Saturday, March 18, 2006
NYT Being NYT
Here is a recent, near looney left rant by the NYT which I'll reproduce and intersperse with my comments. Somebody's got to do it.
We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. No, the spying is on the foreigners suspected of being with al Qaeda communicating with someone in America. No one knows if that someone in America is an American or another foreigner visiting. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness That's a bold charge for which there is not a shred of evidence, just another smear and incompetence of his administration. Yea, I think the intention of the framers was to set up a legislature which was all powerful and could scold and remove poorly performing members of a co-equal branches at a whim. Yea, that idea is clearly in the Federalist Papers. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening. So the Congress is cowardly for not doing what Feingold is doing (trying to give 4th Amendment rights to a foreign enemy). See, I told you this was looney left ranting.
Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Sworn duty? In the oath of office perhaps? And a repetition of the smear. Talk about censure will only distract the public (and Lord knows how easy it is to distract us poor, dumb citizens) from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks. Are they talking about the Congress? Who are they talking about? Poorly thought out and poorly written as well.
We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying (foreign signal intelligence) operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, No he didn't. Are the editors aware that the Senate decided to pass on an investigative panel after the Attorney General explained the legality (and the people polled proved overwhelmingly in support of listening to our enemies where we could)? as it certainly seems to do. It only seems wrong to those who haven't read with comprehension the FISA Act, In re Sealed Case: 02:001, Hamdi and the AUMF. If you actually know things, it doesn't seem wrong at all. It actually seems wrong not to try to spy on our enemies and prevent them from attacking and killing us, but maybe that's just I. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.) Yea, what a good idea! Let's tell the enemy everything we're doing to spy on them. Let's name the agents we have among them, if any exist; let's describe in detail the signal intelligence we're conducting; let's get it all out there in the open so those who think, poorly, this is a good idea, can see if any of it is illegal. Brilliant thinking.
The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Because they're Republicans. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law This must refer to FISA and the Constitution. This is harder to call unless they want to give 4th Amendment rights to our foreign enemies, which apparently they do.
When the Republicans try to block an investigation you mean try not to reveal sources and methods of intelligence to the enemy?, as they surely will, we should be so lucky Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should not be afraid to highlight that fact by shutting down the Senate's public business, as he did last year OK with me and everyone who sees the federal Government (other than the military) as a problem creator rather than a problem solver--stay out all year if you want. This time, though, Mr. Reid needs to follow up. The first time Mr. Reid forced the Senate into a closed session, Mr. Roberts said he would keep his promise about an investigation into the hyping of intelligence on Iraq. But Mr. Roberts continues to sit on that report. I'm not sure what sit on means here, if it means limit the report regarding sources and methods of intelligence to those with the clearance to see it so that our enemy doesn't learn about them, then I'm OK with sitting on it. If they mean it literally, I don't know what to say.
The nation needs to know a great deal more about the domestic spying (foreign signal intelligence)--yea, let's tell the enemy everything, absolutely everything we do. How many people's calls and e-mail were tapped? How were they chosen? Didn't they reveal this, if the communication was with a suspected al Qaeda operative, they listened in. Is the NYT unaware of even the basic facts here? Was Mr. Bush planning to do this until the war on terror ended I hope so--that is, forever? I hope not, but with the Deomcrats revealing sources and methods to the enemy and the NYT calling for more, maybe we will have to fight, hamstrung, forever. The public should be asking why members of Congress are afraid to make those important and legitimate queries. More coward calling from the brave heroes of journalism.
With so much still unknown about the domestic spying, (foreign signal intelligence) when they can't even get the basics right no wonder they come to the exactly wrong conclusion the censure resolution merely allows the Republicans to change the subject to fairy tales about Democratic leaders' trying to impeach Mr. Bush. But aren't the Democrats talking about impeaching Bush? Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you...They are also painting criticism of Mr. Bush as unpatriotic. The same old charge. I still think it's a form of projection; the NYT editors and their ilk know that they are weak on defense so they actually see any criticism of their actions vis a vis the war effort as impugning their patriotism. Let's get this straight. The Democrats are as patriotic as the Republicans, but the Democrats are so wrong and so blind to the deleterious effect they are having on the war effort, that they are actually dangerous and cannot be trusted with control of the government, which they do not now have, thank the Lord. That's tedious nonsense, hello, Pot, Mr. Kettle here; you're black but watching Mr. Feingold's Democratic colleagues run for cover shows how effective it is. Is it possible that the Democrats are running for cover from Feingold's looney stunt, because they have actually read and understood the FISA Act, In re Sealed Case: 02:001, Hamdi and the AUMF, and the polls, and are trying to get reelected in the future? Just asking.
