March 08, 2006

NSA Wins, Terrorists and Liberals Lose

Senate Republicans have introduced a bill to provide oversight of the President's NSA terrorist intercept program while rejecting any further investigation:

The measure would create terrorist surveillance subcommittees under both the Senate and House intelligence committees to oversee the surveillance program.

The panel, meanwhile, rejected a full investigation of the program, which was acknowledged by Bush in December after it surfaced in media reports.

Liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald is not happy:

Nobody who has lived outside of a cave for the last five years could possibly be surprised by any of this. One of the reason we are at the point we're at in our country -- where we have a President who not only breaks the law but claims he has the right to do so, while the media barely finds any of it worthy of much attention -- is because the Congress has completely abdicated its responsibilities at the altar of cult-like obedience to White House decrees. That's just one of the many rotted roots in our government.

Well, there is that perspective, isn't there?

In Greewald's world, 535 members of Congress and the Republican-dominated press are complicit in Chimpy McHitlerburton's grand conspiracy (with the consent of the majority of the ignorant AmeriKKKan sheeple) against Glamourous Glenn and the Forces of Truth.

I'm sorry, Glenn, that this reality presents a different picture than the one that you would star in.

Top constitutional scholars, experienced federal lawyers past and present, and even the FISA Court of Review itself have all agree that the President has the power to conduct this kind of surveillance against the enemies of this country. Only Congress, with it's insatiable desire for more power, and the media with their ever-present desire to generate scandals for their advertisers brought this non-story along as far as they did.

I admire your enthusiasm, Mr. Greenwald. I just wish you could harness your energies to fight the enemies of this nation instead of trying to antagonize those trying to hunt terrorists down.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 8, 2006 01:17 AM | TrackBack

Greenwald's problem (and that of many of his fellow travellers) is that he thinks -- or wishes -- that the Congress can legislate away the powers granted to the President by the Constitution.

Ya. I want to give those people the power to choose our judges. Right.

Posted by: Russ at March 8, 2006 02:47 AM

I said all along that this is whole thing was a political issue rather than a legal one - that it would never see the inside of a court room. The whole reason was because of the polls - if the dems look weak they lose in the polls and it is an election year after all....

Posted by: Specter at March 8, 2006 04:53 PM

I'm a huge science fiction reader. And I really like the alternate history books by Harry Turtledove. The man has written like 10 books encompassing from the South winning the Civil War all the way up through into WWII. And 2 books on pearl Harbor, where the Japs invaded. Plus tons of other alternative history books.

But, he doesn't come close to the alternate reality that the Surrender Monkeys consistently create hourly. It's mind boggling.

Posted by: William Teach at March 8, 2006 04:55 PM

So when is Bush going to stop holding hands with the leader of the Saudis? I mean they attacked us on 911 and Bush just lets Osama go and stops thinking about him ...then he invades Iraq to please his neocon masters ...and then he goes around holding the hand of the leader of Saudi Arabia (you know the country that attacked us on 911) after almost all of the 911 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and Osama is a Saudi and Saudis were funding the 911 terrorists...

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 05:19 PM

Hey Russ "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" ...go remind your King that THE PEOPLE own America and Congress is given far far more power in the U.S. Constitution than is the president... look it the Constitution. The founding fathers were hell bent on protecting THE PEOPLE from another run away crazy acting like he is King...

also ... ALL POWERS that are not specifically printed in the Constitution as powers of the president are RESERVED for the PEOPLE, the STATES, and CONGRESS... look it up ... the president is not that big a deal in America...we dont believe in kinds here ..go tell that to your leaders...

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 05:23 PM


I suspect we will never try to "invade" Saudi Arabia and they know it. The reason is that it would never be accepted for anywhere in the Muslim world for non-muslims to hold Mecca.

But along those lines - should we invade England - I mean Richard Reid came from there....LOL

Posted by: Specter at March 8, 2006 05:30 PM

No read the link ... Saudi Arabia is the moral power behind Reid and the Bush family.. and all the others that use Taliban thinking to justify their actions. If we took down Saudi Arabia the bush families power would be gone ...they would be exposed as the benedict arnolds that they are and the rest of the muslim world would see that America wont let sleeze bags trick us from going straight for the throat just like the democrats did in WWII.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 8, 2006 05:34 PM

Oh, Lord, another lefty who goes off topic. Talking points email not cover the terrorist intercepts today, Gerald?

Posted by: William Teach at March 8, 2006 06:28 PM

You speak of invading Saudi Arabia, and yet you defend Saddam and Iran. Go take your hackery somewhere else; you only bring this up because we aren't actually planning to invade. If we were, you'd find some reason to defend them as well.

BTW, I'm extremely disappointed with Bush's handling of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I'll bet you'd defend Bashir Assad and Kim Jong Il, too.

