The Left Coaster: Comment on Difference In Media Coverage Of Lewinsky And NSA Spying

The differences between an Apple and an Orange somehow exemplifies your biased beliefs of an unfair media?

Yeah Right.

Lewinsky was about sex and fidelity, about lying, about coercing witnesses, about scamming the American public for years about how the media was lying about Bill's sexual desires....And it was about the PRESIDENT LYING TO THE NATION and to his wife, (as if she didn't know) and how Dick Morris said, the American public can forgive the sex, but not the lying about the sex, and Bill said, then I guess we will just have to win...i.e. continue to lie.

NSA is about a President doing that which he believes is legal and best for America and admitting to it. He even says he will continue to do it. And NO DEMOCRAT OF ANY NOTORIETY will stand up and tell him that he should stop. Sure they want to hide behind the need for an investigation, but none will stand up and say this is definitely illegal and that he should stop now. (wait did algor say that he should stop, I wonder, or did he just broadly paint Bush as being corrupt for doing the wiretaps.)

As the democratic strategists claim, the Spy story is a no win for the Dems.

Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 10:51 AM

Adam Schiff (D. CA) demanded that he cease any and all activity immediately and he quite implicitly warned everyone who is involved to stop.

The legal experts and Constitutional Experts stated it is a "Text book case for impeachment."

Not only is GW continuosly and blatantly breaking the law, he is abrigating the separation of powers.

As for your obsession with someone else's sexual exploits, get over it.

Posted by Anjha at January 21, 2006 11:03 AM

As the democratic strategists claim, the Spy story is a no win for the Dems.

I take it you agree with those strategists? And most likely those democratic strategists would be the same ones that have led the decisive Democratic victories...errr, I mean defeats for the past 2 election cycles at the national level (including Congress)? So you should have no problem understanding why I don't really put too much value in the advice from someone like yourself who clearly wants the republicans to win, as well as those "democratic strategists" who have a losing record when it comes to elections. You'd understand my skepticism for agreeing/following such advice.

Posted by emal at January 21, 2006 11:17 AM

shared scandals, past 30 years:
-Abscam

Democratic scandals, past 30 years:
-Whitewater/Monica
-Henry Cisneros
-James Traficant

Republican scandals, past 30 years:
-Watergate
-Iran/Contra
-Bush administration (various and ongoing)

what's the difference here? The Democrat scandals involve personal gain, while the Republican scandals involve breaking the Constitution and the rule of law in this country.

It is perverse to the extreme that some otherwise intelligent people could get all worked up about a blowjob, yet they chose to ignore selling arms to Iran, and cocaine that ended up in our own country to fund their private insurgency (Iran-contra), or any of the following that is happening today: Abu Ghraib, black torture sites, Gitmo, illegal NSA wiretaps, the Abramoff/DeLay money machine, and the incompetent prosecution of the 'war' in Iraq, and the list goes on...gee, what do you think is worse?

carpe apologia!

Posted by leftAhead at January 21, 2006 11:27 AM

All this concern about the First Amendment. Why not some concern about the Fourth Amendment?

Posted by mojo at January 21, 2006 11:34 AM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: men lie about blow jobs all the time.

Posted by ann at January 21, 2006 12:18 PM

Wonder what bushco has on sumner redstone, richard parsons, sulzberger, keller, and brady - let alone tweety and the F Troopers from faux news.

I figure some are volunteers in the army of darkness and some are draftees, or maybe victims of blackmail and extortion.

Posted by Jim Faith at January 21, 2006 12:22 PM

it's pretty clear that the so called liberal media does not exist. The major organs of news are bought & sold like any other hack for the rethugs.
Why do the 'strategists' say that the NSA is non issue?
Stop reading and linkig the NYCrimes & WaP0. Support KR & other less "established" news organizations.
Carpe has a point about the timidity of the dems, and it is well taken.
Stop voting for them too.
Support independant & progressives for the house & senate.
Of course the key line in carpe's little note is
doing that which he believes is legal

I guess that sort of logic only holds true for Rethugs.

Posted by PwapVt at January 21, 2006 01:19 PM

As to the blowjob and sex talk, I didn't know you guys liked to talk about that sort of thing regularly.