We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. No, the spying is on the foreigners suspected of being with al Qaeda communicating with someone in America. No one knows if that someone in America is an American or another foreigner visiting. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness That's a bold charge for which there is not a shred of evidence, just another smear and incompetence of his administration. Yea, I think the intention of the framers was to set up a legislature which was all powerful and could scold and remove poorly performing members of a co-equal branches at a whim. Yea, that idea is clearly in the Federalist Papers. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening. So the Congress is cowardly for not doing what Feingold is doing (trying to give 4th Amendment rights to a foreign enemy). See, I told you this was looney left ranting.
Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Sworn duty? In the oath of office perhaps? And a repetition of the smear. Talk about censure will only distract the public (and Lord knows how easy it is to distract us poor, dumb citizens) from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks. Are they talking about the Congress? Who are they talking about? Poorly thought out and poorly written as well.
We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying (foreign signal intelligence) operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, No he didn't. Are the editors aware that the Senate decided to pass on an investigative panel after the Attorney General explained the legality (and the people polled proved overwhelmingly in support of listening to our enemies where we could)? as it certainly seems to do. It only seems wrong to those who haven't read with comprehension the FISA Act, In re Sealed Case: 02:001, Hamdi and the AUMF. If you actually know things, it doesn't seem wrong at all. It actually seems wrong not to try to spy on our enemies and prevent them from attacking and killing us, but maybe that's just I. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.) Yea, what a good idea! Let's tell the enemy everything we're doing to spy on them. Let's name the agents we have among them, if any exist; let's describe in detail the signal intelligence we're conducting; let's get it all out there in the open so those who think, poorly, this is a good idea, can see if any of it is illegal. Brilliant thinking.
The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Because they're Republicans. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law This must refer to FISA and the Constitution. This is harder to call unless they want to give 4th Amendment rights to our foreign enemies, which apparently they do.
When the Republicans try to block an investigation you mean try not to reveal sources and methods of intelligence to the enemy?, as they surely will, we should be so lucky Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should not be afraid to highlight that fact by shutting down the Senate's public business, as he did last year OK with me and everyone who sees the federal Government (other than the military) as a problem creator rather than a problem solver--stay out all year if you want. This time, though, Mr. Reid needs to follow up. The first time Mr. Reid forced the Senate into a closed session, Mr. Roberts said he would keep his promise about an investigation into the hyping of intelligence on Iraq. But Mr. Roberts continues to sit on that report. I'm not sure what sit on means here, if it means limit the report regarding sources and methods of intelligence to those with the clearance to see it so that our enemy doesn't learn about them, then I'm OK with sitting on it. If they mean it literally, I don't know what to say.
The nation needs to know a great deal more about the domestic spying (foreign signal intelligence)--yea, let's tell the enemy everything, absolutely everything we do. How many people's calls and e-mail were tapped? How were they chosen? Didn't they reveal this, if the communication was with a suspected al Qaeda operative, they listened in. Is the NYT unaware of even the basic facts here? Was Mr. Bush planning to do this until the war on terror ended I hope so--that is, forever? I hope not, but with the Deomcrats revealing sources and methods to the enemy and the NYT calling for more, maybe we will have to fight, hamstrung, forever. The public should be asking why members of Congress are afraid to make those important and legitimate queries. More coward calling from the brave heroes of journalism.
With so much still unknown about the domestic spying, (foreign signal intelligence) when they can't even get the basics right no wonder they come to the exactly wrong conclusion the censure resolution merely allows the Republicans to change the subject to fairy tales about Democratic leaders' trying to impeach Mr. Bush. But aren't the Democrats talking about impeaching Bush? Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you...They are also painting criticism of Mr. Bush as unpatriotic. The same old charge. I still think it's a form of projection; the NYT editors and their ilk know that they are weak on defense so they actually see any criticism of their actions vis a vis the war effort as impugning their patriotism. Let's get this straight. The Democrats are as patriotic as the Republicans, but the Democrats are so wrong and so blind to the deleterious effect they are having on the war effort, that they are actually dangerous and cannot be trusted with control of the government, which they do not now have, thank the Lord. That's tedious nonsense, hello, Pot, Mr. Kettle here; you're black but watching Mr. Feingold's Democratic colleagues run for cover shows how effective it is. Is it possible that the Democrats are running for cover from Feingold's looney stunt, because they have actually read and understood the FISA Act, In re Sealed Case: 02:001, Hamdi and the AUMF, and the polls, and are trying to get reelected in the future? Just asking.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:42 AM 
