But of course, we should know, and that is the problem. Without transparency, there is no domestic security.

To again reverse the canard: If they have nothing to hide, why are they worried about us knowing about it.
Fraud Guy | 02.05.07 - 8:29 am | #

God, that sounds dumb. Imagine a college professor tells you to investigate some complex, murky problem and write a paper on it. You write a paper that proudly proclaims that you did much research, studied the issue well and that you simply can not come to any conclusion on it at all.

There must be some term for this. Sitting on the fence? CYA? I don't know. I do know that no matter how smart he pretends to be, the conclusion alone renders him a dunce for me.
Fabian | 02.05.07 - 8:45 am | #

I think I've seen this one before:

RIEDENSCHNEIDER
...They got this guy, in Germany.
Fritz something-or-other. Or is it.
Maybe it's Werner. Anyway, he's got
this theory, you wanna test something,
you know, scientifically--how the
planets go round the sun, what
sunspots are made of, why the water
comes out of the tap--well, you gotta
look at it. But sometimes, you look
at it, your looking *changes* it. Ya
can't know the reality of what
happened, or what *would've* happened
if you hadden a stuck in your goddamn
schnozz. So there *is* no 'what
happened.' Not in any sense that we
can grasp with our puny minds. Because
our minds... out minds get in the
way. Looking at something changes
it. They call it the 'Uncertainty
Principle.' Sure, it sounds screwy,
but even Einstein says the guy's on
to something.

His gaze up at the window breaks. He strolls around the room,
still smiling.

RIEDENSCHNEIDER
...Science. Perception. Reality.
Doubt...

He stops to examine a bur on his fingernail.

RIEDENSCHNEIDER
...Reasonable doubt. I'm sayin',
sometimes, the more you look, the
less you really know. It's a fact. A
proved fact. In a way, it's the only
fact there is.

--"The Man Who Wasn't There", Coen Brothers flick
Vartan7 | 02.05.07 - 8:49 am | #

Anything to further the murderous agenda.

Integrity, logic and truth be damned.
BuelahMan | 02.05.07 - 8:50 am | #

Actually this begs the question: are these idiot-pundits driving the public narrative, simply reacting to said narrative, or completely beside the point to it?

I've always agreed with Glenn's underlying point about these idiots, that no matter how vacuous or illogical their agruments we simply can't ignore the likes of Kristoll, Limbaugh and Wittes as they're the ones with the loudest media bullhorn right now. But I have to wonder what's the best approach to at least muffling their influence upon issues like this?

Are they driving to the story, or vice versa, or is it both simultaneously?

The question after that, of course, is does it even make a difference at this point?
Iokanaan in the Well | 02.05.07 - 9:01 am | #

I find Witte's arguments quite persuasive. One should read his article in its entirety, rather than excerpts taken out of context. The legality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is indeed a very involved question, and even Witte fails to cover all the complexities. Just as an example, here is an additional complexity:

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

Thus the advice and consent of Vice President Cheney can be argued to imbue the TSA with additional legislative support.
soMebodY | 02.05.07 - 9:03 am | #

Thus the advice and consent of Vice President Cheney can be argued to imbue the TSA with additional legislative support.

Why didn't I think of that. By chairing the Senate, anyhing Dick Cheney says is automatically the law!

I knew there had to be SOME explanation. Cause from where I'm sitting it just looks like the Constitution is being ripped to shreds.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 9:14 am | #

[soMebodY | 02.05.07 - 9:03 am]

Now THAT is a specious argument. Next you'll be telling us that the constitution deliberately and explicitly gave the Vice President more authority than the President. It certainly would have come as a surprise to the first Veep, John Adams;

"My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." -- John Adams

Though I doubt that your rhetorical techniques would have surprised him much;

"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society." -- John Adams

SadButTrue | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 9:23 am | #

Let's see. The president admitted to eavesdropping outside the law. A court has found the program illegal.

But we don't "know" anything. No one does outside the administration. So no one can judge the administration except they themselves.

Witte's argument is beyond witless. It's argumentless. In fact, it voids the very concept of argument.
Bullsmith | 02.05.07 - 9:27 am | #

In a government of managerial bureaucracy, the highest value is "expertise." And the more "complex" and "murky" an issue, the more critical the opinion of the expert. Thus, Wittes goes to some length not only to establish that he is an expert, but that he may be the ONLY expert capable of opining on this issue.

In this world of hyperventilating Rationalism, the only relevant knowledge is technical. And because Wittes is the only journalist/pundit in possession of the necessary technical facts -- which he doesn't share -- he alone is qualified to pronounce on the matter. He therefore presumes his position is impregnable (granting his underlying assumptions are tenable), and he is in a position to preach to and inform the world of its ignorance. This the mad professor character from a B-movie.

Glenn is right: in this hothouse of cool, detached, technical Rationalism (quite aside from the fact that Wittes' pose is a mere simulation), passion, belief, commitment, interest, and engagement are anathema, precisely because technical knowledge has no content and is merely a matter of professional analysis by experts, even self-appointed experts by Wittes. But, the self-annointed infallibility of "experts" like Wittes is itself a highly committed and engaged belief system, a belief system typically contemptuous of democracy, of citizens, of voting, of independent thinking.
MD | 02.05.07 - 9:29 am | #

This kind of argument that Wittes' is speaking is one that will allow him in his "higher critic" expertise thinking of himself to overlook the very loud cry of the masses about the outrage of a president openly breaking the law so as to make it above him to answer to these "lowly critics" of the Presidents.

There is a saying I remember about things such as this, "pride goes before destruction".

This type of thinking shows just how perverted and debased a person can become when they are so prideful of their position and superiority over others.

In the real world these kinds of thoughts would render a person to become non-relevant in most matters of any concern but in the illusory world of the beltway this will cause him to become elevated if not in his own mind in those of the others that are very much as he is.

An excellent article Glenn to point out just how much trouble we as a country are in at this time and the kind of people that carry actual influence and bring that influence to bear on the rest of us regardless what we say or think.

A perfect illustration of the "ivory tower" mentality as it relates to us today on the most critical of issues, those of life and death.
Gabe | 02.05.07 - 9:30 am | #

This is what happens when incantation replaces political discourse -- I've heard definitions of the Holy Trinity that weren't quite as ineffable.

For my own part, rather than listen to any more earnest proofs of Dick Cheney's Godhood, I think I'd prefer just take to it on faith that soMebodY is actually noBodY.
William Timberman | 02.05.07 - 9:34 am | #

Imagine a college professor tells you to investigate some complex, murky problem and write a paper on it. You write a paper that proudly proclaims that you did much research, studied the issue well and that you simply can not come to any conclusion on it at all.

Fabian | 02.05.07 - 8:45 am

And in addition, you don't produce any evidence to illustrate why you can't come to a conclusion. Sounds to me like you, the writer of the paper, spent the time you should have been conducting research sunning yourself on the beach in Cancun.
Jeff in Doha | 02.05.07 - 9:34 am | #

I assumed that soMebodY was being snarky. Am I being overly generous?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 9:37 am | #

Paul Dirks: Am I being overly generous?

To a fault. (And in any case, such mysteries are by definition impenetrable.)
William Timberman | 02.05.07 - 9:39 am | #

somebody: "Thus the advice and consent of Vice President Cheney can be argued to imbue the TSA with additional legislative support."

Has John Yoo been informed?
MD | 02.05.07 - 9:39 am | #

This is a perfect example of something I find most disturbing:


The attitude, usually presented as an axiom, that there are two sides to each political issue and that reasonable people (as opposed to loud-mouthed unreasonable partisans) including most of the "American people" have opinions somewhere in the middle.


The problem, of course, is that the "two sides" have recently consisted of (1) the right, honest, lawful side and (2) the wrong, dishonest, unlawful side. In this, increasingly common situation, it is exasperating and, frankly demoralizing, to hear people talk about how they are reasonable for having an opinion somewhere in the middle and that to have opinion (1) makes you just part of the biggest problem in the country, being one sided and divisive.


Evolution versus Creationism (creationists: we're not saying that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, just that the schools acknowledge that scientists aren't sure and that there are two sides and that creationsism should be given it's time in the classroom too).


Climate change, wireless eavesdropping, the list goes on ... I'm sorry, but there just aren't "two" sides to these issues. But to be intelligent and honest will turn you into a divisive, partisan problem.

Sam R | 02.05.07 - 9:42 am | #

way to rip it up, glenn.

when i was a child, my mother had a word for a talker like he:

Bullshit Artist.
nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 9:44 am | #

Hear, hear. It's the "I'd rather be wrong for the right reasons than right for all the wrong reasons" gambit. For pundit sinecures, remaining "above the fray" is not only a vantage point of condescension, but an intellectual badge of courage. Unfortunately, keeping your head in the sand doesn't make you intellectually pure, it just keeps you ignorant of anything besides your own insipid, uninformed opinion. And there is certainly nothing intellectually courageous about a pathetic need to always be perceived as "mainstream." Intransigent, knee-jerk "centrism" is even more pointless than blinkered extremism.

The sham of this is that holding fast to the status quo—or worse, reinforcing it—is a conscious, even partisan, choice, because the status quo is always created and defined by whoever is in power.

R. Porrofatto | 02.05.07 - 9:47 am | #

"'I don't know' seems like a good place to me."

Well, then why write this piece? Why write anything ever? Only someone with a think-tank sinecure could argue in favor of less knowledge.
Rick Massimo | 02.05.07 - 10:02 am | #

I don't know what the program is. I don't know whether it was lawful before the recent change. Truth be told, I don't even understand what the change announced in Gonzales's letter really means. I can arrange the facts in the public record so as to describe a program that would, in my view, offend the Constitution. And I can arrange the facts in the public record so as to describe a program that would not, in my view, offend the Constitution. I can imagine a program outside of FISA that the law should be amended to accommodate. And I can imagine a program that violates the FISA precisely because it involves the kind of warrantless surveillance the law was passed to prevent. What's more, the more I learn about this program, the less I understand it.

He needs to go to Dan Froomkin's school of journalism. And, hell, he has to listen. Dan's writing from a very serious foundation at an ultra serious institution. Here are some excerpts from Dan's advice:

You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority

* Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie.

* Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate.

* Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself.

* Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true.
[snip]

Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy

* Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do.

* Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret.

H/t Christy at FDL
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:02 am | #

Rats. I meant to add that arguments like this are the ultimate in arguments from authority. It's bad enough to say "This is true because Professor Plum of MIT and the NBER say it is true." But it's really the height of fatuity to say "There is only one expert on this matter. It is I. My pronouncement are both necessary and sufficient. And I can tell you authoritatively that time will tell. Until then, no other voice may be relied upon."
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:05 am | #

GG quoted Wittes: "I am one of the very few journalists--to my knowledge, in fact, the only one--who ever physically set foot inside the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court."

:-) Perhaps we could ask the Court custodians their opinion on the matter? They're physically there every day, too, and have likely learned at least as much as Wittes. It sure would be nice if at least the self-admitted know-nothings would STFU; the only thing they add to the discussion is noise.

But thanks to you, once again, Glenn.
Susan | 02.05.07 - 10:06 am | #

"'I don't know' seems like a good place to me."

Well, then why write this piece? Why write anything ever? Only someone with a think-tank sinecure could argue in favor of less knowledge.

It's way worse than that. The proper reaction to "I don't know" is "let's wait and see before we do anything."

But the thing has already been done. The taps are happening. The court has been circumvented. One can always argue for delay in the absence of knowledge. But in this case the action has not been delayed. It is ongoing. The conservative response to not knowing the consequences or basis for an action is not to continue doing it, but to stop doing it and reassess.
JayAckroyd | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:08 am | #

JayAckroyd | 02.05.07 - 10:05 am |

Those asterisks scared me for a second. I was having flashbacks of shooter242.

I have to say, even according to this country's laughable mainstream political discourse, that TNR article is ridiculous. It's almost like the author wants us to make fun of him.
steve_e | 02.05.07 - 10:09 am | #

As with all the of the high-mindedness and "serious” evaluations of the Bush administration by beltway blowards, it might have an ounce of credibility if these weren't the same screaming hyenas who called EVERYTHING President Clinton did a criminal and impeachable offense.
MySweetOldWorld | 02.05.07 - 10:13 am | #

I really appreciate your insights, thoughtfulness, knowledge, effort, and general direction, and I hope you'll bear that in mind when I say...

You are tilting against windmills.

I personally feel that it's a real problem how many left wing websites are filled with nothing but reaction to right wing excesses. As long as we continue to wail endlessly about how horrid they are, they will continue to exist. This particular writer you are talking about is probably not as far along the spectrum as Coulter and O'reilly, but I suspect from his publishers point of view his basic function is the same: sell magazines.

