rick, the question was worded ambigupouslyt. that's why the result is the way it is. this ambiguity was done on purpose.
for example, some people might have agreed that a us official might be complicit - like a mole or spy for the saudis or pakis. like tenet or pilar or wilson or berger or plame... iow NOT that it was a bush crime family plot,. but that the enemy had a mole or moles at the cia or nsa or fbi.
therefore not all the 45% are leftie moonbat/ some just feel that too may l;eads and dots were ignored.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 24.05.2006 @ 17:55
one of the major factors causing homo sapiens to develop and diverge was monthly estrus.
other primates are seasonal - meaning that new young dependent individuals are brought in ijn bunches, and this measn they can reamian in troop-daycare most easily.
but monthly estrus means that young dependent individuals are brought in all the time, and this dramatically changes the dynamic of the troop.
also: the young dependent human infant is less developed and mopre dependent on its mother than other primates (due to the fact that our head-size is bigger).
these are related: our increased socialness meant that a premium was put on intelligence/ability to maneuver socially and innovatively get resources to sustain this new ever-enlargening troop.
this premium meant that smarter individuals with greater brain mass and more intelligence had a higher differential of reproductve success and thereby contributed more greatly to the gene pool.
standing, walking upright and running are ways that more intelligent individuals might better assess and better respond to threats and opportunities; for example, standing and walking to explore over tall grass, and then running away from a threat in the tall grass.
remember the old joke: how fast do you have to be to escape from a lion? FASTER THAN THE GUY NEXT TO YOU!
better upright standers/wakers/runners got away from predators more often. and also found more food, and successfully brought back more food to their mates/children.
also, marital infidelity became part of the gene pool too: observations of primate behavior has revealed that adulterous women/mothers have more than one male brining her children food than a woman who was loyal to only her mate. more food means a higher survial rate.
thus women and men with a diathesis for adultery have a higher differential of reproductive success, and have contributed more to the gene poll.
also: men who are caught with another man's woman would have to be bigger or run faster to get away from the mate when discovered. hence fast adulterers contributed more thasn even fast individuals or adulterous individuals.
we are all descended from fast adulterers.
also, this line of reasoning leads us to another explanation for LANGUAGE:
because HUMAN women were fertile every month, and producing pheromones that excitied and attracted men every month, they were always turning on men. they were probably truning-on men more than they enjoyed.
therefore probably the first word ever uttered was by a tired and sore woman to a horny man; the word was , "NO!".
seriously.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 1.03.2006 @ 16:22
the msm has repeatedly got these stories wrong, too:
believe it or not, the guardian recently opined that communism was really not that bad;
not a single msm outlet has ever recanted the "massacre in jeningrad story", or that mohummed al dura was NOT a victim of colonialism but of ruthless jihadoterror (the fallows Atlantic article is as big as it got);
the MSM continuously harps that retributionary and preventive/preemptive violence - (like the Mossad's response to Munich, the USA's response to a decade of Saddam's violating the armistice,) - only adds to the "cycle of violence;" constant use of body-counts/"death total updates" are used to highlight this angle - as if as long as there are deaths due to jihadoterror we haven't won and/or we aren't making any progress;
and they continue to deny that lebanon and libya were reformed - and syria forced to exit lebanon - by bush's aggressive foreign policies.
if the MSM during WW2 had been this bad, then FDR's would've essentially had to get his message out through what amounts to Goebbels' propaganda machine. and he wouldn't have been reelected in 1944.
YUP: the MSM today works as much for the enemy as the Goebbels machine worked for Hitler, and as Pravda worked for the USSR.
Today's MSM are - for all intents and purposes - a tool of the enemy.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 25.02.2006 @ 18:43
"The answer lies with their rabid base who demands blood on the floor. Like spoiled, rotten children, the denizens of the far left fever swamps are throwing a tantrum because they canâ€™t defeat the Alito nomination. Failing that, they are demanding that the committee Democrats tarnish the image and good name of the judge."
I think the MAIN culprit is the Democrat Party Leadeship: Teddy Jo Kennedy (who did after all pick the last presidential nominee), Reid, Pelosi, Dean, AND Schumer - who is raising money for the Dem Senate campaign. This leadership is EXPLOITING the rabidness of their extreme left-wing (and allowing a good man like Alito to be slandered)JUST FOR THE MONEY.
