Comments Posted By S
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 17 Comments
CIA PLOT TO DESTROY THE MOONBATS
I think this guy reads Greenwald. it might be interesting to take an objective look at the success of Sec. Rice, for all the plaudits she receives. The fiasco over the cartoons was embarrasing to those Americans payoing attension. Her Russian specialty doesn't appear to be having any positive benefits either. We lost the Uzbek base and now we are be outmanuevered on Syria, Iran and FSU issues. Maybe you could help us understand why she is such a media darling.
?
Comment Posted By S On 27.02.2006 @ 12:56
A SLAVISH DEVOTION TO SUPERFICIALITY
Worth a read..another good discussion of the constituional
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602161544.asp
Comment Posted By s On 18.02.2006 @ 12:37
Are you serious with this post?
We have a deal to on Capital Hill afterall. Then again we have an ACLU like filing with a district court to reveal NSA specifications you claim are already in the public domain (are you for releasing this information?). I submit it is hard to argue when you simply ignore the facts. Pocket your sarcasm for a moment and you'll likely agree that this is a consitutional question? One by the way that seems to have resolved itself. Presto! I think I stated at the outset that i didn't have the expertise to make adequate legal arguments so I defered to JH and GG.
We could go back and forth for days on what we think was and wasn't disclosed by the story. The fact of the matter is, that mere fact that we are talking about it is the problem. All the more so given there are a rigid set of criteria for challenging legality questions within the system. So I ask again: why not go throught the appropriate channels? Why leak to a naked partison organization? Why not call on the leaders of your party to explain why they ignored the program having been briefed multiple times? Save your energy if we are going to get the not enough information routine. That was the same BS we heard after the WMD/IRaq decision.
Read the defbriefing of PP and return when you can shake off the haze. I didn't say that he was for the war, I said that he confirms what the Senate report found. That is that no undue influence was exerted by the WH or others. The CIA got it wrong and this guy was at the helm in the ME policy div. Not someone I think you want to hinge your argument on - but you will of course (damn the torpedoes right). Also, he mentioned that he was repeatedly asked again and again similiar lines of question: da! That is what people are suppose to do when an Agency claims to be the final authority.
In deference to your underwhelming argument and incapacity for naunce (repeat like the very fact that we are discussing this SECRET program) I am abandoning ship. I will say the reasonable course I set out in previous posts seems to have come to fruition. Your shut down hypothesis is not only logically fallacious - I give you credit for consistency however - but it is now wrong. The program isn't being shut down - but likely revised in a manner consistent with exactly what the Clinton era Justice offical articulated. Reason prevails
Next...
Comment Posted By S On 17.02.2006 @ 18:30
"As for backing it up, I am only relying on the accounts of people in the know: Porter Goss and General Haden. I know, I know: they are partisan hacks and lying. TBD, but until then, let’s deal in reality."
That was my post. Predictably, you followed lock step:
"I don’t believe anything Porter Goss says. I’ve read any number of articles making it very obvious that he was a 70’s CIA renegade, then a partisan hack in the House of Representatives, then appointed to gut the CIA in favor of thinking in lockstep with anything Dick Cheney suggests. Quite frankly, I accuse him of being appointed to the position not to produce sound intelligence, but to enforce the White House’s political preferences on Intel analysis. Period."
Ok? We will let others decide on the blind partisanship accusation you raised in your initial post. I would only add that you missed a good opportunity to assassinate Hayden's character too. As for influencing intelligence - again read the Senate report. Nothing there. One Paul R. Pillar has just confirmed that no undue influence was exerted. Since you bring it up, perhaps a maverick is exactly what the sedentary organization needed since it has a track record of missing practicily every big event includsing the end of the cold war.
you continue....
"I haven’t heard any credible independent Intel who are not Bush-appointed agency heads claim that this leak has damaged national security in any way. If you came up with one, I would give him a fair hearing. But I’d still use my own brain to judge, “what, exactly, new information did I, a U.S. citizen, and therefore Al-Qaeda, learn as a result of this leak? – and how important was it to Intel methods?â€
I assume that is because few knew about it until the NYT decided to release the information. And those that did are bound by secrecy agreements and thus I wouldn't expect - nor would I want - any overt statements about the methodology. Again, I point you back ot the press conference given by Gen. Hayden for a statement on the effect of leaking the information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html).
you ....
"This is wrong. Logically fallacious. The methods are the exact same as the FISA methods. The only difference is the target sample, and the original target sample was known to no one but FISA and the intel agencies. The new target sample, aside from being illegal, was known only to the Intel agencies. And the only thing that was revealed was that FISA was cut out of the loop. And Congress. So unless you think either FISA or Congress was passing intel along to Al-Qaeda on the names of the individuals being secretly wiretapped, this is bullshit."