Even more saliently, I feel that the real problem in this country isn't the know-nothing pundits, or the gutter-level smears that politicians use to win power, or the worthless meaningless and occasionally down right treasonous attacks they use to hold power, it is rather that the public continues to soak it up. And unfortunately, the way these people (the consumers of all this drivel) work is that as long as someone *reacts* to what these fools say and do, they infer that there must be something valuable or important in what they say and do. Indeed, the right-ward swing in this country, in my view, has been driven by 1) excesses perpetrated under the banner of the left (though often by right-wind indeed federal double agents or outright crazies -- but the point is the left has allowed itself to be taken hostage by these types) or 2) excess *reactivity* on the left, leading to emotional pulling away on the part of the uninvolved mass middle.

I know that people have said this before about for example and in particular Coulter, and I also know that those who have said it ("ignore her") have not been listened to, that every day one can go by crooksandliars (not that I don't like that site -- I do) and find out what she has said most recently, along with a lot of hysterical freak out about how crazy she is. That is to say that all the self-reighteous indignant opposition has done at best zero to Coulters media success, and probably has increased it.

Don't waste your breath -- shun these people. And if forced to deal with them and their words, do so swiftly and directly, expose the basic absurdity of even relating to them (as you Glenn do so well) and then *move on*

Nothing will change until these people are ignored.
VoiceFromTheWilderness | 02.05.07 - 10:15 am | #

So if Wittes claims that he knows more than anybody else, but admits that he doesn't know enough to have an opinion, does he at least reach the obvious conclusion: we need to know more about this program? The only halfway reasonable response to "nobody knows enough to judge whether or not the law was broken" - if that actually were the situation - is an immediate, thorough investigation that uncovers enough facts to determine whether or not the law was broken.

If Wittes doesn't call for such an investigation, then he's doubly dishonest: not only is he pretending ignorance on an issue that really isn't as complicated as he says, but *even granting that his ignorance is real* he's trying to sweep under the rug something that he admits might be felonies committed by our nation's public officials.

If we really don't know - then we need to know. Fast. And that means investigation.
Chris | 02.05.07 - 10:15 am | #

I suspect it was an earnest attempt to address problems that the drafters of the FISA would have been mortified to learn they had created for the intelligence community. . . .

And that would be okay, right? I suspect Wittes doesn't "know" the Constitution, either. Maybe he could study it obsessively for the next ten years.
ej | 02.05.07 - 10:18 am | #

VFW - Don't waste your breath -- shun these people. And if forced to deal with them and their words, do so swiftly and directly, expose the basic absurdity of even relating to them (as you Glenn do so well) and then *move on*

Good point. That strategy worked really well with the Swift Boat Veterans. And it worked really well with Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh, who everyone decided to treat as simply beneath them for years and therefore ignored. They don't go away. They only grow stronger because their filth is unchallenged.

And TNR is different still. It holds itself out as, and is considered by many journalists and other Beltway types to be, a serious, non-partisan magazine of experts and insiders. Allowing them to parade around that way increases their influence. Exposing them decreases it.

It would be pleasant to think that certain individuals or ideas that are beneath a certain level of rationality or decency will simply fade away if they're ignored. That just isn't how the world works.

Glenn Greenwald | 02.05.07 - 10:20 am | #

Voice: "This particular writer you are talking about is probably not as far along the spectrum as Coulter and O'reilly, but I suspect from his publishers point of view his basic function is the same: sell magazines."

You would think this would be true. But The New Republic's circulation is tanking. According to Wikipedia:

"The magazine has seen a steady decline in circulation since 2000. According to the publisher's reports, subscriptions dropped from 85,904 in 2002 to 61,124 in 2003, a decrease of 29% in one year.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The...he_New_Republic
MD | 02.05.07 - 10:21 am | #

Sorry but I have to add one more thing: I had a crazy girl friend once, and the more I tried to be reasonable, talk to her, explain how her reaction to her pain wasn't going to be solved by harassing me, etc. the more she came around, and the more intense her freakouts became. Then a guy I knew, who was a very succesful, very smart, very alert alive, real person told me "the only way she is going to go away is if you laugh at her. Here I'll show you", and then next time she showed up at the house (oh, we were roomates) he just started laughing at her, right to her face. I had to do it once, about a week later and then ...

She was gone. After a year of harrasing me.

I see lots of people talking about how smart it is to 'fight the crazies', and I've seen them before, many times when this debate comes up. And ... Where is Bill Kristol now? Oh, on TV, selling an invasion of Iran. When are people going to consider the possibility that there might be a better way.

No, we shouldn't ignore Bush, or Cheney, or real political operatives, like Mehlman or whoever. But we should begin laughing at their support network. These absurd pundits should be ignored, laughed at, trivialized. If anyone brings them up, offers them up as important, we should, carefully and with real attention listen, and then? Demolish.

But this endless reactivity is going nowhere. Don't believe me? Keep doing it, and lets have this debate next year. The right wing didn't become powerful by endlessly parsing the words of abby hoffman. They became powerful by moving to a different point, and building their own network. We can and should do the same.
VoiceFromTheWilderness | 02.05.07 - 10:23 am | #

Somebody:

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

It's your lucky day, the day a Canadian schools you in your own constitution.

I don't know who you are quoting but to say that the VP is not a part of the Executive branch is hilariously false and betrays a willful ignorance of the obvious and stated intent of the constitution.

Let's review!

Article II:
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, ...

Ok, most people would stop there. The VP is listed in the first clause of Article II. But I bet that won't convince you, so on we go:

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

He's also explicitly mentioned in Section 4 of Art II, as a person Congress can Impeached and removed from office. Hmmm...Congress doesn't impeach its own members:

Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

So if he was a member of Congress, the Senate could expel him with a 2/3 vote, and no requirement of Impeachment by the house.

More:
Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: ...

So when the Senate is trying the President on Impeachment, the VP doesn't get to preside then. Why? Because it would be a glaringly obvious conflict of interest! He's a member of the Executive.

Finally, the 20th Amendment provides another massive clue:
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

So, the VP is elected with the President, starts and finishes his term at the same time as the President, has special restrictions on his Senatorial powers, especially in matters of Presidential impeachment and his office is spelled out in Article II.

Note they don't say that "the President of the Senate shall be Vice-President of the United States" they say "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate [...]"

He's VP first, and President of the Senate second. It's very clear.

Ergo, he doesn't constitute Congressional blessing on jack-shit, and I won't bother digging up the relevant statutes on areas of Congressional notification which spell out which members of Congress must be notified. Hint: The VP is not on the list.

I know you knew this, but you've latched on this specious straw because it somehow makes you feel the President has some kind of loophole to disobey duly passed Legislative acts.

In conclusion, a fucking foreigner knows more about the US constitution than you. Sleep well tonight, "citizen."
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:25 am | #

These "non-partisan-experts such as Wittes are especially expert as mental contortionists trying to fit their pre-conceived idealogy into the vacumn left by the abandon of the Constitution by Congress.

This supposed veneration of self-proclaimed experts to exonerate the power-grab made by this administration illustrates the vacuity, in their mind, of any adherence to the rule of law.

Divine Right asked for nothing more than acknowledging that the King knew best by his inherent power.
They want us to think this of George Bush! of Checey! Of Gonzales!

People of this sort used to be called stuffed shirts as they went huffing and puffing, now it would be stuffed brains.
Druthers | 02.05.07 - 10:26 am | #

Voice: "Here I'll show you", and then next time she showed up at the house (oh, we were roomates) he just started laughing at her, right to her face. I had to do it once, about a week later and then ..."

And I began to watch John Stewart.
MD | 02.05.07 - 10:26 am | #

The New Media Dynamic:

"Article on Topic X" is written by "Expert Y".

"Blogger Z" (with his or her area of expertise) reads Article on Topic X and refutes Expert Y.

I for one am not knowledgeable nor insightful enough to dissect this article on my own.

This is why I love the internet tubes. Greenwald, et al provide a certain "gateway" function that helps the rest of us on how to frame or look at certain articles by all the Expert Ys out there.

The Pundits talk to other Pundits. The Bloggers talk to blokes like us.

Thanks Glenn.

El Tiburon.
El Tiburon | 02.05.07 - 10:26 am | #

Glenn:
In your copious spare writing time, I hope you take a minute to comment on the highly relevant legal case taking shape regarding Lt. Wakada from Hawaii and his court case in Seattle scheduled for February 5 for speaking out against the illegal Iraq war. It is pathetically outrageous that none of our so-called leaders have taken up for the brave Lt. but I hope you find time to bring greater awareness and, hopefully, action to this case.
Thanks for your penetrating insight and prolific writing.
Robert | 02.05.07 - 10:30 am | #

You think Limbaugh is less powerful now than he was 10 years ago?

wow.

You think Coulter is less powerful now then 10 years ago?

wow.

So if the New Republic is Tanking, why are you wasting your time and effort obsessing about stupid articles it publishes? You even have a commentor who has decided to defend the person you so eloquently deconstructed. Do you think there might be a silent reader or ten who not having read this TNR piece, but does read your, and this commentors, take on him, now decides 'hmmm, maybe I should go read that piece'. No? Not possible? hmmmm.

So yeah, I'm real clear that most people don't agree with my position on this -- I'm quite used to it.

And I'm not going to argue with you about it.

But do yourself a favor, if a year from now Dinesh D'Souza is still publishing, living in his mansion in San Diego, if Rush is still making millions, if Coulter 'gets out of jail free', and sells another million seller, if this goon you so rightly cricize is still getting big time mainstream print, maybe more, if Kristol is *still* sitting on CNN telling us all what fucking vampire he is, *and getting paid for it*, and juan williams is *still* getting paid to be the guy you laugh at for being so silly...

Maybe you'll re-think you're strategy. maybe.
VoiceFromTheWilderness | 02.05.07 - 10:34 am | #

It's instructive to contrasts these two passages from Wittes' article:

Many liberals are convinced that the program represented a deep affront to the rule of law, though they don't know quite what the program was.

and

I can imagine a program outside of FISA that the law should be amended to accommodate. And I can imagine a program that violates the FISA precisely because it involves the kind of warrantless surveillance the law was passed to prevent.

In the second passage he lays out two alternatives, but note that in either case the Bush administration has been breaking the law -- committing felonies -- for 5+ years. The concession is highly backhanded in the first scenario, but if FISA would need to be amended to accommodate what the administration was doing that implies they were violating FISA. (Not that this is a realistic scenario anyway since as Glenn has pointed out before if the amendment was remotely reasonable and the administration had requested it, Congress would have fallen over themselves to make the change in the months after 9/11.)

So Wittes reluctantly concedes that one way or the other that the Bush administration was secretly breaking the law, yet he has nothing but opprobrium for people concerned with he rule of law.
Crust | 02.05.07 - 10:34 am | #

I suspect it was an earnest attempt to address problems that the drafters of the FISA would have been mortified to learn they had created for the intelligence community. . . .

Yes indeedy, imagine how mortified the Founders would be if they realized the problems they had caused the intellignce community with that pesky Bill of Rights. And of course that was back in the day of paper and quill pens, not age of computers, so of course the Constitution must be obsolete.
ronin | 02.05.07 - 10:35 am | #

JayAckroyd: It's way worse than that. The proper reaction to "I don't know" is "let's wait and see before we do anything."

It's even worse than that. It's, "if I don't know, how could any of you?
ej | 02.05.07 - 10:37 am | #

With whom is Voice arguing now? ...you do know that Glenn was being sarcastic, right?

His point is that ignoring or just "laughing at" Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh did NOT make them go away. Neither will it make this Wittes fellow go away just to ignore him and let these specious arguments in his article stand unchallenged.

Jeff
Jeff Coleman | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:42 am | #

To me the vacuity of Witte's argument, and the danger of it, is summed up in this single line:

"I can imagine a program outside of FISA that the law should be amended to accommodate."

If the program is outside of FISA, it's illegal. If the law "should be amended" then it should have been amended by the former congress, no? His analysis completely ignores the uncontesteed fact that the administration chose NOT to attempt to make their legal. Instead they kept it secret, and outside the court. When the NYT broke the story, they accused the NYT of breaking the law.