I'm really over the Lewinsky matter, if I'm not mistaken the TOPIC of the thread was Lewinsky. Can I not discuss the topics without being challenged for . . . discussing the topics?

Sounds like a silly liberal argument....but then what did I expect.

Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 02:32 PM

Steve, that is a great analysis. Perhaps Grover's Wednesday meetings aren't doing the trick any more? He would make a great fall guy as he has the ties to Abramoff (old buddy from college you know) and I'm sure that Karl has collected some juicy dirt on Grover. And I suspect that Grover is trying to a) protect the Conservative brand and b) run a preemptive attack on the gang that looks ready to feed him to the wolves. Wonder when Karl decided he was going to have to go? Here's a very good piece on Grover and his influence on the conservative movement and the WH in happier days.

Posted by Mary at January 21, 2006 03:56 PM

The fundamental flaw in your analysis Carpe is that while you flog Clinton for lying, you cannot even mention "Bush" and "Lie" in the same sentence.

Posted by Steve Soto at January 21, 2006 04:24 PM

The problem with people like crappy is that they are fundamentalists who see everything as equal. A lie about your sex life is the same as a lie that gets thousands of people killed.

Posted by Ga6thDem at January 21, 2006 05:18 PM

I suppose that the Cheney has goods on Norquist thing could be true. But it's not really necessary. Clearly, pundits and people not inside the Bush cabal are looking for ways to distance themselves without going to the full "J'Accuse" mode.

George Will (tool of the state), and various Republican Congressmen, especially those in tough districts, have already been willing to buck the Administration, if only to attempt to dispel the lap-dog image that they present.

Interesting speculation, but hardly necessary to understand the Norquist, Will etc, pushbacks.

Posted by Dilapidus at January 21, 2006 05:28 PM

right on the money.

bush or chaney use people, including right-wing christians (blacks, too, by the way, and hispanics, and amerindians, not to mention millions of loyal and foolish white southerners).

grover norquist was certainly looking for a hole to crawl in and allies to protect himself.

but i doubt that's all norquist had in mind.

he was also looking to stitch himself a figleaf brief to cover his livlihood, which could be curtailed or derailed by the abramhoff scandal, cf. pilgrim ralph reed.

p.s. don't forget norquist's alliances with rightwing jews and arabs.

god alone knows what that is about, at least for now.

Posted by orionATL at January 21, 2006 06:35 PM

Dear Steve, The definition of a "lie" is to intentionally deceive another.

You scream about Bush Lying, and maybe he has, but I don't happen to believe that at all. I believe he connected the dots, just like Clinton, Kerry, and dozens of other democrats. His decision to ACT upon those conclusions is what set him apart.

Clinton obviously lied repeatedly, but since it was about denying the rights to a women who was suing him under a Federal Law, that he himself signed into law, is I guess, not a lie.

Oh, and recently some moronic comment/link was made regarding whether it was perjury. Talk about self-absorbed denial of a fact. I didn't even reply, because I was laughing too hard.

I don't desire to compare Bush with Clinton, there is no comparison. I will say Clinton was a much better president when the American people chose to give him a Republican Congress to help run things.

Why doesn't the American public do that to Bush?

Thats rhetorical....

Posted by carpediem at January 21, 2006 07:55 PM

Carpe:

The fact that you don't think Bush lied about Iraq, and that you can't seem to post under one ID, is enough for me to not take you seriously ever again.

Posted by Steve Soto at January 22, 2006 12:22 AM

the real problem with trying to have a discussion with a troll is that every argument they use is a lie disingenuous or specious

like did al gore say bush should stop the wiretaps
al gore invented the internet....al gore introduced legilation in congress that helped start the internet..thats what he said and thats what he did
love story..he never ever said he was the inspiration for love story..erich segal the author has said as much..etc..etc..etc..

the lewinsky affair ..where does one begin..it was never about lewinsky..it was about a republican congress so consumed with hated for a man that they were determined to do anything they could..it was basically a sting operation against the president of the united states after they had tried every thing else they possibly could think of ..it was political..and they had the numbers..it was not an impeachable offense but it didn't matter to them..nothing does

al gore graduated from college served as a journalist went to viet nam and for the next thirty years served his country in the house and senate..where was geoge bush this whole time..??

was elected govenor of texas with the name of bush...gore was born of privledge and lived his life a certain way..gwbush was born of privledge and he lived his life a certain way..and it involved a lot of drinking ..drugs.. and getting laid as much as he could..and you can throw in desertion and insider trading for good measure..i believe in my heart that the people who support him are of the same ilk..scared fearful little people ..afraid of osama and willing to follow a snake oil saleman to the gates of hell..cause thats where this country is headed

Posted by dennis at January 22, 2006 04:26 AM

Crappy fuckface:

I'm the beltway "democratic strategists'" worst nightmare, and simultaneously yours as well.