Heck: they SLANDER the POTUS and the US ARMED FORCES everyday - for the moeny - so why WOULDN'T they slander a SCOTUS nominee.
Well, they are the LEADERSHIP (so-called) and they should be the ADULTS in the room.
I've been a registered Democrat since 1974. I voted Gore 2000 - but Bush 2004. And I am so so so SO SO disguisted with every Democrat in Congress except a few (Lieberman, Harman, Hoyer).
They are self-destructing - and don;t know it. But if this is what the party has become, then GOOD RIDDANCE!Comment Posted By reliapundit On 12.01.2006 @ 20:56
[Here's a recent post of mine. the bottom deals with the claimthe left is making that this leak didn't damage national security.]
LEFT-WING LAWYER/BLOGGER INADVERTANTLY PROVES BUSH WAS RIGHT AND NSA INTERCEPTS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
One of the most revealing aspects of the NSA scandal has been the way in which Bush followers have been running around shrieking that national security has been damaged and treason has been committed by the New York Times. All of that is based upon the Times' disclosure that Bush ordered the NSA to eavesdrop without judicial oversight (rather than with it). Now that the initial screaming and demands for hangings are dying down a little, his followers are confronted with the fact that this accusation makes no sense whatsoever, since whether we eavesdrop with judicial oversight or without it canâ€™t possibly be of any use to terrorists.
... So the diabolical, unprecedentedly dangerous terrorists who pose an existential threat to the U.S. that is equal to or greater than that posed by the Soviet Union are, in Johnâ€™s mind, so uninformed, unsophisticated and stupid that they never heard of or knew about the 30-year old public law that defines the powers of the U.S. Government to engage in surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. They never heard of FISA or knew anything about it until the Times published its story.
And now the cat is out of the bag â€“ now, thanks to the Times, they know that we have this law called "FISA" and have become aware that we do this thing called "eavesdropping" and now they will be able to thwart us. Is that supposed to be satire?
GREENWALD'S HEAVY-HANDED SARCASM ASIDE, HE REALLY ARGUES THAT WHAT BUSH AUTHORIZED WAS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL. How did he do this? Simple.
This post argues that the leak coudn't have harmed USA security because al Qaeda and its affilates must presumably know that they are being eavesdropped upon. If this is the case, then the eavesdropping is NOT unreasonable and is therefore entirely CONSTITUTIONAL according to Article IV - which only prohibits UNreasonable searches and seizures.
As you may know, there are at 28 types of warrantless searches and seizures which are routinely done by law enforcement all the time. Among the many reasons courts have always permitted these is the fact that they are each reasonable.
Therefore, since nobody communicating with al Qaeda or their affiliates can reasonably expect their conversations to be private, the POTUS-ordered NSA intercept program was constitutional.
It is also INCONTROVERTIBLE that the leakers broke the law. The Intelligence Whitleblower Protection Act signed by Clinton in 1998 provides a legal way for a whisleblower to "blow the whistle" on questionable government activity which is classified. The leakers did NOT use this means; they went to the press. This is against the law. Plain and simple. The leakers broke it.
[Which leads to this question: WHY DID THEY DO IT THIS WAY?! The answer is simple: They knew that the intercepts - although controversial - were legal and constitutional, and that therefore they wouldn't get anywhere using the legal whistle-blowing process. Therefore, they leaked it to the NYTIMES right before the 2004 election because they thought it could harm the president's re-election bid. This is the only logical explanation for why they leaked and when they leaked. It's another example of how the clandestine community attempting a virtual coup d'etat against Bush.]
I also take issue with Greenwald's argument that the NYTIMES and the leakers are not traitors (Greenwald argues that the leak was harmless to our national security because jihadoterrorist must already assume they don't have secure communications. And he argues that a harmless leak can;t be treasonous.) HE IS WRONG AGAIN.
The NYTIMES committed treason because the only beneficiary of the leak was the enemy. HOW? Though the leak may not have been an earth-shattering NEWS to the jihadoterrorists, the leak nevertheless CONFIRMED to the enemy what they may have merely presumed or suspected.
Confirming details of the speed and range of intercept activity does actual harm to our efforts to collect useful and ACTIONABLE intelligence, and that obviously aids the enemy. HOW?!