In Witte's world even if he imagines illegal activity he cannot imagine responing with anything but accomodation. How non-partisan of him.
Bullsmith | 02.05.07 - 10:42 am | #

It sounds like more of the 'Just trust me on this one' argument. How could we peons be expected to have any kind of informed opinion? Its the same kind of elitist mentality which allows the Bush administration to be so condescending to the general public.
druidbros | 02.05.07 - 10:43 am | #

VoicefromtheWilderness,

whenever I hear Rush on the radio, he's busy bashing liberals. It is his sole obession. Anne Coulter doesn't write about the glories of conservatism, she writes about traitors and the church of godlessness. You say these two are more powerful now than ten years ago, so we should ignore them and their tactics, not learn from them.

I find your logic a bit hard to follow.
Bullsmith | 02.05.07 - 10:45 am | #

VoiceFromTheWilderness:

Just because you say "wow" doesn't make something ridiculous. It makes a lot of sense to me that Rush and Coulter are less influential than in past.

#1 - The Democrats took congress. The
"unstoppable juggernaut" of American Conservativism has been dealt a decisive blow. The Permanent Majority(TM) is gone. Rush and Coulter are hugely linked to that movement and naturally they lose bigtime in influence over the decline.

#2 - Rush admitted he's a fucking liar, "carrying water" for the Republican scumbags. No doubt some of his listeners will be taking some of what he says with some additional salt now.

#3 - Coulter's books make the bestsellers lists because Right Wing Think-Tanks Buy them in Bulk to drive them up the lists

#4 - The influence of Right-Wing Talk Radio has been mitigated by several factors, not least is blogs, but also more progressive and liberal radio too.

#5 - The country has realized Bush is a pathetic failure of a president, and that also must hurt Coulter and Limbaugh as his chief cheerleaders. Sorry, the cheerleaders for the Colts are hotter today than the ones for the Bears.

Maybe you should rethink your strategy of insulting and substanceless arguments.

And the TNR should be refuted even with its falling subscription numbers because nonsense should be challenged lest it get taken seriously.

Ignoring right wing memes, however idiotic doesn't make them go away. We laughed at "trickle down economics" thinking it too absurd to respond, and got crushed when gullible people bought into it.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:46 am | #

A very perceptive post about a problem no one seems to want to acknowledge: the unwillingness to define any action by the powerful and/or wealthy as wrong.

A corollary to this ethical paralysis by expertise is the denigration of "common-touch" issues. An excellent example of this was the Foley Scandal.

There is no doubt that Foley's sexual predation, betrayal of trust and congressional enabling made the average voter sit up and take notice. Everyone had an opinion on Foley and the congressional cover-up; even the few voters who did not have strong feelings about Iraq.

Yet there was a fastidious distaste for the issue among the political elite. It was not a "policy" question. Some commentators, Pat Buchanan comes to mind, but there were several others, even though they discussed Foley, implied or stated that it was not as important as political policy stances on Iraq, health care, the UN, etc. etc. These commentators often expressed puzzlement that the hoi polloi was so interested in this "minor" issue of trust and accountability, when "great" issues of the day did not inspire the same outrage.

And since even the densest pundits know that the voters react strongly to and understand instinctively sexual misconduct it's really not cool to make personal behavior a political liability. Even if the personal behavior is actually criminal conduct. (Starr expertly exploited this by focusing on Clinton's sexual escapades instead of perjury.)

This mindset disenfranchises the ordinary citizen.
Either issues are
too esoteric to worry about,
too complex to understand,
too important (secret) to explain;
or
it's not cool to be passionate about betrayal;
it's not done to be upset by exploitation;
it's too bourgeoisie to demand ethical behavior from political leaders.

The average citizen cannot hold the government to moral or lawful standards because the citizenry does not and cannot, understand.

Not only is accountability not done, it is that accountability cannot be done.
clio | 02.05.07 - 10:46 am | #

ej
It's even worse than that. It's, "if I don't know, how could any of you?

Worse still, Why should any of you worry your little heads when the Great Decider, AND the experts are there to do it for you?
So just shut up and go shopping.
Druthers | 02.05.07 - 10:47 am | #

I can arrange the words in Witte's piece so as to make it entirely indecipherable.
garyb50 | 02.05.07 - 10:47 am | #

Glenn,

Only tangentially on topic, but I was reflecting on the Bamford Op-Ed you linked to on Friday, "Bush Is Not Above The Law". To prosecute the President on criminal charges would, as I understand it, mean impeachment. What are the legal and political scenarios for investigation or prosecution of others, e.g. Attorney General Gonzales, former Attorney General Ashcroft or lawyers at the DoJ who signed off on the "TSP" and/or the NSA call database? Could e.g. Gonzales be impeached? Impeaching Bush would be an uphill political battle, especially as a first step (and given Pelosi's commitment not to do so), but Gonzales might make sense. What about disbarment? What is the procedure to launch an FBI investigation? Where could pressure be fruitfully applied?
Crust | 02.05.07 - 10:49 am | #

DanD,

According to a recent Digby post, SoMebodY got his bizarre talking points from Cheney's office (via a RW spin source, I'm sure.) Rather than report who actually works for Cheney, as he is required to, the VP's office simply filed a claim that it was actually part of both the executive and legislative bodies (using in part the woords quoted above) and thus, presumedly, beyond all accountability. Bizzare, illogical, imperial and run of the mill for the powermonger that is Cheney.


Previous posters have indicated SoMebodY is Anonymoose. Plausible.

Sorry for the lack of link.
Bullsmith | 02.05.07 - 10:49 am | #

I believe that 2+2 = 4. Passionately.
Others believe that 2+2 does not equal four. Passionately. It's nice to know that, by Wittes' view, I am just as looney as the other guys are.

My point: arguments are not rendered valid or invalid by the passion of the person arguing.
dcnataro | 02.05.07 - 10:52 am | #

Well, their publication is aptly named the "New" Republic.

I mean the Old one was so terrible, much better to have one with a doctrine of Presidential Infallibility. It worked for the Catholic Church right?

BTW Glenn, as per your recommendation I did watch the Moyer special on Iran contra. Awesome. I can picture the TNR writers in Marine Corps uniforms testifying to congress they'll stand on their heads if the Commander-In-Chief Orders them too.

There really is some flaw in human psychology which makes us prey to believing in Santa President the all powerful and all knowing father figure. Presidential democracies almost always fall into dictatorships, and we usually blame the perpensity of Presidents to eventually seek absolute power. I think the missing part of that equation is the desire of a substantial portion of the population to have an absolute monarch. They enable each other.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:52 am | #

Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:25 am

DanD, somebody is quoting Cheney's own view of his "powers."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com...ives/ 012263.php

"Partisan Hysterics": Only bad when coming from the left.
sunny | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:53 am | #

clio,

Well said.

Your last sentence about sums it up.

So, as Bill Kristol says, why doesn't everyone just shut up.
MD | 02.05.07 - 10:54 am | #

What is truly remarkable is the continuing defense of the administration’s actions despite all the evidence that the underlying rationale for their behavior and grab for power has all been shown to be knowingly false; lies they made up or perpetrated. Starting with P.L. 107-243, giving Bush the right to declare war on Iraq, and every other power he has been given, or he's just taken, has been done so under false pretenses. And what is even more insane is that not only do they continue to defend his past behavior, that we now know was built on a pack of lies, but they are defending his current and future behavior, towards Iran, which is looking like a repeat of Iraq.
Jill | 02.05.07 - 10:57 am | #

Crust, above: many believe that, under the Constitution, a President must be removed from office first by conviction on a bill of impeachment
by the Senate before he can be indicted, tried, etc.

The Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution implies no such thing. The belief is based on fallacious reasoning.
dcnataro | 02.05.07 - 10:58 am | #

Bullsmith writes:

Rather than report who actually works for Cheney, as he is required to, the VP's office simply filed a claim that it was actually part of both the executive and legislative bodies... Sorry for the lack of link.

Details from TPM:

Last week, in trying to break the lock on who actually works in the OVP--which the Vice President refuses to reveal--the guys at Muckraker stumbled across this entry from a government directory known as the "Plum Book":

"The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code)."

It appears that Cheney's office submitted this entry in lieu of a list of its employees, as federal agencies must do.

(BTW, I particularly agree with your comment at 10:42.)
Anonymous | 02.05.07 - 10:58 am | #

Oops, Anonymous @ 10:58 was me.
Crust | 02.05.07 - 10:59 am | #

Bullsmith,

I suppose Glenn should be flattered if his little blog had attracted enough attention to warrant a paid shill from the VP's office to come here and spread obvious nonsense for the gullible to absorb.

But then, the Vice Presidency isn't worth a bucket of Spit, and boy does Cheney ever prove that one true.

I can just picture the fascists in Cheney's office brainstorming up this crap in front of a whiteboard. So the VP exists in some nether world between the Legislative and Executive branches , and thus is immune to the responsibilities of either?

Congress should just cut his staff budget down to the known list of personnel. If he won't report someone working for him, then he doesn't get any salary money for them.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:59 am | #

Dcnatoro writes:

Crust, above: many believe that, under the Constitution, a President must be removed from office first by conviction on a bill of impeachment
by the Senate before he can be indicted, tried, etc.

The Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution implies no such thing. The belief is based on fallacious reasoning.

That's a very interesting point. Still, if only as a political matter, I think it makes to go for some other target (at least initially), e.g. Gonzales.
Crust | 02.05.07 - 11:03 am | #

If the VP is in some constitutional nether world, so much for any Unitary Executive.
lysias | 02.05.07 - 11:06 am | #

Constitutional Note:

Any "civil officer" can be Impeached by the house, and removed upon conviction by the Senate.

That is (I believe) any member of the Judiciary or Executive branches, including all cabinet, all staff down to the lowest clerk, though presumably not including the Military who should not qualify as "civil" officers.

So Gonzales can definitely be impeached. Anyone who refuses a Congressional subpoena should be impeached, and barred from ever working for the federal government again (which Congress can stipulate as part of impeachment).

I know the bar in the Senate is pretty high, but I really wonder if you can't force 16 Republican senators to vote with the Democrats on the issue of not allowing a member of the Executive to refuse to comply with a congressional Subpoena. Make them vote to give the Executive absolute power to ignore Congress' oversight capacity. They won't do it, I bet. Electoral poison. A vast majority thinks Congress is not being assertive enough in reigning in this Executive and running the war in Iraq. They might balk at Impeaching Bush himself, or Cheney, but Alberto Gonzales? Or other staffers?

Cheney and Gonzales have opined that Impeachment of the President is the only remedy Congress has when the Executive ignores them. Wrong. There's tons congress can do to make the Executive's life hell.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 11:07 am | #

Mr. Wittes must be right because I'm quite dizzy after reading this post. As I, in my limited way, understand it, the dispositive question would seem to be the legality or illegality of the actions taken and the activities pursued. By admitting that they had failed to apply the requirements of the statute to their actions - we won't change the program, but we will now ask for the legally mandated court approval thereof - the Bushites have admitted culpability in breaking the law. Domestic wiretapping without court approval was made illegal under the statute. No question then is available vis-a-vis their culpability - they have admitted as much. Several years ago when I defended criminals in court, if my client admitted his/her guilt in open court, my only reponse was an attempt to mitigate their punishment, as it was no longer possible to ethically argue their innocence. Much the same in this instance. The Executive has admitted guilt, let the system work. Punishment for infraction should follow - with the opportunity to argue mitigation.
Addison DeWitt | 02.05.07 - 11:08 am | #

BTW,

The bar for Removal from office on a question of Impeachment is 2/3 of the Senators present.

All that needs be done is to convince a sufficient number of Republicans to call in sick that day and 51 can constitute a 2/3 majority. If some combination of 25 republicans don't attend or vote yea, the conviction would stand.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 11:09 am | #

dcnataro: "My point: arguments are not rendered valid or invalid by the passion of the person arguing."

Very true.

But Wittes makes a curious turn from this logical truism.

Wittes argues that any passion, or even concern, about Presidential law-breaking is ipso facto irrational (not "serious"), because no one (other than himself) can possibly know the true state of affairs and therefore can reach no informed judgement, and therefore we should just shut up.

Because the expert Wittes can form no judgment, no one else can either. So, any judments outside of Wittes' brain are by definition illegitimate.

It's really quite a striking argument, one would almost say a ridiculous argument. One wouldn't accept it unless one really wanted to accept it, or wanted to use it as a club to silence some others who are making one's life uncomfortable (like possibly the judges on the Sixth Circuit). Gonzo has already announced that judges shouldn't opine on national security matters that they don't understand.

Wittes also shifts the burden onto the citizen to prove that the government is not complying with FISA and the Fourth Amendment, rather than the government meeting its burden of demonstrating its compliance with the law and the Constitution in sensitive areas such as wiretapping.
MD | 02.05.07 - 11:10 am | #

DanD
"Congress should just cut his staff budget down to the known list of personnel. If he won't report someone working for him, then he doesn't get any salary money for them."