Why? Because my allegiance is to two things: Truth and the Constitution. You can lie, smear and conduct criminal activities; and the dem strategists can capitulate and calculate themselves out of power.

It matters not to me, because at the end of the day I'll be standing there with the truth and the Constitution, and I'll hammer you both to extinction with them.

Keep lying and smearing, you pissant traitor. I'm locked and loaded, and you're going down.

Posted by God Of War at January 22, 2006 06:43 AM

Dear GOW,

Again with the threats. Again with the foul language....

I thought you libs were against use of force, that we should be diplomats, that the world's anger toward America was OUR FAULT and that merely talking things out will do the trick.

No WAR under any circumstance.

And yet the hostility and anger that you exhibit is . . . . well pretty consistent among the liberal left of this nation....

You really ought to get laid or something...

Posted by carpediem at January 22, 2006 08:57 AM

Carpe writes:

"NSA is about a President doing that which he believes is legal and best for America and admitting to it. He even says he will continue to do it. And NO DEMOCRAT OF ANY NOTORIETY will stand up and tell him that he should stop. Sure they want to hide behind the need for an investigation, but none will stand up and say this is definitely illegal and that he should stop now. (wait did algor say that he should stop, I wonder, or did he just broadly paint Bush as being corrupt for doing the wiretaps.)

As the democratic strategists claim, the Spy story is a no win for the Dems."

Any law being broken by the President is a no win situation for anyone. It is shameful to all Americans to see their President blatantly and willingly break the Constitution and current FISA laws. But since you seemingly support this President at any and all costs, even in the face of breaking our laws, you tell me something please:

explain to me how illegally wiretapping American citizens somehow protects us versus obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap on alleged Al Qaeda suspects."

IOW, why would you believe that we could not obtain evidence under our current FISA laws legally when we have a 72 hour window RETROACTIVELY (after the initial wiretap) to obtain such a warrant? Can you help me out with that one? Can you tell me how wiretapping Americans ILLEGALLY without a warrant rather than Al Qaeda members somehow protects us better versus legally obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the initial wiretap? Because that's the crux of Bush's asinine argument, one that many true Conservatives (yes, I believe there's some still out there) are not buying much either, and are consequently outraged by their party's leader right now.

You really should separate yourself from this issue if you are a true Conservative, carpe. I know a number of true Conservatives and have discussed this issue with them both here in Kansas and in the D.C. area, and all I have talked to are outraged by this infringement of their basic rights and civil liberties. And if you were an actual true Conservative as well, one that believes in less government intrusion in all our lives, one that believes that we have fought and died for those basic civil liberties in so many wars and hold them so dear, hold them to our highest standard and pinnacle of a true, free democratic republic, then you should be as equally outraged given what we know so far.

Instead I continue to see you as nothing but a Bush apologist at every step. Sooner or later you have to put your country above this current party in power that's shaming the name of true Conservatives.

Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 22, 2006 09:31 AM

The Lewinsky scandal was salacious, who doesn't want to read the dirt? People EVERYWHERE want to read the best gossip they can and on a scale of one to ten, that was a ten. Americans are prudes, Lewinsky would barely have registered in Europe.

I actually agree that the NSA story is a loser for dems. We already look weak on national security and this isn't helping dispell that perception. No matter how good the gossip on Abramoff, it's nothing to most Americans compared to protecting our lives. I think Americans would accept TEN Abramoff's as long as people think the repubs are protecting American lives better than dems would, and right now, that IS what Americans think, in large majority.

Posted by avaroo at January 22, 2006 10:28 AM

"I know a number of true Conservatives and have discussed this issue with them both here in Kansas and in the D.C. area, and all I have talked to are outraged by this infringement of their basic rights and civil liberties."

