel that the government should be responsible for solving problems that can only be solved by the will of the people made manifest in a large organized manner. There are some issues the President is not directly responsible for, but his leadership, planning, and proper delegation of responsibility to qualified officers are his responsibility. To wit: "Heckuva job, Brownie."

I'm guessing you're one of those libertarian-ish fellas. I'm one too, in a slightly different sense. I belive the governmnet should do very few things, but those it does, the government should do very well.

My "king" metaphor is more in the negative -- the constant idea that questioning the performance or motivation of a leader is in some way unpatriotic means you are vesting that leader with the spirit of the nation. That's making a king. Constantly arguing that the leadershould be free of any oversight from the people vests the leader with kingly abilities. It's understandable, as a king relationship has certain strong emotional resonances (look at some Canadians and Brits who still do so love their Royals), but not mature. And again, rather missing the entire point of the United States.

And, more personally -- nice misdirect. Avoid the culpability of conservatives, through their weird permissive behaviour, enabling the Bush Administraiton's incomptence by summoning up liberals who, if only they had their dude in power, would maked him a king.

Anonymous said...

John,

Now, don't misunderstand me. It's not a misdirect so much as it is a matter of putting out the appropriate message to a group of people who are slapping each other on the back, saying "thank god we don't think like that".

And I certainly didn't say or even imply that lefties want their own king, although I'd probably cop to that belief if cornered. What I said and what I've observed, ironically, is that quite a few of them want Bush (i.e. "the President") to act like a king under certain circumstances. Interestingly enough, Katrina is the situation that comes most readily to mind.

But, yes, I also see the problem of permissive righties. They're circling their wagons out of habit at this point, but they're clearly wrong on this one. It just seems obvious to me that intrusive government is not a very conservative thing at all.

And no, this isn't a case of a Bush sheep/lackey (take your pick) finally waking up or however else I often hear these things phrased. I do think he's fundamentally a good guy but he's shown poor leadership in a handful of other areas (Iraq reconstruction, fiscal responsibility, etc). The "war on terror" detainee situation grew way out of control early on. Some of the crowd he runs with are also dangerously oblivious and arrogant. No arguments there.

I probably do have some libertarian leanings. I probably have a few, faint lefty leanings, too, as I'm inexplicably drawn to vocal lefty writers in my choice of entertainment. ;)

But let me ask you a question about something since you brought it up once again. You (half?-)joked about Colbert going to Guantanamo previously. I've seen you mention time after time how those who criticize the goverment are somehow ostracized and labeled unpatriotic. Outside of some loudmouth right-wing guys with a radio mike that most people know to ignore anyways and some backwoods Dixie Chicks fans, I just don't see it. I've been watching people take shots at Bush from the beginning on the web, in entertainment and in person and none of them seem any worse off than the people like me who are called "good little Nazis", etc, for sometimes supporting the administration. Sticks and stones, et al. You haven't been shy about your criticisms. What has your personal experience with backlash been?

Anonymous said...

"Matter" has two syllables. You're confusing the slow kids.

Anonymous said...

I speculate that the Dems are keeping low key about the list of Bush's illegal actions since it's believed that they can't win an impeachment vote until after they gain back several seats in Congress.

They're focusing on using the outrage to boost the key November seat races in hopes of pulling the Congressional rug out from under Bush, et al. I hope that works out, because I know I'll be sitting on their collective desks asking for an impeachment trial the next day!

Anonymous said...

From matt olsen: "Outside of some loudmouth right-wing guys with a radio mike that most people know to ignore anyways. . . "

Interesting. If most people know to ignore them (the right-wing radio blowhards), why do their programs generate enough money to warrant continuation? Why are there so many of them (Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Imus, Dobson, Liddy, Savage, et al.)? Mightn't large scale disregard of such programming result in poor ratings and subsequent elimination by radio stations looking to capitalize on premium radio time? Or is it a case of people listen for some entertainment value but don't actually take the commentary to heart? Curious about your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Rob

Anonymous said...

Matt Olsen:

He's "shown poor leadership in a handful of other areas"?

Only a handful? Let's run through some of those areas of poor leadership:


WMDs in Iraq? Check.
Ignoring his military commanders in Iraq? Check
Disbanding the Iraqi Army, sending hundreds of thousands of trained killers into the streets? Check
Katrina mismanagement? Check
NSA wiretaps? Check

My question to you is: what has he done right?