As to my logic, consider this: We would both agree that nmost in the world know we (USA) use satellite surveillance? yes? Do you think it damages national security if the NYT were to publish a roadmap to those sensitive satellite orbital paths. Those we put under surveillance now have an even greater incentive (and more information from which to work) - not suggesting they by the way they didn't have an incentive to begin with - to be clandestine. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to sample size? Another thought, how do we approach IP telephony that transits the WWW? Not as cut and dry as tapping into copper line is it? What about internet communications?
Now, as far as I know, FISA is a statute not a method (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html). A good wrap up here - http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1329
. I am going to ignore your argument - which I can only assume is a rhetorical style meant to confuse and obfuscate. You obviously didn't read the editorial by the former Clinton Justice official who claims this "power" is one Presidents have claimed for the past three decades. Excuse my remedial legal knowledge; from what I read much of the current debate here is over the 72 procedural requirements. We don’t know anything of the methods so can’t comment on sample size unless you know something the rest of the United States hasn’t been made privy too? As to Congress, Sr. leaders on both sides were briefed on the outlines of the program many times - you casually ignore that point, understandably. But you say not enough information right? But let's be honest, Pelosi really isn't equipped to add value anyway.you go on..
"Gentle reminders that we wiretap phones were available in 1001 public news stories and information sources between 2001 and now. All you’re complaining about is the increased media attention given to a publicly known method – oh, and the fact that GWB was using that publicly known method in a non-publicly known, illegal manner. You know what? That may be in some nebulous manner unhelpful, but it sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me.Your point here is? I think this is an opaque FISA argument about enumerated powers, which I just spoke to. As for the Google search on wiretaps, search spy satellites and see how many stories you get. Get it?
Finally you say!
“Lastly, I am not arguing that VP was more damaging than the NSA leaks. THAT would be a level of detail I don’t have. I would probably argue that neither one are more than minorly damaging to the US as a whole, although VP may be damaging to several patriotic individuals. If either one broke the law, let them go to jail. (After all, civil disobedience requires that). I doubt the NSA leakers broke the law. I don’t think you can break the law reporting an illegal act. And if you can, the law needs to be changed.â€
Again, I am at ease knowing you don't think any harm was done. Exhale! This after you just get finished telling us that you don't have all the facts. You do not of course have the first clue about the NSA program and the methods it employs. Nor do you have the constitutional expertise to speak to the FISA law. You make wild assertions and deliver not a shred of supporting fact. All make your conclusion as to the legality of the program unreliable at best if not an outright falsity. At least we can agree that those who leaked the information should go to jail. By the way, why not just follow the whistleblower protocol by going to Congress directly? That would be the course of a true patriot.
Not done yet…you say
"Is the NSA really full of screaming leftists? Why would they leak something if they thought it would jeopardize their fundamental mission in any way?"
What if a partisan FISA judge leaked it? Just a thought. Why was VP husband sent to Niger? Why did the CIA leak prison information and endanger its own personnel? I think we know why - it is called BDS.
The judge reference might explain why nobody at the NSA has come forward, other than your very reliable man who was fired and found wanting.
Comment Posted By S On 14.02.2006 @ 19:47
Glasnost
Not sure of your logic here. How you get from the said quote to supporting GG thesis about conservatives escapes me. The statement was a comparison between VP and NSA? Neither of us have all the facts so it is impossible to make explicit arguments. However, stitching together the mosaic surrounding VP including what we now know of her husband and how he came to be the "envoy" seems pale in comparison to the highly secret and complex programs operated at NSA (as it relates to outing). Nobody is demonizing dissent; you are entitled to your opinion. So support it. You offer nothing in the way of an argument as to why VP is more dire than the NSA leaks. From all we know, I can understand why.
I don't disagree that since we tracked UBL with a sat phone, the network has gone to ground. Notwithstanding the tribal areas, the global transnational movement still has to communicate and in most instances mules will not due. I concede AQ is likley aware that we are watching in a nebulious sense, but announcing our methods is tantamount to aiding and abetting. People/terrorists in a global jihad movement are as careless as anybody and thanks to the NYT and the continuing fallout, they continue to get gentle reminders on how to evade our defense.
As for backing it up, I am only relying on the accounts of people in the know: Porter Goss and General Haden. I know, I know: they are partison hacks and lying. TBD, but until then, let's deal in reality.
As for the twisted logic about symetrical foes per the barents sea, I am miffed? Our enemy doesn't subscribe to MAD and they thrive on assymetry.
Now, you say...
"The only thing that the NYTimes outing revealed was that GWB was using a publicly known technique in an illegal manner."
Read this following article by your Clinton era man:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hedAnd you continue...