While that may be true, the fact is Americans, the majority, are NOT outraged over the NSA issue. And at some point, you should ask yourself why. The standard liberal answer, that most Americans are idiots or asleep, is a loser at the ballot box.

"And if you were an actual true Conservative as well, one that believes in less government intrusion in all our lives, one that believes that we have fought and died for those basic civil liberties in so many wars and hold them so dear, hold them to our highest standard and pinnacle of a true, free democratic republic, then you should be as equally outraged given what we know so far."

Most Americans DO NOT believe that anyone inside or outside the US has the right to speak with terrorists targeting the US with no US government intrusion. Why do liberals NOT get that?

Posted by avaroo at January 22, 2006 10:31 AM

>>I know a number of true Conservatives and have discussed this issue with them both here in Kansas and in the D.C. area, and all I have talked to are outraged by this infringement of their basic rights and civil liberties. And if you were an actual true Conservative as well, one that believes in less government intrusion in all our lives, one that believes that we have fought and died for those basic civil liberties in so many wars and hold them so dear, hold them to our highest standard and pinnacle of a true, free democratic republic, then you should be as equally outraged given what we know so far.

Then explain to me why the trashing of civil liberties done to the American citizens in the name of tax collection does not outrage civil libiterians the way this legitimate collection of intelligence on an implacable,avowed and dedicated enemy does???

Case in point; Rosevelt's 1942 executive order requiring employers to collect taxes for the federal government. This is simply the seizure of an employers time and money, without due compensation for such service, to expidite the flow of money to the federal government in a legitimate emergency, ie. WWII. When the war was over the executive order never was recinded,enshrining the overly complicated tax system we have today.

This is but one example, however I find this type of behavior far more of a threat to civil liberties than NSA wiretaping a converstion I am having with my Grandma. Not to mention attacks against the 2nd ammendment. Sounds ,to me, like just another example of the Left's selective outrage.

Posted by Jim G at January 22, 2006 10:46 AM

Jim G writes:

" Then explain to me why the trashing of civil liberties done to the American citizens in the name of tax collection does not outrage civil libiterians the way this legitimate collection of intelligence on an implacable,avowed and dedicated enemy does???"

To civil libertarians and true Conservatives, taxes of any sort outrages them quite a bit. What's your point?

"Case in point; Rosevelt's 1942 executive order requiring employers to collect taxes for the federal government. This is simply the seizure of an employers time and money, without due compensation for such service, to expidite the flow of money to the federal government in a legitimate emergency, ie. WWII. When the war was over the executive order never was recinded,enshrining the overly complicated tax system we have today."

Honestly I cannot comment about our tax system since I know little about it, so I'll have to take your word. But again, to libertarians and true conservatives, most taxes of any sort do not appeal to them. So again, since I was speaking of true Conservatives earlier with my original sentiments, how is your example in contrast to my point at all?

"This is but one example, however I find this type of behavior far more of a threat to civil liberties than NSA wiretaping a converstion I am having with my Grandma."

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinions in regards to your dear old Grandma, however silly they may be. If you honestly find our current tax system which however broken and backwards it may be still brings in a great deal of revenue that supports so many government programs ranging from our military, our highways, our public schools, keeps our elderly out of poverty, pays for the disabled and ill-stricken, and so on, more despicable than our government illegally wiretapping our American citizens,

honestly I really don't know what to say, other than I fear for your general mental well-being. I may not personally agree with our tax system either, and I may also agree that we pay too much taxes on a number of issues, but I can't hardly believe I would ever be more afraid of such a system versus our government illegally wiretapping our phones. Call me strange and wierd, I guess.

"Not to mention attacks against the 2nd ammendment."

I didn't realize your rights to bear arms were being infringed upon. By all accounts most Dems. have either supported the 2nd Amendment altogether or have pretty much given up fighting against it. Of course I haven't seen a reason to keep a gun myself since I'm not part of an organized militia in which the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to, but each to his own.

"Sounds ,to me, like just another example of the Left's selective outrage."