And why does every Bush supporter go out of their way to tell me what a great guy he is? I don't care if he's a great guy. I don't care if he clears brush on his ranch. I just want him to do a good job.

He's not.

Anonymous said...

eric said: "My question to you is: what has he done right?

And why does every Bush supporter go out of their way to tell me what a great guy he is? I don't care if he's a great guy. I don't care if he clears brush on his ranch. I just want him to do a good job.

He's not.


Well said.

Rob

s9 said...

"The legal equivalent of furries. Trek Furries. Scat Trek Furries. With Electro."

Ow. Ow ow ow ow ow. You had to imagine them into scat, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

desert son:

I don't think you need too many listeners to keep a radio show going, and I don't think it's a safe assumption that those that do listen are in across-the-board agreement with the Rushes and Seans of the world. Those guys supposedly have audiences that number in the seven digits, but the vast majority of the righties I know think those guys might sometimes have a point but are, for the most part, media clowns.

But that was my point. Guys like Rogers know that they're media clowns. Why the huge amount of concern over what they say? They're wrong as far as the disloyalty claims and everyone that I know knows that. That has always struck me as "playing the victim". And, again, that flavor of barbs also very much flies in both directions.

Ultimately, I suppose that what I'm saying is that the left doesn't really seem to have its eye on the ball when they're so preoccupied with these fringe guys. More on that in the minute.


eric:

I'm not sure you can so easily put me in the category of a Bush supporter. I was explaining just a couple of weeks ago in another forum why he is probably in the bottom quartile of US Presidents. I do support him on a policy-by-policy basis, as I think any reasonable person should when they approve of a policy, and I do think most of his critics are actively embarassing themselves in front of the people that they should be speaking to. At the same time, I see him as another in a long line of barely qualified choices that the system seems so good at cranking out. You and I and everyone here personally know dozens of people who would make better leaders than either candidate we had in 2000 or 2004.

So I'll leave it to you guys to decide how evil I am, but I think you'll find that some of the labels don't fit. ;)

But why emphasize that he's a generally good guy? Again, that's a message for the "Bush eats babies" crowd. It's also my way of pitching in for your cause by moving the conversation to where it should be.

It seems to me that too many on the left are preoccupied with out-admin-hating each other (e.g. "well I've stay up every night for the last six years hating George Bush!") and have completely lost sight of the need to bring along Middle America to have any hope of moving the country in the direction you'd like. They so often lose sight of that group in the middle because they gear their message to the loud fringe on either side.

Not that righties don't also have that problem, mind you, but they're not so frantic for change.

Simply by asking a question "what has he done right?" (recent example from my viewpoint: guest worker program) you demonstrate that you're perfectly willing to believe that out of thousands of decisions none of them have been made correctly, which is sweet, soothing music to the already converted but obvious nonsense to the reasonable folks on the fence.

So, bringing this full circle, criticize what needs to be criticized (wiretapping) but much of the angry act is just so much predictable noise that alienates those on the fence.

Ugh. I need to stay out of the political threads. This can easily become a part-time job.

David Terrenoire said...

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Thank you for putting it so plainly even the president's last sixteen supporters can understand.

Thank you.

James Lincoln Warren said...

As a matter of law, we are not at war. Only Congress can declare war. Therefore, the President cannot legally act using wartime powers.

Oh, darn. There I go using the Constitution again. My bad.

Remember: our President claims to take that document literally. But only when convenient, obviously.

Anonymous said...

You fuck other women and 98% of the time B lets you get away with it?

Anonymous said...

In all fairness, the Bush Administration claims they're allowed to violate whatever laws they want because Congress told them they could. You remember when Congress passed a resolution saying "any means necessary" were okay in the pursuit of terror(ism/ists)? That is why Bush feels justified in his flagrant disregard for FISA, etc.

So while I'm not absolving Bush of responsibility here, some part of the turd in in your local Congressman's pocket, too.

Anonymous said...

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro goldrunescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪 风速仪 可燃气体检测仪

Anonymous said...

"And it's a struggle, within myself, to determine if it's something we've had beaten into us, or if we just don't care anymore."

Most of us are a bunch of sheep. It's a little brainwashing technique called 'School'. From the beginning, mandatory state schooling has been both advocated and resisted as a government control technique.