"New information revealed to Al-Quieda: virtually 0"
Are you one of the leakers or are you just channeling?
Lastly, on FISA, there are compleling arguments on both sides of the fence. I am not equipped to make constituional arguments about Presidential power; I'll leave that to GW and JH. What I can deduce is that most in Congress don't seem to be as hysterical about the methods as the left. In fact it looks like most see the programs as useful - so figure out middle ground and move on before real damage is done.
Comment Posted By S On 13.02.2006 @ 19:19
Razor blade
Nobody disputes VP past contribution to our national defense - it is honorable. And I am in no way defending outing CIA agents. Remember though, VP was outed long ago (rumored by AA; note her stateside post) and she encouraged the demasking with her sloppy and partison behavior concerning her truly pathetic husband (if you need to jog your memory I suggest a read of the Senate Report). So I presume you are not opposed to forcing reporters to testify in the SL trial about their knowledge of VP profession predating SL? It is the truth you are after correct?Neither of us have the facts about the front company in question or improtance of her work to national security and we can rest assured the CIA leak campaign chiefs will keep it classified to keep things delibritly opaque. I am all for getting to the bottom of the who knew what and when questions. If the law was violated put them in jail - Sl will have his day in court. Let's do the same in the NSA case. No partison justice here.
As for NSA - only a fierce partison could concieve that outing VP is the equivilant of outing the NSA program. NSA is akin to revealing that we were tsapping the Russian cables in thre Barents sea during the cold war.
Comment Posted By S On 13.02.2006 @ 14:02
Dull Blade
Comment Posted By S On 13.02.2006 @ 08:54
The mere fact that you equate VP with the NSA outing shows your ignorance.
First – I consulted Sigmund and he diagnosed Greenwald with an acute case of John Hinderaker envy. He suspects it may have something to do with being on the losing side of all those “major constitutional cases he worked on.â€
Second -- Ann Coulter, while smart, is not someone I think 99.9999% of conservatives would choose as their lodestar - as I am sure reasonable democrats would not choose to lionize Ted Kennedy (at least I am hoping).
Third -- As for your fallacious FISA complaint/argument, one small difference: war. While you were buying your overpriced yahoo during the new economy stupid and gutting the intelligence community, the evildoers (I want to make sure you know I am a Bush drone) metastasized. Then comes 9/11: it changed things you know? Well for most of us at least. You'll recall that it was the Democratic leadership in bygone days that managed those roundups and for that matter, heaven forbid – we are all Semites correct - censorship.
Fourth - Considering your obvious devotion to free speech and cataclysmic fear of censorship, why not spew some of your venom at the liberal O&O (owned and operated) CNN for lacking the gravitas to exercise the hard earned, but inalienable, right.
Fifth - As for gay marriage and schiavo, you obviously missed the whole Supreme Court debate about legislating from the bench (you were probably posting some worthless BDS tripe on Kos). You are not for States rights, you are for imposing your warped moral compass on the rest of us as surreptitiously as possible. You got away with it for more than 25 years using the courts - but frustrated by the revolt of common sense, you pine for a third way. Horse is out of the barn, though.
Sixth – To point out just one of the many vigorous conversations/debates playing out this side of the aisle check out the WSJ article detailing the foreign policy schism ongoing.
Seventh – [exhale!] I am at ease knowing that Glenn, along with the NYT, has decided that there has been no harm to national security by the NSA leaks. Hmm? Unless he is a secret agent masquerading as a leftist shill the I trust Porter Goss. Tough one!
“These demands are made despite the lack of any harm to our national security. They are motivated by one fact and one fact only – whoever disclosed the illegal NSA program harmed George Bush. And for that crime, no punishment is excessiveâ€
After reading his post, I am inclined to agree with his assertion that conservatism (republican is a better tent) has changed. I suspect an ulterior motive: ideological mugging. Not only is Glenn at a loss to define his own movement, but he is also an expert on what we are not. So if by deduction they are for big spending and big brother, he muses, they are for our script right. Yes, Glenn, that's it. You just need better salespeople. Yes, that's it. Sad bunch.
What if I am not a republican/conservative in your definitional sense of the word. So what? Despite the no ideological lane changing creed on the left, it is ok over here.
If it is spirited debate you want, arm yourself with an idea. Otherwise, take your rants elsewhere.
Comment Posted By S On 12.02.2006 @ 21:16
IN THE END, IT'S ABOUT EMPATHY
Hitchens does a good job of painting the narrative
http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/
Comment Posted By S On 5.02.2006 @ 14:04
Shallow was not the right word. Rick's analysis is always thoughtful. I just disagree.
Comment Posted By S On 5.02.2006 @ 13:05