Well perhaps you should listen a little better, since it seems you were somewhat incorrect in your assessment of my argument. I was referring to how a true Conservative should feel about the issue, not a Lefty. And since you attempted to draw up a counterargument to belittle the point of our government illegally wiretapping American citizens and listening in on innoncent civilians' conversations without FISA consent (and breaking the 4th Amendment, BTW), you merely demonstrated my point of failing to be a true Conservative or libertarian in any way. Because either one would be outraged by any government infringement, albeit too much taxes or infringing our civil liberties by illegally wiretapping our phones.

Rather, you demonstrated to be yet another Bush apologist who cowtows the Rove party line at all stops, the Constitution and the truth be damned, and who refuses to address the basic simple question I posed:

explain to me how illegally wiretapping American citizens somehow protects us versus obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap on alleged Al Qaeda suspects."

IOW, why would you believe that we could not obtain evidence under our current FISA laws legally when we have a 72 hour window RETROACTIVELY (after the initial wiretap) to obtain such a warrant? Can you help me out with that one? Can you tell me how wiretapping Americans ILLEGALLY without a warrant rather than Al Qaeda members somehow protects us better versus legally obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the initial wiretap?

Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 22, 2006 01:47 PM

avaroo writes:

"While that may be true, the fact is Americans, the majority, are NOT outraged over the NSA issue. And at some point, you should ask yourself why. The standard liberal answer, that most Americans are idiots or asleep, is a loser at the ballot box."

The polls tend to show a balance between the majority of people being concerned and those unconcerned. I've noticed that the questions being asked were somewhat incorrect in those polls. For example:

"Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

Where the majority trumps as acceptable %51 to 47%. However, what is not being asked and what is often overlooked by these opinion polls is that any wiretap can be started WITHOUT a FISA court order, and then a warrant could be obtained within 72 hours retroactively. Of the tens of thousands of court order requests up to 2002, not ONE was turned down by FISA. Only when Bush came into power were a handful of his requests turned down and some were asked for clarity.

One has to wonder why that may be. But are we to expect the public to grasp all these details behind Bush's illegal wiretaps? Uh, no.

Besides, other polls do show a sincere concern:

""Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"

The majority says "yes" 56% to 42% according to that AP poll.

BTW, all those polls can be found here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

So clearly there is a concern among Americans. Its just a matter of knowledge on the subject, methinks.

But to be sure, I'm not that terribly concerned about polls or majority opinion on this topic (or most topics for that matter). If there is clearly a violation of the law, it should be pointed out as such, regardless of public opinion.

"Most Americans DO NOT believe that anyone inside or outside the US has the right to speak with terrorists targeting the US with no US government intrusion. Why do liberals NOT get that?"

Straw man. Liberals get that just fine. That's not the issue. The NSA program was spying on Americans with ALLEGED ties to Al Qaeda, at least that's what Bush wants you to believe. But the FBI clearly states otherwise:

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

...

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

...

F.B.I. field agents, who were not told of the domestic surveillance programs, complained they often were given no information about why names or numbers had come under suspicion. A former senior prosecutor, who was familiar with the eavesdropping programs, said intelligence officials turning over the tips "would always say that we had information whose source we can't share, but it indicates that this person has been communicating with a suspected Al Qaeda operative." He said, "I would always wonder, what does 'suspected' mean?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?pagewanted=print

And if anything, the results of these wiretaps only HINDERED our efforts to combat terrorism:

"F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency, which was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of foreign-related phone and Internet traffic, that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for the eavesdropping program, which did not seek court warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but ultimately deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program, which focused on the international communications of some Americans and others in the United States, as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program looked very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html

If the majority of the public doesn't understand this, then perhaps they will after the hearings. But I would have expected you to understand this basic point by now.

Posted by at January 22, 2006 02:12 PM

"The polls tend to show a balance between the majority of people being concerned and those unconcerned. I've noticed that the questions being asked were somewhat incorrect in those polls. "

No, the polls do not show even a significant minority more concerned about NSA wiretapping than about national security.

"Straw man. Liberals get that just fine."

Liberals do NOT get that, the majority of Americans do. That's where the disconnect is.

"The NSA program was spying on Americans with ALLEGED ties to Al Qaeda, at least that's what Bush wants you to believe. "

And that's OK with the majority of Americans. There's never been a war with US involvement where we did NOT spy on Americans with alleged ties to the enemy, no matter who the enemy was. Yet some people, notably the moonbat left, doesn't appear to get the most fundamental reason one spies.