Posted by: Jordan at March 8, 2006 06:36 PM

Gerald appears to be off his meds today.

What part of "powers granted to the President by the Constitution" (you know, that piece of parchment with the words We the People of the United States written at the top) might he have failed to understand?

Posted by: Russ at March 8, 2006 07:07 PM

I'll take "all of it" for $500, Alex.

Posted by: William Teach at March 8, 2006 07:10 PM


perhaps you could then explain why Al Gore just took $250 THOUSAND DOLLARS to make a speech in Saudi Arabia - and imagine this - paid for by an organization dominated by the same families you want to link to Bush. Try reading something besides Newsweak and conspiracy blogs.

Oh yea better take apart your computer and phone because you know they are bugged. And check all your vents, wiring, closets, basement, attic, and under your bed for transmitters because you know that the big, bad "THEY" are listening to everything you do....MUAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Posted by: Specter at March 8, 2006 10:04 PM

Specter ...When I heard that Gore had done that it really pissed me off. In fact the more this all does on the less I value the last two votes I threw into their direction. I expect anyone I call my "leader" to use reason. I dont expect anything like that from the right. The right uses "used car salesman logic"... which basically means they lie to themselves and others.. I would think that because the left glorifies diversity and THINKING before acting that they would be able to reason that the souorce of the religious fundamentalism in the world is 1) Saudi Arabi and 2) America. So why would Gore go make friends with the Saudis?

As far as spying ..dont joke about it... READ history. Those that do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Powerful centralized governments (Americas Feds ever since post-civil war) ALWAYS end up seeing their own people as the enemy. The U.S. government has done exactly that a couple times in the last century. There is nothing funny about it. It starts off being directed externally (Communists) and then turns against the people (Red Scare)... Mix that with the republicans allowing in the American version of the Taliban into their party and you got a dangerous mix. Laugh if you want. But later when the local religious police are taking your child to jail for breaking the old jewish code they dug up from somewhere in their bible you will be sorry you didnt think about human nature and history when supporting this.

As far as defending Saddam or Iran or North Korea once again you on the right are thinking like "used car salesmen". It is not about being on someones side... It is about reasoning (logic) about who did what and why. Saddam did NOT attack America. Saudis did. Saddam == bad. Saudis == invaders on our soil on 911. What is so hard to understand about that? I would go so far as to suggest paying Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia. He would have done it. And he wasnt behind 911 so who cares if we use him?

I do defend Iran as far as 1) They signed the NPT which gives them the right to use nuclear technology. That was Americas deal to the Iranians in the first place. 2) We (CIA) violated their soverignty by forcing who we wanted to as their leader back in the 50s and 60s.... which lead directly to the Iranian revolutions ...which is EXACTLY what America would have done if that was done to us. Infact that is what we did in the 1700s. HOWEVER I do NOT defend Irans religous fundamentalists. Religious quaks are dangerous. This is why the neocons should have no power in the US and why the mullahs in Iran should not either. However we must accept responsiblity for allowing them to come to power because we helped their previous leaders to abuse the people in the 50s and 60s. Iran must NOT get a nuclear bomb. But pretending like we did nothing to encourage that is not going to help us solve the problem without another war. If we accept our responsibility that will take them off their high horse they now ride in deviance of anything American.

Russ go read the U.S. Contitution. IT does not say ALL POWERS belong to the president. In fact it lists just a few things he can do and then says ALL OTHER POWERS belong to The People, The States, and Congress... go read it. And read the writings of the founding fathers... they meant what they wrote and they knew why they put it there like that.

If you cant figure this stuff out on your own dont be saying I need "meds" ...very childish. I have presented a line of logic. If you can find LOGICAL fault in it then present it and I have no problem accepting it and continueing with the thought process. This is the part of the left I admire. From the right I expect an understanding of the hard cold reality of the "bad people" out there. Befriending our enemy (Saudi Arabia) for money is what Bush, co has done for the last 50 to 60 years. Do YOU support that? Do YOU see the germans and the saudis as potential business partners? Or do you use your rightwing brain to see them for what they are? And if you do then why not force that on Bush, co?

You are right that the left wants to be friends with everyone even when that is not possible. Think Progress people dont like my ideas about Saudi Arabia either. But at least they are not sell outs like Bush, co... who on the left and the right uses both reasoning about the bad people in this world and logic about how to fix it? The left does part of that correctly and the right does the other part correctly. Where is the middle way where both parts are done correctly at the same time?

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 9, 2006 12:28 PM

Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Her, was a woman

There is a growing amount of evidence that The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Her, was a woman. I recall talking to my young niece, a strong believer in the Prophet, peace be upon Her. My niece became very excited and exclaimed, “You mean that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, is a chick?” Yes I replied. I also said that the Prophet, peace be upon Her, would probably prefer being called a woman, not a chick.

Posted by: mohammed is a woman at March 12, 2006 04:13 PM