A great idea, but Congress would never do a mean thing like that, unless of course it were non-binding.
Druthers | 02.05.07 - 11:12 am | #

If anyone has a subscription to TNR (not me anymore), perhaps you could post a link to Glenn's post in the comments there?
Crust | 02.05.07 - 11:15 am | #

Druthers,

Ah, but spending bills originate in the house, where Progressives who believe in the Constitution are running the show, and aren't too worried about Presidential aspirations.

All Congress has to do is submit a budget that includes no funding for Executive personnel not listed in the proper roster, and Cheney is screwed.

Bush can veto the budget of course, but then he gets no money for anything.

That is why they must never ever give a President any kind of "line item veto"

It would decisively tip the balance to the Executive's favour for the forseeable future. Much moreso than now.

Don't fall into despair over the general spinlessness of the Senate. The House is our friend now.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 11:15 am | #

GG, thanks for another solid post.

The piece highlights two separate problems.

First, the administration has conducted illegal surveilance activities, and they are getting away with it.

Second, segments of the journalistic community are failing our country, as they are becoming increasingly elite themselves, compliant to government, and complacent with it.

It is easy to become discouraged that much progress can be made on either issue.
casual observer | 02.05.07 - 11:20 am | #

TPM has been digging about on the Cheney employee and staffer issue.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/arch...ives/ 002431.php

"Thanks to Reader PD, we've identified what appears to be the entire staff of Vice President Dick Cheney's Senate office.

As some of you have noted, Cheney maintains a White House staff, and a Senate staff, paid for out of separate accounts reserved for each body.

PD found the information on Legistorm.com, a site which tracks title and salary information for congressional staffers; it's recent as of Sept. 30, 2006. These lucky 41 ostensibly support Cheney's efforts as president of that august chamber. We're still hard at work identifying who he's got working at the White House."

And, http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/arch...ives/ 002432.php

"And we thought such a thing didn't exist: over at the tremendous Secrecy News , Steven Aftergood has just posted (pdf) a 2004 directory for the White House Office of the Vice President.

Stamped "For Official Use Only," the four-page document lists 81 employees, including six who worked for Lynne Cheney. That's well over the 30 or so names Cheney's office is said to submit routinely to directory services.

The directory shows 23 staffers who worked exclusively on national security and homeland security issues. Meanwhile, three positions were dedicated on domestic policy issues; one of those was vacant at the time of the directory's publishing.

It's not clear how much overlap there is with the list we posted earlier of 41 staffers serving Cheney from the Senate's payroll according to a 2006 report. But at least now we're in the ballpark of the 88 staffers Laura Rozen estimated to be there."
MD | 02.05.07 - 11:25 am | #

DanD

I'll believe that when I see them standing rather than grand-standing.

It will have to be like a
shotgun wedding to get them to actually move.
For the moment they are planning 08, the lobbies are so rich.
Druthers | 02.05.07 - 11:26 am | #

Note Wittes' title "How not to decide whether warrantless wiretapping is legit?" He seems determined to leave open the possibility that warrantless wiretapping was illegal but nonetheless "legit".

Above I said he implicitly conceded that the program was illegal and I stand by that reading of the sentences in question. But I notice that he also explicitly says "I don't know whether it was lawful before the recent change". So he's trying to have it both/multiple ways. This is a pervasive problem with the way the media reports the NSA scandals ("TSP" and call database): they play all sorts of rhetorical tricks to obfuscate that laws were (and, at least in the case of the call database, still are) being broken.
Crust | 02.05.07 - 11:32 am | #

Just this once, shouldn't we all take a step back and ask for proof before we rush off to another ill-planned F.U.B.A.R. of a war? Just this once, oughtn't we be skeptical of the very same pronouncements from the very same people who lied to us using the very same words the last time? Just this once, shouldn't we try every possible avenue — including actually engaging in meaningful diplomacy — before we send other peoples' children off to fight in a war of George Bush's choice?

Because the bottom line is this: do you trust George Bush to be making the correct decisions for this nation, based on his abysmal record of repeated failures, piss poor record of planning for any and all contingencies, and the waste and fraud and rampant cronyism that gets attached to anything he and his Administration have touched? Yeah, me neither.
x | 02.05.07 - 11:32 am | #

A famous phrase from Ring Lardner's body of work provides an excellent summary of the meaning and message of the article GG dissects here:


"Shut up", he explained.




mistah charley, SB, MA, PhD | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 11:39 am | #

Addison DeWitt

Another example of magical thought and twisted logic can be made using your name.

Like Obama, who has the same name as, you know who, or almost, just change one letter, and whose middle name is Hussin, also like you know who, gets trashed by these same mouthpieces who will expound any meandering thought process... it could happen to you.

DeWitt is not far from Wittes. Just add an es and drop the De and you might have to prove to Glenn Beck that you are not a threat to the country.

With magical thought processes you can connect anything to anyone.

Please forgive me for using your name.
No harm meant.
Druthers | 02.05.07 - 11:43 am | #

Only blind, ignorant partisans would claim that President Bush acted wrongfully or illegally here.

How about "Only blind, ignorant partisans would claim that President Bush acted rightfully or legally here."
Gary | 02.05.07 - 12:08 pm | #

If the VP's office is part of both the executive and legislative branches, doesn't that make it harder to justify a refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena?
lysias | 02.05.07 - 12:10 pm | #

Look, if it's any comfort, mainstream historians in the past, and some conservative historians to this day, used to say the same things about the abolitionists. They were so shrill and strident and hysterical about slavery. If only they had been more "serious" and not let a bunch of partisan passions get in the way, we might have avoided the Civil War. (Seriously).
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 12:12 pm | #

You learn something new everyday.

Today I learned that our Vice President thinks he's a fourth and autonomous branch of government.

Just when I thought my jaw could go no lower...
.
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 12:14 pm | #

Don't waste your breath -- shun these people.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 12:19 pm | #

I could cry. I spent about 15 minutes writing a response to the bold. Haloscan ate it.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 12:21 pm | #

Haloscan ate it.

m.b.f., try hitting the back button on your browser.

(BTW, re "shunning these people" I'm with GG that this is a bad idea; see his excellent reply at 10:20 to a similar comment from VFW.)
Crust | 02.05.07 - 12:26 pm | #

It seems to me that the New Republic, more than most publications, would want to avoid writers who claim to have been places and seen things that nobody else had; as I recall that was exactly Stephen Glass's problem.
mrgumby2u | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 12:41 pm | #

I like the word "contour." Next time I get stopped for speeding:

Officer, are you aware of the contours of your antispeeding program? What are they exactly? You see, I have studied the rules of the road for quite some time. And, I must tell you, I find them to be quite cloudy. Murky, if you will. I cannot see the contours.

It's a complex issue, really. Are you sure you are able to give me a ticket under these circumstances?
Baldie McEagle | 02.05.07 - 12:55 pm | #

Previous posters have indicated SoMebodY is Anonymoose

Only insofar as there can't possibly be TWO people who share that particularly contorted thought process.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 12:57 pm | #

Too late, I have to start from scratch.

Don't waste your breath -- shun these people.

I think this is a terrible strategy. Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. these people are all hate-mongers. That they are considered mainstream figures to millions of people is troubling, and unanswered this hatred will fester and serve as a rot on our democratic systems, with potentially devastating consequences which need not be imminent to be any less real. After all, there were centuries of demonization of Jewish people before the Holocaust took place. Surf the links in Michelle Malkin's blogroll or surf through the links that she blogs and it won't take much effort to find evidence of violent fantasies of killing, imprisoning, or deporting "liberals" and "RINOs".

What is particularly insidious about the liberal bashing of today's pundits is that by directing their hate at a word that is generally understood to represent political ideas they cloak what would otherwise be naked bigotry. They've found a p.c. form of hate-mongering. But hate-mongering it is, and journalists need to start recognizing it as such.

On Friday Rush Limbaugh equated liberals with cockroaches [in the comments of that link Spocko provides examples of Melanie Morgan doing the same.] In Rwanda, the Hutus called the Tutsis cockroaches while they were killing them. Ann Coulter's rhetoric is difficult to distinguish from Hitler's. Sean Hannity standard mantra against liberals is virtually indistinguishable from an antiSemitic sign (scroll and look for the bold highlite) that appeared around the Ford factory in the '30s. O'Reilly's and Gibson's talk of a "liberal" war on Christmas is eerily similar to (ttp://www.newshounds.us/2004/12/15/ christmas_under_seige.php) Henry Ford's talk of a "Jewish" war on Christmas in The International Jew, a work that Nazis thought Ford deserving of the highest medal a foreigner could be awarded by the Reich.

When Hannity spits out the word "liberal" I can hear the scorn, derision, contempt ... the hate. The same hate I hear when a racist addresses someone he hates with some epithet or another. And I can't even begin to fathom how Alan Colmes sits there night after night and lets Hannity and his pals address Colmes as "you liberals." I imagine that if Father Coughlin co-hosted a program with a Jewish person he would address him/her as "you Jews."

That Hannity co-hosts a prime time program on a - I recognize this is arguable - news network is a sign of something wrong, very wrong, with our system of discourse.

And look at Katie Couric. One of the first things she did when she got the gig at CBS was to invite Rush to do a Free Speech segment. Can you imagine that? "Hey Rush, will you please do our program and tell the nation that we're cockroaches?"

Journalists need to start exposing this hatred as what it is. The only article I've seen broach this topic directly (other than what Dave Neiwert does on his blog) is this one by Michelle Cottle in The New Republic.

ttp://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060619& s=cottle062306

I had to present the links like this (with the h in http removed). Haloscan is telling me I have to many links.

The first version of this I wrote was better.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 12:57 pm | #

There is a man behind the curtain.

The old 'computers are scary and powerful' argument. The flashing twelve generation is particularly susceptible to this line of 'reasoning.' The idea that we can divine the truth by applying mystical algorithms to large data sets is no different than counting words in the King James to infer the true meaning of god's intentions.

It is the realm of crystals and harmonic frequencies. A purposeful fraud perpetuated on those who fear being left behind. As the Bush administration's surveillance programs are dragged into the sunlight, the "but we have computers now" argument is going to be at the forefront. I fear this argument will resonate well among those who both fear and loathe the 15 year old snot nosed punk from Geeksquad.

In a world that is both perpetually midnight and noon at the same time, the siren's song of order out of perpetual chaos, of a god machine with hearts and courage and brains for everyone will get heavy rotation on the Clear Channel apostles. If only the rain could wash out this cattle town with the rustling of blue velvet and static.

We must learn to read between the lines of code.
thelastnamechosen | 02.05.07 - 12:57 pm | #

AN OPEN LETTER TO GLENN GREENWALD

Dear Glenn,

This pertains to your previous post, so I apologize for putting it here, but I wanted to maximize the likelihood of your reading it.

In your previous post, you asserted that "Jewish donor groups" in the United States are "agitating for a U.S. war against Iran." I noticed, however, that you did not identify any such "groups" except AIPAC, and you did not describe any activities on the part of AIPAC that could be rationally classified as "agitating for a U.S. war against Iran."

When I asked in Comments if AIPAC had actually advocated an attack on Iran, you acknowledged that it had not, but professed to know that such an attack is AIPAC's "aim." You did not support your assertion with evidence. As you have long been an eloquent critic of those who make fact-free arguments based on assumptions about what is in other people's minds, I was quite surprised at your response.

If American "Jewish donor groups" are indeed "agitating" for a U.S. war against Iran, that is an awful thing, and I want to do what little I can to stop it. If you identify any specific groups, and provide me with, or direct me to, objective evidence of their agitation for war with Iran (an anonymous person's subjective assessment of the mood of the crowd at an AIPAC political event will not suffice in this regard), I will contact each such group directly. Not anonymously, but in my real-life capacity as an American Jewish attorney who occasionally donates to Jewish donor groups. (Not that I am in any way important ... far, far from it ... but I nevertheless believe I would have some sort of nominal standing to petition such groups.) I will tell them my strong belief that an attack on Iran would be a catastrophe for all concerned, including, emphatically, Israel. I will implore them to reconsider the disastrous path down which they are attempting to push our nation. If I have supported any such groups in the past, I will advise them that no further support shall be forthcoming unless they renounce all talk of war. I will also urge other American Jews in my acquaintance to do the same.

If you cannot supply the information I have requested in the preceding paragraph, then I would humbly request that you retract the accusation that "Jewish donor groups" are "agitating for a U.S. war against Iran."