Posted by avaroo at January 22, 2006 02:31 PM

avaroo writes:

"No, the polls do not show even a significant minority more concerned about NSA wiretapping than about national security"

Well your original assertion was that the majority of Americans are not outraged about the wiretapping issue. That may be true in the strictest sense of the word, "outrage", but now you're stating the polls do not show a significant minority being more concerned about NSA wiretapping than about national security. I'm not exactly sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here, since the wording of that assertion is not only different than your original assertion, but is a bit strange nonetheless.

Regardless, my point was that there was a concern by the majority in a particular poll by the AP. Here it is again:

"Should the Bush Administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and Internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?"

The majority says "yes" 56% to 42% according to that AP poll.

There would be no majority opinion here stating Bush should need a warrant for such a case had there not been some public concern regarding this issue.

"Liberals do NOT get that, the majority of Americans do. That's where the disconnect is."

What liberals are you referring to? The NYTimes piece I cited is in the vast majority of liberal blogs for a reason - it demonstrates that liberals understand that not only was a current law being broken by this Adminstration, the majority of time being spent examining these hundreds of thousands of leads led to a complete waste of time and resources as they demonstrated nothing but spying on Americans, NOT Al Qaeda connections. Again, the liberals get this just fine, it's the Americans that do not have the complete picture.

But since you're attempting to encircle all liberals not understanding the issue, I'd like to know which ones you're referring to.

"And that's OK with the majority of Americans. There's never been a war with US involvement where we did NOT spy on Americans with alleged ties to the enemy, no matter who the enemy was. Yet some people, notably the moonbat left, doesn't appear to get the most fundamental reason one spies."

A very slim majority, according to most of the polls cited so far. But as we get more information on how those searches were conducted by the NSA comes out, expect to see the majority swinging the other way around.

I have no care for what radical leftists believe. They are not my concern. And as stated previously, the majority opinion are not my concern either. What concerns me is whether or not this President has broken current FISA laws. He is not above any law, regardless of what the most "fundamental reason one spies". That's an irrelevant concept when it comes to our basic civil liberties being infringed as our President circumvents current laws. There is no reason why he couldn't create a wiretap and obtain a warrant up to 72 hours retroactively on any given Al Qaeda lead. Again I ask:

"explain to me how illegally wiretapping American citizens somehow protects us versus obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap on alleged Al Qaeda suspects."

IOW, why would you believe that we could not obtain evidence under our current FISA laws legally when we have a 72 hour window RETROACTIVELY (after the initial wiretap) to obtain such a warrant? Can you help me out with that one? Can you tell me how wiretapping Americans ILLEGALLY without a warrant rather than Al Qaeda members somehow protects us better versus legally obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the initial wiretap?"

As of yet I have not heard of a sound, logical answer. In fact, even the President and this Administration likely believed they could not answer this question, since the Justice Dept. resisted some of the spying program as well. Bush couldn't get top level clearance for his wiretaps from from deputy attorney general James Comey, two aides--Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzalez. So they went to Ashcroft's hospital bed who was recovering from gall bladder surgery to sign off on their wiretaps, and even he had reservations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01spy.html?ex=1138078800&en=cf3a70ccf82a254a&ei=5070

You seem so hellbent on this being a liberal issue. You've mentioned, "why do liberals not get that?"

I dunno, avaroo, I guess it's also fair to ask why John McCain doesn't get it either as he said on Faux News Sunday that Bush does not have "the legal authority to engage in these warrantless wiretaps":

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/22/mccain-wiretaps-illegal/

Or Lindsey Graham who says "I don't know of any legal basis" for Bush's spying program:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_121805.pdf

Or Arlen Specter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601825.html

Or my very conservative Senator Brownback:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/08/brownback-on-nsa/

Or Dick Lugar:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/01/lugar-supports-hearings/

Or the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19nsa.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html

Or Conservative scholars Bruce Fein and Norm Ornstein:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b7bf89a6-70fc-11da-89d3-0000779e2340.html

So let's drop the pretense of this being a "liberal" issue. Clearly some prominent Conservatives have concerns as well.

Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 22, 2006 04:14 PM