Confirmation alerts the enemy that they MUST seek other less interceptible means to communicate - such as by courier, or by other means. They CAN do this, AND these extra efforts make it tougher for us to learn about and prevent attacks - ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE USA. This is incontrovertible. And it proves potential HARM - of a potentially catastrophic level. (Remember, a successful terrorist attack can cost US thousands of lives and trillions of dollars and tens of thousnads of lost jobs.)
In conclusion: Greenwald UNINTENTIONALLY helps prove that: (1) the intercepts are constitutional; (2) the leakers are criminals; and (3) the leaks hurts national security and aided the enemy. Thanks Glenn Greenwald. I hope your comrades on the Left learn have learned something as well.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/01/left-wing-lawyerblogger-inadvertantly.htmlComment Posted By reliapundit On 8.01.2006 @ 12:47
I agree that this analysis is branch-biased.
The legal/constitutional analyses by the likes of Sunstein et al have more weight.
I cannot imagine, for instance, the SCOTUS citing this report (or ones like it - commissioned by the Congress); whereas I can imagine the SCOTUS citing case law.
The case law seems very clear to me: SCOTUS and FISCR and federal; district courts have all held that the POTUS has the power to order searches and seizures of US citizens in some instances.
This controversy will come down to whether this instance is so coverd by the law.
And as you point out, this may invilve technical details - such as from WHERE were the electornic communications intercepted, HOW they were intercepted.
I believe that anyone communicating with an al Qaeda suspect (or their affiliates) is a foreign agent who: (1) has no REASONABLE expectation for privacy; (2) might be communicating intelligence we need to prevent attacks.
If the POTUS/CinC cannot collect this intel - (when it is located within the USA and when the person in the USA is a legal US person) - without a court order, then we do not have a constitutionl which reasonably allows us to defend ourselves.(As Sunstein and other have argued, this intel is a necessary and expected part of war powers.)
The SCOTUS and other courts have consitently held that the CinC can do this to collect FOREIGN intel.
KEY POINT: FISA grew oput of the Nixon era abuses.
Nixon's targets were NOT foreign but domestic, and many of these were personal/political enemies and not enemies of the nation. Nixon ABUSED a real presidential power; he did not invent one out of whole cloth.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 7.01.2006 @ 10:19
the dem/left does NOT support the first amendment either; mccain-feingold is the most serious regulation of free speech of all time. and the 1st A says you can't do that.
so the dem/left only supports 6/10, at best.
the nytimes and usnews reporters should be tried and executed for treason along with their leakers.
these leaks have made us ALL less safe and directly aided the enemy.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 24.12.2005 @ 12:30
"The remarkable fact that to date so few have been killed or injured is I think indicative of both the reluctance of French police to enforce the law but also an attitude on the part of rioters which reveals that whatever their beef with French society, they are not going to engage in wholesale slaughter to try and change it."
That's why bloggers like me called it an intifada, and not war. like the pali intifada, the perps use low grade weapons, mostly. the attacks are pernicious and meant to wear down those under attack and yet NOT make the perps seem like "big baddies." REMEMBER THE pro-pali REFRAIN: "hey they're just kids with stones, and the IDF has GUNS!" And the claim that the intifada in the west bak was SPONATNBEOUS was propaganda too.
it seems in this case you've bought it hgook line and sinker.
though you ahve the good sense to quote ed m:
As Ed Morrisey points out, the eventual outcome of these riots may be more autonomy for the so-called â€œsink estates.â€
That's the start. it's pernicious.
if it is allowed to grow, itn will get worse, until they swallow up france.
it's their goal.Comment Posted By reliapundit On 11.11.2005 @ 21:29
you were INDEED prescient! or rather perceptive. right on!Comment Posted By reliapundit On 7.11.2005 @ 20:47
My blog's polling always showed that her nomination was weak within Bush's base; 35% of the GOP base was DEEPLY OPPOSED; a president cannot govern effectively without a third of his base.
IN OTHER WORDS: Her withdrawal proves that ELECTIONS COUNT! When an elected leader fails to satisfy the folks who elected him they will NOT be happy. And elected leaders need to keep their supporters happy; that's DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
I hope Bush nominates a stellar JUDGE and constitutional SCHOLAR who will satisfy the base who ELECTED HIM TO DO JUST THAT! (Just as I would expect that Hillary would nominate liberals - just as her husbnad Bill did.)Comment Posted By reliapundit On 27.10.2005 @ 10:06