I have been, and remain, a passionate admirer of your work. I know of no commentator in any medium whose credibility and intellectual honesty are equal to yours. But unless you can back up your accusations with specific, objective facts (in which case I will do as I have promised), you have in this instance fallen short of the high standards on which you have built your deservedly outstanding reputation.

Sincerely yours,
Gator90 | 02.05.07 - 12:58 pm | #

and reframing the Israel/Palestine issue.....The movie Pan's Labrinyth also addresses the same issues of going along with the status quo ...(the defenders/enforcers of their leaders gross mistakes.) Those who do not question and blindly follow the illegal acts of their leader (such as FISA)are as guilty as those who have abused their position of power.
Mary | 02.05.07 - 1:05 pm | #

Glenn, as always well said. But what is to be done with the class of pundits? As you have noted, theirs seem to be the only opinion that matters to those that would thrust us into even more conflict. How do we marginalize their opinions?
smgumby | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:07 pm | #

My mistake, that was Lee Rogers, Melanie Morgan's coworker, who said the cockroaches bit.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 1:08 pm | #

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ israel...2005881,00.html This link didn't get posted with my original post.

Something is happening in England that a group is reframing the Israel/Palestine issue. The movie Pan's Labyrinth also addresses the same issues of just following the status quo and not questioning the leaders motives. Those who do not question such as the obviously illegal FISA issue are as guilty as those who abuse the position of power.
Mary | 02.05.07 - 1:10 pm | #

Hey, I was once a "guest scholar" at Brookings! And I don't know jack shit about anything!
PanJack | 02.05.07 - 1:18 pm | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h? v=Ae5t_55OWbo Gator90, You may want to attend this conference of AIPAC...last year in May they had a whole presentation on confronting Iran. The William Kristol's Weekly Standard is another source for the reasons to attack Iran.
Mary | 02.05.07 - 1:19 pm | #

Not to speak for Glenn or anything but the top headlines at AIPAC.org today:

Nasrallah: "Everyone Knows" Iran and Syria Aid Hizballah

Iran Presses Ahead With Illicit Nuclear Program

Sen. Clinton Calls Iran Threat to United States and Israel


I'll leave it to others to judge whether that constitutes American "Jewish donor groups" "agitating" for a U.S. war against Iran.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:19 pm | #

Mary, nothing about Iran in the video...
smgumby | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:21 pm | #

Glenn,

Thanks for your cogent analysis. It is as if Mr Wittes is the living embodiment of the "noble lie," however one wishes to parse its historical context: Truth knowable to but the Few, the lie is told to the masses keep the Order of Society intact. And Mr Wittes -- as we may conclude an agent, unwitting or not, of those Few -- propagates the lie.

It is astonishing to witness Mr Wittes' thought process: He asserts blame on the Thing (for being unknowable) and not on his Person (for faililng to comprehend).

But, as if that lapse in logic were not enough, what is to comprehend? As you so rightly state, the US Code is clear on the matter. One need not fully understand the complexities, subtleties of how a crime was committed in order to first rightfully conclude that ... a crime was committed.

Though I try to steer away from ad hominems, I do wonder how blind the editors of TNR must be? It is one thing to have and voice an opinion, it is another entirely to rely upon rank illogic and an utter absence of common sense in order to deliver that opinion.

I continue to look for a range of analysis on the matter, whether or not my mind is already made up. However, I can clearly place no faith in TNR if Mr Wittes is exemplary of their rigor.


Sincerely,
Michael | 02.05.07 - 1:24 pm | #

Glenn is right about FISA. Glenn is also right about Wittes. Wittes is an ass. Walking into an empty FISA courtroom makes him an expert in nothing. And we know he wasn't there when anything was going on, because he doesn't have clearance.

4th Amendment wiretapping law is clear. No [warrant for] wiretapping in the US. The USCON Art. I, gives Congress authority to establish subject matter for Federal courts. Congress created a group of courts with sole jurisdiction to rule on the sorts of warrantsw under FISA. Clearly, this part of FISA is "constitutional" under Art. I, and current rulings. I think we can safely extrapolate that the NSA program involves some sort of computer, voice-recognition sifting of conversations -- leading to a more detailed, human analysis if the software alerts the security analysts.

The sort of people who have been briefed and like the program -- Jane Harmon, e.g. -- are dazzled by the sterility of the initial machine analysis and confuse the absence of an immediate human presence with a lack of actual eavesdropping. That is, if no one actually heard it the conversation remained inviolate and there was no eavesdropping, but if the computer beeped, there were exigent circumstances and no warrant was necessary. Moreover, I'd bet the ranch that the current FISA approval is along the lines of an automatic warrant for each beep.

This is the sort of argument you can get past the occasional sympathetic judge, but are unlikely to get approval for from any panel which has to make its evaluation public. That's because the underlying argument -- that a machine evaluation is not a "search" -- is complete bullshit under Katz and its progeny.
boar d laze | 02.05.07 - 1:28 pm | #

Gator,

Of course AIPAC isn't going to come out and say "attack iran" yet. It's too soon, and this leaves them plausible deniability.

Lots of pro-Iraq war pundits played the same game. Talk about the great threat saddam posed, talk about the need for regime change in Iraq, but never come out and say "Attack Iraq" so that no one can pin it to you later.

C'mon dude, don't be obtuse.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:40 pm | #

To achieve that, they reduce all political matters to nothing more than grand intellectual puzzles, and equate any real beliefs with primitive ignorance. That is what they mean by heinous, lowly "partisanship" -- genuine political convictions.

I've noticed this before. An unspoken assumption in all political punditry is that NO politician has any beliefs. There is only "positioning". How is Hillary positioning herself? What positioning is Senator Feingold accomplishing by this statement (or that statement) or legislation?

No one is credited with having ANY principles or beliefs.
Toby Tobiason | 02.05.07 - 1:41 pm | #

You're not going to understand Wittes by dismissing him as stupid.

You're not going to understand Wittes by accepting his description of himself as merely a journalist.

I'm guessing that Wittes sees himself, primarily, as a scholar, and I'm not guessing when I say that he sees a scholar's proper attitude as detachment.

The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 2001 :

http://www.peterberkowitz.com/ theprofessorsandbushvgore.htm
The Professors and Bush v. Gore
by Peter Berkowitz and Benjamin Wittes
...Reasonable people may differ over whether Bush v. Gore was correctly decided. But the charge that the decision is indefensible is itself indefensible. That this untenable charge has been made by legal scholars repeatedly and emphatically, and with dubious support in fact and law, is an abuse of authority and a betrayal of trust. If scholars do not maintain a reputation for fairness and disinterestedness, their own legitimacy may well suffer grievously in the eyes of the public, and so could American democracy. When scholars address the public on matters about which they are expert, the public has a right to expect that the scholars' reason, not their passion, is speaking...

I am thinking of what the scholar imposes upon himself; better, perhaps, of what he may fail to impose upon himself; of those abnegations which are the condition of his preserving the serenity in which alone he can work; I am thinking of an aloofness from burning issues, which is hard for generous and passionate natures, but without which they almost inevitably become advocates, agitators, crusaders, and propagandists. You may take Martin Luther or Erasmus for your model, but you cannot play both roles at once; you may not carry a sword beneath a scholar’s gown,...Luther cannot be domesticated in a university.

Dan: "Lots of pro-Iraq war pundits played the same game. Talk about the great threat saddam posed, talk about the need for regime change in Iraq, but never come out and say "Attack Iraq" so that no one can pin it to you later."

Precisely.

They create and surround us with their atmosphere, establish the assumptions that all "serious people" share, and create inevitabilities, all the while wailing how distasteful it all is but somebody (the "serious people") has to do it.

It's called propaganda.
MD | 02.05.07 - 1:52 pm | #

Perhaps, if I too had seen the color of the paneling in the FISA courtroom, I would have gained the esoteric gnostic knowledge of why 2+2 might not equal 4. I think that even so, I'd be concerned that, since it was possible to conceive of a way the secret program might be in violation of felony statute, it isn't important to prove that it isn't.

"Uh, gee, I don't know, but maybe it's legal" doesn't seem like a sensible approach for defining the powers of government. If only Wittes has spent some of the time he frittered away at the FISA courtroom leafing through a basic text on political theory, or even the Federalist papers.

Imagine if the crime we were discussing were murder, not electronic snooping. "We don't have enough details to know if it's murder, though they've admitted killing people without following the law. It's awfully subtle, you see." Well, yes, of course, an expert said so. Sure.
biggerbox | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 1:53 pm | #

I think Wittes is putting forward an interesting and potentially highly entertaining new legal theory. It is the "Judge, this law was just too complicated and subtle, so I ignored it." Consider the possibilities.
Hugh | 02.05.07 - 1:53 pm | #

Nuance unto nothing. Well acquainted with it back in the days of grad school.
rb | 02.05.07 - 1:56 pm | #

It's called propaganda.
MD | 02.05.07 - 1:52 pm |

"How are nations ruled and led into war? Politicians lie to journalists and then believe those lies when they see them in print."
—Austrian journalist Karl Kraus, explaining the causes of the First World War.

http://www.prwatch.org/tbwe/index.html
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 1:56 pm | #

Ok, I'm going to do better here.

From a Document published by AIPAC to a web site called "Iran Watch" (check out the contributers, all our favourites are on there).

"Iran may have the independent capability to develop a nuclear weapon within a year."

...

"Iran would be a strategic nightmare for the United States"

...

"Iran's leaders have publicly called for the destruction of Israel. They have boldly stated that it would take just one bomb to wipe Israel off the face of the map, while the Muslim world can absorb many nuclear bombs."

...
"Iran will cheat until it gets caught and increase its demands--all while continuing its misbehavior--"


I will be clear that they never call for attacking Iran outright, but if a country is illegally pursuing nuclear arms under the NPT, ignoring diplomatic attempts to stop it, would constitute a "strategic nightmare" for the US, and an existential threat for Israel if it got them and is within 1 year of obtaining them, what possible action would rectify this short of war?

It's a really disingenuous way to make the case without making the case.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:02 pm | #

What screenwriter William Goldman said of Hollywood is always worth keeping in mind of Washington:

Nobody. Knows. Anything.

And that goes double for noBodY
Davis X. Machina | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:05 pm | #

Imagine if the crime we were discussing were murder, not electronic snooping. "We don't have enough details to know if it's murder, though they've admitted killing people without following the law. It's awfully subtle, you see." Well, yes, of course, an expert said so. Sure.

You may think you're being snarky, but there's no doubt that some of the terrorist suspects who have been rendered to secret facilities in other countries have quite unfortunately died while in custody.

The fact that we know about a few suggests that there are many.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:06 pm | #

If AIPAC were to write a policy prescription regarding where to go for lunch:

Ok, so we're hungry, and it's 12pm, the traditional time for "lunch" as some call it.

Within our town is a pizza restaurant, a Sushi restaurant and a burger joint. No other food options exist.

We could go for pizza, but research shows pizza is very high in salt and fat, and is unhealthy. We could go for Sushi, except sometimes raw fish may be unclean and some people in our group are allergic to it.

Ok, so we'll leave the decision about where to go for lunch up to others, just remember, Pizza and Sushi are terrible options and won't work at all.

Glenn, I demand you retract the statement claiming that AIPAC advocated eating hamburgers for lunch! It's false, they never said that.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:09 pm | #

Paul, they were "interrogated" to death.

I wouldn't go so far as to conclude there are many, but I would say that some is too many.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 2:09 pm | #

sysprog: "I'm guessing that Wittes sees himself, primarily, as a scholar, and I'm not guessing when I say that he sees a scholar's proper attitude as detachment."

Detachment is useful in identifying issues, assessing the relevance of facts, and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts.

But once that analysis leads to a conclusion that is highly probable, one isn't detached about the conclusion or the value of the analysis. If one remains in magnificent detachment, then "detachment" becomes mere atmospherics and denies that the inquiry had any original, worthwhile purpose beyond a demonstration of the Method itself.

One can think of various scientists (and other professionals) who, while morbidly detached in their protocols and analysis, once the analysis establishes a useful conclusion, become tigers in its defense.

That's why upthread I referred to Wittes' procedure and posturing as "hyperventilating Rationalism;" the procedures and attributes of rationalism -- the technique -- are wholly untethered from the ends they purportedly serve, and become ends (or an Idol) in themselves.
MD | 02.05.07 - 2:09 pm | #

GATOR - I told you what the evidence is. Others here have as well. You just seem not to find it convincing. You've decided that the only "evidence" you will recognize is AIPAC coming out nand saying: "We want war with Iran now." But that isn't the only type of evidence to show that they are agitating for war. There is also circumstantial evidence. I presented much of it, as did others. Both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias, to name but two, found it persuasive as well and added their own observations. You can say you don't find the evidence persuasive but you can't say there isn't any evidence.