"The State which introduced universally the national education proposed by us, from the moment that a new generation of youths had passed through it, would need no special army at all, but would have in them an army such as no age has yet seen." Joann Fichte - 1808

Unknown said...

★莫道不消魂,帘卷西风,人比黄花瘦★
塑料托盘 =>厦门塑料托盘,塑料托盘制造商,宁波塑料托盘,天津塑料托盘,北京塑料托盘。
仓储笼 =>仓储笼报价,苏州仓储笼,仓储笼诺恒,无锡仓储笼,广州仓储笼。
仓储货架 =>仓储货架厂,北京仓储货架,苏州仓储货架,无锡仓储货架,广州仓储货架。
货架厂 =>佛山货架厂,天津货架厂,成都货架厂,常熟货架厂,服装货架厂。
超市货架 =>超市货架尺寸,超市货架效果图,杭州超市货架,超市货架摆放,广州超市货架。
专业从事组合式仓储货架、建材超市及仓储式超市货架设计、制造、安装、调试的企业, 是国内最大的货架制造商之一。公司已承接近千座仓储货架(http://merryrack.cn.ec21.com)工程的设计、制造和安装。
★鼠标好比爱情箭,上网一点胡乱窜★
货架公司 =>无锡货架公司,杭州货架公司,苏州货架公司,超市货架公司,广州货架公司。
超市货架 =>超市货架报价,二手超市货架,超市货架尺寸,超市货架效果图,杭州超市货架。
北京货架 =>北京货架批发市场,北京货架厂家,北京货架制作,北京货架价格,北京货架销售。
仓库货架 =>仓库货架厂,北京仓库货架,无锡仓库货架,深圳仓库货架,广州仓库货架。
南京货架 =>南京货架厂,南京货架网,南京货架公司,南京货架制造厂,南京货架价格。
塑料托盘. 南京麦瑞(塑料托盘)有限公司是国内专业从事(塑料托盘http://blog.hsw.cn/261491/viewspace-328795.html)集研发、生产、 销售、安装于一体的大规模企业之一。汇集国内( 塑料托盘)制造业众多技术精英,所 ...

Unknown said...

不動産ゲットは不動産情報 投資マンション情報や東京都 不動産、東京 不動産の賃貸,売買物件検索仲介なら不動産ゲットへ。

Anonymous said...

зеленый лазер
электрошокер
товары мини камеры
товары народного потребления

Obat Herpes Untuk Wanita said...

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Unknown said...

Jika berbicara mengenai pengertianya maka penyakit jengger ayam ini diketahui adalah penyakit menular seksual yang penyebabnya berkaitan dengan Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). Penyakit ini juga dapat menampilkan diri dalam berbagai bentuk, namun secara umum kutil yang bertumbuh pada bagian genital penderita berbentuk benjolan daging yang berwarna, dan terjadi pada sekitar alat vital. Siapa saja bisa menderita penyakit ini baik yang pria maupun wanita

Anonymous said...

Penyakit ini umumnya muncul karena penderita mengejan terlalu keras pada saat buang air besar. Dengan mengejan terlalu keras, maka pembuluh darah di sekitar anus dapat melebar dan pecah menimbulkan infeksi dan pembengkakan yang berakhir pada masalah wasir atau ambeien tersebut.

Unknown said...

Penyakit kencing nanah bisa disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor seperti seks bebas, penularan, virus hpv, lingkungan, gaya hidup dan lainnya, Maka dari itu kita harus waspada dengan penyakit kencing nanah ini, karena penyakit kencing nanah sangatlah berbahaya, Namun untuk anda yang menderita penyakit kencing nanah, maka anda tidak perlu khawatir,

Unknown said...

Berapa Harga untuk Obat Wasir Ambeien alami daun ungu AmbeclearAmbeien adalah gangguan atau penyakit yang terjadi pada saluran pencernaan manusia

Cara Mengobati Wasir Ambeien said...

berhitung yuk......... 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Unknown said...

Cara yang sering di lakukan untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin adalah dengan cara pembedahah atau operasi, cara ini tentu memerlukan dana yang tidak sedikit. metode Pilihan pembedahan yang dapat Anda lakukan

Unknown said...