Do you consider the American Enterprise Institute to be a Jewish organization?
Glenn Greenwald | 02.05.07 - 2:14 pm | #

Based on a talk I heard Scott Ritter give, I would assume he lists evidence of an Israeli push for conflict with Iran in Target Iran.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 2:20 pm | #

sysprog, quoting Wittes:


"The Professors and Bush v. Gore
by Peter Berkowitz and Benjamin Wittes
...Reasonable people may differ over whether Bush v. Gore was correctly decided. But the charge that the decision is indefensible is itself indefensible. That this untenable charge has been made by legal scholars repeatedly and emphatically, and with dubious support in fact and law, is an abuse of authority and a betrayal of trust. If scholars do not maintain a reputation for fairness and disinterestedness, their own legitimacy may well suffer grievously in the eyes of the public, and so could American democracy. When scholars address the public on matters about which they are expert, the public has a right to expect that the scholars' reason, not their passion, is speaking..."

Note how passionate and aggressive Wittes is in his assessment of those he deems "passionate." And how quick he is to condemn, with passion, those whom he deems make "indefensible claims," though he had just conceded that "reasonable people" could disagree on the conclusion. Indeed, such people engage in an "abuse of authority and betrayal of trust."

Such harsh words from the putatively "detached" Wittes.

Until Wittes gets his aggressions and passions under control, and in accord with his own high standards, I will consider that Wittes has betrayed my "trust" and "abused his authority."
MD | 02.05.07 - 2:23 pm | #

Here, I found this review of Target Iran at Amazon that summarizes very well the same lecture I saw Ritter give.

Scroll up from the Comment box. I didn't see any other way to link the comment.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 2:34 pm | #

Wittes' latest book is titled "Starr: A Reassessment" and his basic thesis apparently (garnered from glancing through the Amazon page) is that Ken Starr acted honorably and in good faith even if he was perhaps excessive or misguided at times. I think that tells you all you need to know about Wittes and his credibility.
Crust | 02.05.07 - 2:35 pm | #

David Hilbert Says "Hogwash!"

Back in the 1970s, I was a math major. Like any other field, math has its fair share of folklore, and naturally this often involves legendary figures. David Hilbert is one such figure.

In 1900, Hilbert gave a speech setting out a list of 23 problems to be solved in the century ahead. It is widely regarded as the most influential speech in the history of mathematics.

Hilbert was the sort of figure who could make one's reputation if he was suitably impressed by ones work on just one single problem, and so people were always eager to present their work before him, and dazzle him with their brilliance.

But invariably, his most common response was to complain that the presentations were all too complicated, that he could not possibly follow them, and that surely it could not possibly be that complicated.

In short--the true sign of real intelligence is not the display of complexity, and the show-off of one's ability to master it, but rather the ability to cut through it.

If it's good enough for Hilbert, it's good enough for me--and anyone else who pretends to be a journalist.
Paul Rosenberg | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:37 pm | #

I just want to add here, that SomeBody's saying that the constitution gives the VP special powers is the VP's OWN THEORY. Look at Talking Points Memo... this is serious.
Seebach | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:38 pm | #

So call this a query. How did Benjamin Wittes' association with Brookings come about, even as a "guest scholar"?

I am always curious how a relatively small number of "scholars" and "experts" circulate through the carousel of institutes, schools, centers, and think tanks.

Benjamin Wittes I think has been associated with the conservative Hoover Institute (as well as the WaPo and the Atlantic) so how did he end up at the supposedly liberal Brookings?

There is a Tamara Wittes at the Saban Center at Brookings. She is married to a Ben Wittes but I don't know if this is the same Ben Wittes discussed here. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Who's Who handy.
Hugh | 02.05.07 - 2:51 pm | #

Wittes [from the article]:

So what is my assessment of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, informed by my decade of watching the court and the law that underlies it?

I don't know.

Well, duh. Assuming arguendo that Wittes does actually know what the FISC is up to, that hardly makes him any more knowledegable than others on what the maladministration has done outside the purview of the court. The maladministration is not the FISC. And what they're doing, as they admit, is things that the FISC wouldn't let them do. At best, Wittes's expertise here is limited to an exclusion: The maladministration is doing something the FISC doesn't do, so it's likely that it's not doing what the FISC routinely does.

All that's assuming that the FISC judges actually tell Wittes something not already in the public domain, so that he becomes something of an "expert" on such matters. I suspect they don't, but if I were Wittes, I wouldn't go bragging about "insider access", or he may find his sources (if any) drying up, and not even get a coffee out of them.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 2:53 pm | #

Not A Left-wing Wacko :

http://www.hoover.org/bios/diamond
The Hoover Institution
Larry Diamond
Senior Fellow
...During the first three months of 2004, Diamond served as a senior adviser on governance to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la- oe-weiss5feb05,0,3127707.story
Congress must stop an attack on Iran
By Leonard Weiss and Larry Diamond, LEONARD WEISS is a senior science fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. LARRY DIAMOND is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.
February 5, 2007
...recklessness, not prudence, has been the hallmark of this administration's foreign policy...
...Congress should not wait...
...It is, of course, possible that the president's truculent language and actions toward Iran are a bluff, an attempt to rein in its irresponsible behavior. But the administration's mendacious and incompetent course of action in taking the nation to war with Iraq gives us no reason to provide the president with the benefit of any doubt...
...Another war of choice would only pour fuel on the fires of the Middle East. And the history of this administration shows that if Congress does not constrain this president, he could well act recklessly again, in ways that would profoundly damage our national interest.

PAUL - In short--the true sign of real intelligence is not the display of complexity, and the show-off of one's ability to master it, but rather the ability to cut through it.

Perfect story, exactly the right conclusion.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.05.07 - 3:02 pm | #

Glenn,
This is off topc, but I'm confused. I thought you were moving to Salon and you were going to post a link to it? Did I miss something here? Did you change your mind?
Mary Thompson | 02.05.07 - 3:04 pm | #

Benjamin Wittes in the January/February issue of the Atlantic on Roe v Wade.

"Still, if Roe ever does die, I won't attend its funeral. Nor would I lift a finger to prevent a conservative president from nominating justices who might bury it once and for all."

snip

In short, Roe puts liberals in the position of defending a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply while freeing those conservatives from any obligation to articulate a responsible policy that might command majority support."

Mary Thompson, GG on Thurs:

Beginning next Thursday, February 8, this blog will be moving to Salon...
Crust | 02.05.07 - 3:07 pm | #

Thank you!
Mary Thompson | 02.05.07 - 3:09 pm | #

You're wordy, that's for sure. Salon will just love you. All that space they have to fill, you know?
Tim Finnegan | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 3:19 pm | #

Paul Rosenberg:

David Hilbert Says "Hogwash!"

One of my favourite T-shirts from undergrad days (which I stupidly neglected to acquire for my collection) was of an unclothed David Hilbert, washing himself in a tub, muttering, "Wo sind die verdammt Nullstellen?"

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Hugh:

Wittes' argument is that Roe should be ditched because this will make conservatives more responsible.....

Yeah, right. And pigs will fly too, if we just feed them properly.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 3:25 pm | #

"Wittes' argument is that Roe should be ditched because this will make conservatives more responsible."

I suppose that's better than Dinesh D'Souza's argument that Roe should be ditched so that Islamic terrorists will hate us less.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 3:30 pm | #

"Wittes' argument is that Roe should be ditched because this will make conservatives more responsible."

I suppose that's better than Dinesh D'Souza's argument that Roe should be ditched so that Islamic terrorists will hate us less.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 3:30 pm | #

Arne:

Zwischen den Wittischen Ohren, vielleicht?
William Timberman | 02.05.07 - 3:34 pm | #

Excellents points, Glenn, that I believe were in his own way made by Stephen Colbert at last year's WH Correspondents' Dinner and regularly on his show.

I.e. mocking the dishonest, self-referential, self-importnt, Bush-adulating, uncritical, arrogant, solipsistic, worthless, fatuous, closed-loop inanity that passes for journalism and analysis inside the actual and virtual DC beltway these days.

This worse than worthless faux journalistic establishment needs to be exposed and torn down, and I applaud your, Colbert's, Froomkin's and others' valiant and necessary efforts to do so. I have been trying to do this in my own very small way over at DailyKos and elsewhere, by exposing these insults to truth and logic and human intelligence--not to mention to our very society and democracy. To these liars and courtiers this is all just a game. To the rest of us, it is most decidedly not.
kovie | 02.05.07 - 3:39 pm | #

“Every conversation monitored under Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.

Why? Because evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned.”

STOP RIGHT THERE! THINK.

Clearly the Bush Administration knew that to be true. So what EVIDENCE do you have that Bush actually wants potential terrorists prosecuted? How many terrorists have been CONVICTED AND SENTENCED since 9/11?

Do the math folks. Think like a criminal. The clearest explanation is often right under your nose. False flag terrorism is a TACTIC of the Mossad and the CIA. The terrorists are merely doing the bidding of this administration and their surrogates. Any actual TRIAL with TV CAMERAS and EVIDENCE would blow their entire operation.

If they really want to arrest AND CONVICT terrorists, they would absolutely follow the letter of the law. They CHOSE not to. Coincidence? NOT!

What more do you need to know?

http://www.countercurrents.org/ u...assan050405.htm

Let’s start out with a recap of some highly disturbing events in this country, as reported by a mainstream newspaper on the United States in August of 2005:

http://www.timesherald.com/site/..._id=33380& rfi=6
I am the Witness | 02.05.07 - 3:47 pm | #

Dan D 02.05.07 - 1:40 pm

"Gator,

"Of course AIPAC isn't going to come out and say "attack iran" yet. "

That's the whole point of lobbying. Ideally you get it done quick, quiet, without debate, and by bribing as few people as possible. For that matter, Israel itself won't come out and say "bomb Iran now". In the same vein, GM and Ford won't come out publically against higher CAFE standards. The Oil Companies won't publically vocalize for tax breaks and more lenient environmental penalties, and you will never see a banking/finance company commercial bragging about the new, improved bankruptcy statute they just wrote.

That said, Gator's point is well taken. While public silence from AIPAC doesn't mean they are not exerting pressure for aggression towards Iran, it also doesn't provide evidence that they are. When considering AIPAC, it is important not to get into the same game as those who claim that the absence of Iraqi WMDs simply meant Saddam was superb at hiding WMDs.
casual observer | 02.05.07 - 3:56 pm | #

If they really want to arrest AND CONVICT terrorists, they would absolutely follow the letter of the law. They CHOSE not to. Coincidence? NOT!

I can't tell if your too paranoid or not paranoid enough. They don't need or want to try terrorist suspects if they want to simply deal with them off-the-books. One needn't conjure up complex foreign intrigues in order to figure that one out.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/...002/612/ re5.htm
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 3:56 pm | #

Re: What I said earlier in the thread on responding to Coulter et all.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/ a...ht_between.html

That's Mark Noonan picking up on the fascist themes in D'Souza's new book and trying to decide whether he should kill Muslims or liberals first.

Ok, when folks are talking about killing me, I find that hard to ignore.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 4:03 pm | #

Oh yeah, and the founder of that site, Matt Margolis, has his personal site linked in Malkin's blogroll.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 4:08 pm | #

m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 4:03 pm

"{Ok, when folks are talking about killing me, I find that hard to ignore."

I'd actually entertain Noonan's argument. If he killed me, then I wouldn't have to hear any more of his rediculous crap.

Kind of like the the story attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright-- who said that if he could be inside only one building for the rest of his life, it would be memorial hall at Harvard University. When asked why, he explained that from that position he would never again have to see the hideous exterior of the building.
casual observer | 02.05.07 - 4:16 pm | #

Is their anything that betrays the intellectual falseness of conservatives more than a guy who writes a review of a book he hasn't finished.
Tim Finnegan | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 4:18 pm | #

I have another theory about this matter. By posting the arguments in this way and claiming not to be able to come to a conclusion, he gives legitimacy to the Bush position: His illegal wiretapping, spying, etc. COULD be legal. He carries Bush's water while maintaining a supposed air of neutrality. He can't argue for Bush's side, because Bush has conceded, insofar as he is able. Besides, the people are against Bush now. So he tries to make Bush's point couched in an air of ambiguity.

By the way, the Fourth Amendment is abundantly clear, and there is no reason to be ambiguous on this subject if you just read your Bill of Rights.
Tom | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 4:23 pm | #

Ok, when folks are talking about killing me, I find that hard to ignore.
m.b.f. | 02.05.07 - 4:03 pm | #

m.b.f.,

Maybe I missed it, but I think Noonan said he’s conflicted over who to “fight” first not who to “kill” first and then he says, “we must finally confront the domestic left and force it out of power and influence.”

That’s a big difference. I want to “fight” people like Noonan and force them out of power and influence. I don’t want to kill him. I think that’s what he said in your link. Noonan is a kook capable of saying such a thing, but I don’t think he did in this instance.

And speaking of Coulter (who has been explicit in her eliminationist rhetoric) a recent article praising her referred to the majority of Americans who are opposed Bush’s ‘surge’ as a “radical fringe” – they really can’t accept the reality that they are now in the minority, so they just pretend otherwise. This distortion needs to be confronted – repeatedly, and loudly.

As Ms. Coulter alluded to, the Democrats make it next to impossible to win in Iraq, then they criticize the president for a failed policy….

They don't merely hide behind the Constitution's freedoms, they abuse it and distort it to fit their nihilistic philosophy. If you call them traitors they say you're trying to stop them from exercising their right to free speech. Well, if they can exercise their free speech rights by calling the president a warmonger, a liar and a dictator, then I can exercise my rights by calling them traitors….

… Yes, Ms. Coulter is correct; we must not allow the radical fringe to dominate the dialogue. Just as we are engaged in an unconventional war against terrorists; we must engage in an unconventional war against those who commit treason and try to label it freedom of speech.

http://www.americanthinker.com/ b...er_warrior.html
zack | 02.05.07 - 4:28 pm | #

If you identify any specific groups, and provide me with, or direct me to, objective evidence of their agitation for war with Iran (an anonymous person's subjective assessment of the mood of the crowd at an AIPAC political event will not suffice in this regard), I will contact each such group directly.
Gator90 | 02.05.07 - 12:58 pm

for Gator:

Iran: The Next War by James Bamford:

[snip]

Rosen was director of foreign-policy issues at Israel's powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Seated next to Rosen was AIPAC's Iran expert, Keith Weissman. He and Rosen had been working together closely for a decade to pressure U.S. officials and members of Congress to turn up the heat on Tehran.

Over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton, Franklin told the two lobbyists about a draft of a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive that dealt with U.S. policy on Iran. Crafted by Michael Rubin, the desk officer for Iraq and Iran in Feith's office, the document called, in essence, for regime change in Iran. In the Pentagon's view, according to one senior official there at the time, Iran was nothing but "a house of cards ready to be pushed over the precipice." So far, though, the White House had rejected the Pentagon's plan, favoring the State Department's more moderate position of diplomacy. Now, unwilling to play by the rules any longer, Franklin was taking the extraordinary—and illegal—step of passing on highly classified information to lobbyists for a foreign state. Unable to win the internal battle over Iran being waged within the administration, a member of Feith's secret unit in the Pentagon was effectively resorting to treason, recruiting AIPAC to use its enormous influence to pressure the president into adopting the draft directive and wage war against Iran.

It was a role that AIPAC was eager to play. Rosen, recognizing that Franklin could serve as a useful spy, immediately began plotting ways to plant him in the White House—specifically in the National Security Council, the epicenter of intelligence and national-security policy. By working there, Rosen told Franklin a few days later, he would be "by the elbow of the president."

Knowing that such a maneuver was well within AIPAC's capabilities, Franklin asked Rosen to "put in a good word" for him. Rosen agreed. "I'll do what I can," he said, adding that the breakfast meeting had been a real "eye-opener."

Working together, the two men hoped to sell the United States on yet another bloody war. A few miles away, digital recorders at the FBI's Language Services Section captured every word.

[/snip]

*
the farmer | 02.05.07 - 5:11 pm | #

One thing that I've observed about true experts on just about any subject is that they can explain said subject to laymen. Some of them don't have the patience to do so, but they could do it.

Witte declares himself an expert on FISA but admits that he doesn't understand it. I submit that his definition of "expert" is faulty: one is not considered an "expert" based solely on the amount of time spent studying a subject.
alpowolf | 02.05.07 - 5:31 pm | #

By admitting that they had failed to apply the requirements of the statute to their actions - we won't change the program, but we will now ask for the legally mandated court approval thereof - the Bushites have admitted culpability in breaking the law. Domestic wiretapping without court approval was made illegal under the statute. No question then is available vis-a-vis their culpability - they have admitted as much. Addison DeWitt 11:08 am

I think it's useful to keep accurate track of what the administration's arguments are and are not.

If I understand it correctly, the admin claims that their "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was (and still is) lawful even if conducted outside FISA, as authorized by the 9/18/01 AUMF, specifically, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It has been pointed out here that the Hamdan decision would appear to negate that view.

I take it from Gonzales' latest testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee that the admin decided to bring the program under FISA basically to make Congress feel better about it.

Your point about a defendant's inculpation is well-taken, but the admin has quite explicitly not made that concession - in fact, the A.G. insisted lately that everything they did before was lawful (which led to the memorable exchange with Schumer).
Jestaplero | 02.05.07 - 5:33 pm | #

Glenn: speaking of "superb post"s, as your fanbase via Salon builds and intensifies, new readers will hunger for background posts preceding their awareness of your invaluable work. This would be among the first posts I'd recommend.
ash | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 5:35 pm | #

Glenn,

When you said it was "simply true" that "Jewish groups" are "agitating for a U.S. war against Iran," I thought you were making a factual assertion that Jewish groups are agitating for a U.S. war against Iran. So I asked which specific organizations you were referring to, and what sort of "agitating" they were doing. Rather than provide any information, you stated, in essence, that you and others have pointed to assorted evidence at different times and if I don't believe it, that's my problem. I know you are very busy, and I guess that type of dismissive non-response is your prerogative.

You have now referred to two actual organizations, AIPAC and the American Enterprise Institute. I went to AIPAC's website and read carefully everything it said about Iran. I saw a great deal of concern/alarm about Iran posing a threat to Israel. There was nothing that could be construed, even broadly, as even hinting that the United States should militarily attack Iran. Neither you nor anyone else to my knowledge has identified anything AIPAC has said or done that could be so construed.

If you believe that AIPAC's expressions of alarm about Iran threatening Israel give rise to an inference that AIPAC is secretly plotting to engineer a U.S. war against Iran, you are entitled to believe that, and you may be right. But you ought to put it that way, instead of declaring that your highly debatable inference is an undisputed fact.

I was not familiar with AEI, but I went to its website also. It appears to be a right-wing or neoconservative "think tank." The website makes no discernible reference to Judaism that I saw. Judging crudely by surnames, a substantial number of its members are Jews. It has plenty of apparent non-Jews as well, including Lynn Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Yoo, Fred Thompson, and others. Its long-time president, CHRISTopher DeMuth, is presumably not Jewish. It is certainly not a "Jewish organization" as that term is commonly understood. The commonality shared by its members is not religion but a set of political beliefs. If AEI is a "Jewish organization" just because it has a large Jewish membership, then so is the ACLU, and probably half the civic organizations in New York City.

It appears, Glenn, that on this particular topic, your usual reliance on reasoned, fact-based analysis is abandoned in favor of speculation and fact-free innuendo.
Gator90 | 02.05.07 - 6:09 pm | #

Gator90,

Yeah, AIPAC never advocated eating hamburgers in my example. They just systemically eliminate all the other plausible options.

I provided a factual example of an AIPAC document where all the diplomatic options regarding Iran are analyzed and all are found lacking. They leave the conclusion up to the reader, but as they keep hyping 3 things:

1) Iran will have nukes real soon
2) Iran wants to destroy Israel
3) Iran is only playing at diplomacy for time so they can build their bombs

Taken together, this is a recipe for war and nothing else.

Right now this takes the form of specific calls for UN security council action, which they expect Iran to ignore, or even if they comply, as with Iraq, they will find a way to claim Iran did not comply. This isn't paranoia, since this exact scenario played out in 2003. We don't have to give everyone "benefit of the doubt" every time we play the game.

You're playing obtuse word games, and ignoring the obvious intent of what at least one group is doing. AIPAC is a Jewish lobby group calling for something other than diplomacy which they say won't work. The AEI is ostensibly not a Jewish organization, but gee, look, all of its concerns seem to neatly tie into Israel's concerns. What a coincidence!

I'm going to try the pizza, despite AIPAC's advice against it.
Dan D | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 6:44 pm | #

GATOR - It appears, Glenn, that on this particular topic, your usual reliance on reasoned, fact-based analysis is abandoned in favor of speculation and fact-free innuendo.

Can you acknowledge that you are disturbed by the suggestion that Jewish groups are pushing for war with Iran because you believe that behavior will be exploited against Jews and will fuel what you believe is unfair animosity and accusations against Jews? You don't want this suggestion to be true - you can admit that, right? I ask that based on prior statements of yours.

When we want badly enough for a proposition to be false, there is no evidence in the world that can persuade us that it's true. The fact that you don't want this to be true does not, of course, mean that it's true. But it does suggest that you would be more resistent to recognizing evidence than if you were neutrally searching for truth without hoping for an outcome one way or the other.

In January, 2003, Bush was still insisting that he did not want war with Iraq, that he had not yet decided to invade, and that he was doing everything possible to achieve a diplomatic solution. I guess, by your standards, nobody had any right at the time to suggest otherwise, because that would have just been
"speculation and fact-free innuendo" ("Show me specifically where Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq or was planning to! You can't! See, you have no evidence).

All you've done is create a definition of the word "evidence" (express, public admissions of intent) that you know in advance cannot be met. As Dan D (among otheres)has demonstrated, there is ample evidence for these claims. You are just choosing not to recognize it as evidence.
Glenn Greenwald | 02.05.07 - 6:52 pm | #

Gator90, there's paranoia, there's gullibility, and in between there's fool me twice shame on me.

When considering the available evidence, no matter how inconclusive you personally may find it, I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that what lobbyists for Israel, American Jewish donor groups, and the neocons who share most of their foreign policy views are after is military action against of Iran.

Only the very nicest of arguments would claim that military action and war are distinguishable in any meaningful way in the present circumstances. The argument that the above groups aren't calling for war is less than nice; it's either wishful thinking or pure sophistry.
William Timberman | 02.05.07 - 7:01 pm | #

Wittes is a younger version of David Brooks: weasely connected Beltway insider. He hates cartoon 'liberals' and probably had some bad experiences debating real ones in college.

He's a thing of straw and cardboard.
Max Renn | 02.05.07 - 7:08 pm | #

Glenn mentioned "circumstantial evidence" of AIPAC's agitation towards war with Iran.

I'm not taking a side in this debate as of yet, but I thought it would be useful to have a refresher course on circumstantial evidence. This is adapted from the New York State Jury Instructions:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

there are two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial.

direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as physical evidence or testimony of an eyewitness concerning what he or she actually heard, saw, smelled, tasted or touched.

circumstantial evidence flows from direct evidence. it is proof of a chain of circumstances from which you may infer or conclude that a fact, which was not proved directly, does exist.

let me give you an example.

let us assume that you entered this building an hour ago and it was not raining outside.

now, somebody walks into a jury room wearing a wet raincoat and carrying a dripping umbrella.

there is no direct evidence that it is raining outside because you did not see, hear, or feel the rain.

yet, you can reasonably infer from the facts and circumstances that it is raining outside.

the value of circumstantial evidence depends on the strength of the facts which form the basis of our conclusion or inference.

i remind you that circumstantial evidence is not to be discredited simply because it is circumstantial.

depending upon the case, it may sometime be more reliable than direct evidence and sometimes it may not be.
Jestaplero | 02.05.07 - 7:33 pm | #

Glenn,

I freely admit that the notion of American Jewish groups pushing America into an insane war of aggression in the delusional and immoral belief that this would somehow benefit Israel makes me more than uncomfortable. It sickens and horrifies me. Yes, I desperately wish for it not to be true.

That said, you still haven't defended your assertions directly, or with any specific facts, and you obviously do not intend to do so. That is your right, but I cannot help taking it as an acknowledgment of the atypically shaky factual ground on which your assertions rest.

Good night all,
Gator90 | 02.05.07 - 7:55 pm | #

May I propose that instead of using loose and not very useful terms such as "Jewish Groups" or "pro-Israel" (given the broad spectrum of political viewpoints in Israel, some of which are decidedly non-neocon), or constantly referring to the religion of many neocons (which happens to be Judaism), we use more ethnically and religiously neutral terms as neocon, pro-Likud, pro-Israeli right wing, or pro-Israeli war hawks?