Kenali penyebab penyakit kencing bernanah sehingga cara mengobati
penyakit kencing nanah dan infeksi saluran kencing nanah dapat dilakukan
dengan benar.

Pengobatan Ambeien Wasir said...

wkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwkwk

Unknown said...

Kadang disertai
dengan sakit saat kencing, perih, organ intim terasa panas menyiksa,
gatal,..

kLINIK oBAT mANJUR said...

Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... *********************************

Unknown said...

Ambeclear
menjadi solusi terbaik dalam pengobatan Wasir secara efektif dan tanpa
efek samping negatif,

obar herbal manjur alami said...

Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ..................

obar herbal manjur alami said...

Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ........................

Unknown said...

penyakit yang ditularkan melalui hubungan seks : vaginal, oral dan anal. Juga dapat menular melalui persentuhan kulit dengan daerah yang terinfeksi.

Unknown said...

Obat Ambeien Resep Dokter Ambeclear dari De Nature Ampuh Tuntaskan Ambeien Sampai Tuntas

obar herbal manjur alami said...

MANTAB *************************************

Cara Mengobati Wasir Ambeien said...

Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ........................

Unknown said...

Ambeien bisa mengeluarkan darah(seperti invander salim yang terkena ambeien dan mengeluarkan darah)

Unknown said...

Sebelum kita membahas tentang pengobatan ambeien, dalam kesempatan ini
saya ingin menjelaskan sekilas tentang ambeien, agar kita semua bisa
memahami benar apa itu penyakit ambeien

Unknown said...

obat wasir, Adalah  Obat alami berkhasiat dalam bentuk kapsul yang berasal dari tanaman herbal seperti daun ungu, mahkota dewa dan kunyit putih, diberikan pada penderita jika penyakit masih dalam tingkatan stadium ringan

kLINIK oBAT mANJUR said...

Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... ***************************

kLINIK oBAT mANJUR said...

Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim .........................

Reseller De Nature said...

Obat kencing nanah doxycycline
Obat kencing nanah di samarinda
Nama obat kencing nanah di apotik
Nama obat kencing nanah di apotek
Obat kencing nanah kimia farma
Obat farmasi kencing nanah
Obat kencing nanah gonore
Obat kencing nanah generik
Obat kencing nanah go
Obat gonorrhea kencing nanah
Obat gejala kencing nanah
Nama obat kencing nanah yang di jual di apotik
Tempat jual obat kencing nanah
Apotik jual obat kencing nanah
Apotik yg jual obat kencing nanah
Jual obat kencing nanah di jakarta
Jual obat kencing nanah di surabaya
Jual obat kencing nanah bandung
Obat kencing nanah kaskus
Obat kencing keluar nanah
Obat kencing keluar nanah di apotik
Obat kutil kelamin tradisional
Obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin wanita
Obat kutil kelamin di apotik
Obat kutil kelamin denature
Obat kutil kelamin resep dokter
Obat kutil kelamin malaysia
Obat kutil kelamin apotik
Obat kutil kelamin di anus

Unknown said...

???????????????????????????????

obar herbal manjur alami said...

1111111111111111111111111

kLINIK oBAT mANJUR said...

111111111111111111111

Obat Keputihan Herbal Alami said...

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111

obar herbal manjur alami said...

111111111111111

kLINIK oBAT mANJUR said...

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Unknown said...

manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur

obar herbal manjur alami said...

alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami

Unknown said...

obat sipilis raja singa obat sipilis raja singa manjur obat sipilis raja singa herbal obat sipilis raja singa alami obat sipilis raja singa mujarab obat sipilis raja singa herbal manjur

Unknown said...

Orang yang mampu belajar dari kegagalan adalah pemenang, namun orang yang selalu menutupi kegagalan adalah pecundang

Unknown said...

obat sipilis ampuh herbal sipilis obat sipilis sipilis de nature kelamin keluar nanah obat kelamin keluar nanah kemaluan keluar cairan nanah mengapa kemaluan mengeluarkan nanah obat kemaluan keluar cairan nanah obat alat kelamin keluar nanah alat kelamin keluar nanah nanah keluar dari ujung kemaluan kemaluan keluar nanah kencing nanah obat kemaluan keluar nanah nanah keluar dari kemaluan obat kemaluan keluar nanah blog info kesehatan obat herbal keluar nanah keluar nanah lemaluan keluar nanah"