I'm really not comfortable associating an entire country, let alone an entire religious and ethnic group, with the ideology and policies of a given political faction in the US and Israel. It's neither accurate nor fair, nor very helpful. And it feeds right into the often unfair tendency to accuse people who are opposed to neocon or right-wing Israeli policies as anti-Semites.

Is it fair to call the present US foreign policy representative of what its people support--especially given that 65% of them currently oppose it? If not, then I'd say that the same holds true for Israel, and especially Jewish people. Put another way, why is the religion of many if not most leading neocons in the US and Israel important? It is their policies and beliefs that matter, not their religion.
Kovie | 02.05.07 - 7:57 pm | #

I want to add to kovie's observation that Wittes, et al., are just playin' the game: his words also reveal a deep-seated fear, one of a different kind but not intensity from that of the gutless neo-cons. Perhaps as simple as fear of conflict, or of confrontation; regardless, his empty rhetoric reeks of fear, even in the substance (such as it is) of his text, with his refusal to engage any real world data. Compare the tissue-thin 'reasoning' of his puerile verbiage with, say, anything by Molly Ivins (may she travel the stars lightly), where passion was intimate with fact. Or Glenn, for that matter. Thanks, Glenn, for pointing out this garbage.
Dirty Dog | 02.05.07 - 8:00 pm | #

the whole dissection is so incredibly painful, the best i could do was scan through it -- i can only imagine how painful it must have been for mr. greenwald to have to read the entire initial article and then expend real time out of his life to knock this puffball off the shelf, a puffball which if left, apparently, harmlessly sitting on the shelf, would emit a gas so poisonous as to eventually, with others of its ilk, kill democracy deader than a doorknob.

i'm not much liking the way the world has evolved over the last 30+ years, but particularly the last six are making me queasy.
karen marie | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 8:00 pm | #

AIPAC is a Jewish lobby group

Not really accurate, relevant or helpful. It is far more accurate, relevant and helpful to view and refer to AIPAC as a right wing pro-Israel lobby that, unsurprisingly, is composed mostly of Jewish members (of a certain political pursuation, which is far more important than their religion).

The majority of US and world Jews appear to be AGAINT AIPAC policies and don't view them as furthering Jewish causes, so I don't think that it's fair to describe AIPAC as a "Jewish" lobby.

Is the GOP a "white Christian" party just because most of its members are white and Christian--especially given that so are most Democrats?

I'm not in ANY way trying to justify AIPAC's policies or practices, just trying to make sure that they're not seen as speaking for ME or other Jewish people.
Kovie | 02.05.07 - 8:04 pm | #

The only thing I am sure of after reading Wittes' pile of horse-shit is that he obviously doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. What Bush did (continues to do?) is about as nuanced and complex as running a stop sign.

.
adnoto | 02.05.07 - 8:18 pm | #

Gator,

I think your position is defensible, in that no doubt that there will never be a written statement from AIPAC calling for open agression against Iran. Personally I have no doubt that AIPAC and Israel would like to see the US bomb Iran--for the same reasons that Israel bombed Iraq's reactor.

Consider the quote below, from a blog linked in GGs post. This is not from AIPAC, granted, but from someone who considers herself a member of the "community of anti-terror activists and Israel-supporters" who attended the dinner/speech. Clinton puts the obligatory hard language out (Ka-ching), but then talked about diplomacy and dialogue, rather than war. The blogger responds:

"Of course, the idea of employing leverage short of war *may* have merit. And her mention of the threat of force combined with such measures as an alternative to war is worth noting."

"But while Hillary’s rhetoric of “engagement” may sound good, the community of *anti-terror activists* and Israel-supporters must realize that, at the most basic level, engaging with people who wish your destruction–and are actively working to achieve it–means strengthening a pernicious enemy."

The blogger is:

1. Defining Iraq as the pernicious Enemy;

2. Identifying herself in a community composed of conservatives ("anti-terror activists") and "Israel-supporters" who are targeted by Iran for destruction;

3. Diminishing the merit of any plan that applies "leverage short of war", and stating that such non-war options would result in strengthening the enemy.
casual observer | 02.05.07 - 8:47 pm | #

"1. Defining Iraq as the pernicious Enemy;"

IRAN--not Iraq.
casual observer | 02.05.07 - 8:51 pm | #

jestaplero: "I think it's useful to keep accurate track of what the administration's arguments are and are not."

Actually, the 9/18 AUMF is the administration's back-up argument.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ readingr...veillance11.pdf

Their primary argument is simply the President's authority under Article II, including but not limited to his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, "to protect the nation from further attacks." Under this argument, the President would have the authority to implement the TSP, with or without the 9-18 AUMF.

Their second argument is the 9-18 AUMF, which DOJ says "supplements" the President's Article II authority.

The DOJ further says the program complies with FISA.

It also argues that were FISA construed to "frustrate" the TSP, then FISA would be unconstitutional.
MD | 02.05.07 - 9:58 pm | #

As for AIPAC and Iran, this is excerpted from a Jim Lobe article, from nearly a year ago:

"Thus, the rhetoric of Vice President Dick Cheney and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton—two of the administration's most hawkish figures—has been particularly threatening in recent weeks, with Cheney vowing ”meaningful consequences” and Bolton ”tangible and painful consequences” in speeches last month to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) if Iran did not freeze its nuclear program.

Similarly, neo-conservatives closely associated with right-wing sectors in Israel have been most outspoken in arguing that the benefits of an attack strongly outweigh the possible costs.

Thus, while Hersh quoted Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the AIPAC-created Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as calling for war, if covert action, including “industrial accidents,” is not sufficient to set back Iran's nuclear program, the Sunday Times quoted former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle as asserting that destroying the program would be much easier than many anticipate.

”The attack would be over before anybody knew what had happened,” said Perle who told the AIPAC conference last month that a dozen B-2 bombers could handle the problem overnight.

His colleague at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has also stressed that “the administration is deadly serious... and while everyone recognizes the problems of any military action, there is a real belief that the consequences of Iran going nuclear would be worse.” '

If AIPAC itself isn't interested in war with Iran, apparently it's interested in listening to people who are.

http://www.tompaine.com/ articles...s_over_iran.php
MD | 02.05.07 - 10:14 pm | #

Glenn's point about TNR could apply to Mickey Kaus, Joe Klein, and other neo-liberals as well.

But why do the neo-libs do it?

Much of the reason is historical. Beginning as Democratic critics of liberalism, the neo-libs staked out positions to the right of liberals on taxes, deregulation, the welfare state, civil rights movement, and foreign affairs without being as programmatically right-wing as the Reagan Republicans. That allowed them to pose themselves as rational in comparison to the "partisan zealots" in both sides. But the chief rivals of the neo-libs have always been liberals within the Democratic Party and the neo-libs have always focused on criticizing liberals while finding "interesting," "counter-intuitive," and "intellectually compelling" reasons to agree with conservative views. This is the long-time formula for both TNR and Slate and is the context within which both magazines supported the Iraq invasion.

As the MSM began pandering more to the right, neo-liberals began (with few exceptions) to monopolize the "liberal" position in the media shoutfests. Thus, the MSM, neo-liberal journalists, and the right-wing attack media have combined to define all but the most mild liberalism as "outside" the realm of normal political discussion.

This is the reason for the current struggle between the left blogosphere and neo-liberal foreign policy. Liberals and leftists rightfully want to leverage the fact that they've been right about Iraq into renewed media legitimacy. For TNR, Slate, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, et. al, continuing to exclude liberals and the left is a matter of maintaining their own leverage within the Democratic Party and the media--a matter of survival.

That's the main reason why neo-liberals have been so nasty with their recent accusations of anti-Semitism. They sense that their position in American political life is being fundamentally challenged.
Ric Caric | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:34 pm | #

One thing that I can't get over is how little respect most neocons have for the American people. These so-called "conservative intellectuals" are so full of hubris that they still fail to understand why the American electorate broomed their ilk out of power last November. Nobody likes to be treated like a chump. With all their obfuscation of the truth, most of us understand the only appropriate place for "truthiness" is on the Colbert Report. The President admitted to breaking the FISA law - that's all I need to know. No one is above the law in this country. Nixon's resignation proved that but W hasn't the class to follow his example. I just hope that Congress has the cojones to do its constitutionally mandated duty to hold this administration responsible for its illegal actions.
Susan Smith | Homepage | 02.05.07 - 10:53 pm | #

Ric: "For TNR, Slate, Joe Klein, Thomas Friedman, et. al, continuing to exclude liberals and the left is a matter of maintaining their own leverage within the Democratic Party and the media--a matter of survival."

As Hillary Clinton is finding out, as described in this report of her address to a meeting of Democratic insiders this weekend:

"Senator Clinton, by contrast, struggled to win over her audience. Reminding it that she recently proposed capping troop levels, some in the crowd shouted out: "What about bringing them home?" Mrs Clinton persevered. "If I'd been president in October 2002 I would not have started this war," she said. "And if we haven't ended this war in Congress by January 2009, as president I will."

A carefully choreographed standing ovation by Clinton supporters followed, but at least two-thirds of those in the Washington Hilton remained seated.

Winning over the Democratic national committee members, particularly, is the candidates' first key challenge, as these are the people with the political muscle to influence donors and organise party workers during the primary nominating campaign.

During her face-off with Senator Obama, she was by far the most explicit and strident she has been on Iraq. But however she tries to criticise Mr Bush's "reckless war", many in the party cannot forgive her the vote, which they see as a calculated move at a time when Mr Bush was riding high in the polls."

http:// www.theaustralian.news.co...1170981,00.html
MD | 02.05.07 - 11:33 pm | #

A fundamental reading of the Fourth Amendment is all that is needed to determine if Bush's NSA survellience program is illegal/unconstitutional. No warrants within the U.S.= violation of the Fourth Amendment. Refusal to abide by the clearly stated statutes within FISA regarding warrants = breaking the law. Both are impeachable offenses. Far graver than lying about a consensual sexual relationship which was never a threat to our democracy. This administration IS such a threat.
impeachcheneythenbush | 02.06.07 - 12:28 am | #

What you don't know will hurt you.

Since at least the time of the Magna Carta, Star Chambers have been thought to be a bad thing precisely because we are not allowed to know what happens inside them. I guess Wittes figures that human nature has changed since then, and a govt not required to discipline its desires by having to prove its assertions in the light of day, will just control itself.
Glen Tomkins, MD, MPH | 02.06.07 - 12:52 am | #

I gave up on TNR quite a while ago. They've descended into mindless blather as they try desperately to suck up to the fonts of nonsense that really pay. They're career-driven whores, every one.
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 02.06.07 - 2:39 am | #

The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter. The Vice Presidency performs functions in both the legislative branch (see article I, section 3 of the Constitution) and in the executive branch (see article II, and amendments XII and XXV, of the Constitution, and section 106 of title 3 of the United States Code).

What a fucking imbecile (both Wittes and "soMebodY", who quotes him). I suppose that the President is also part of the legislature because of his veto power. Funny thing, though ... both the President and the VP are described in Article II -- "The Executive Branch". There is no mention of them in Article I -- "The Legislative Branch".
truth machine | 02.06.07 - 4:37 am | #

There is no mention of them in Article I

I take that back; the VP is mentioned as President of the Senate, but he's not a Senator, and has no vote unless there's tie. Which makes "soMebodY"'s statement
Thus the advice and consent of Vice President Cheney can be argued to imbue the TSA with additional legislative support profoundly idiotic. The only relevant "advice and consent of Vice President Cheney" would be a vote he cast concerning one of the issues laid out in the Constitution for which consent of the Senate is required. But there is no such vote cast by Cheney, and even if there had been such a vote, it would not "imbue the TSA with additional legislative support" unless that vote broke a tie in favor of the TSA.

Really, can someone be as stupid as "soMebodY", or is it just a troll's act?
truth machine | 02.06.07 - 4:49 am | #

I suppose that's better than Dinesh D'Souza's argument that Roe should be ditched so that Islamic terrorists will hate us less.

http://cars.itinto.us
Neonila | Homepage | 02.06.07 - 4:50 am | #

Bingo. You nailed it.

For the eager-to-please, self-styled Beltway insider-experts, a failure to form a clear political opinion is the mark of both intellectual and moral superiority, of emotional maturity, and is the hallmark of that most coveted Washington virtue -- seriousness."
Ben Brackley | 02.06.07 - 7:47 am | #

Has anyone mentioned that FISA was specifically updated in 2002?
LnGrrrR | 02.06.07 - 8:25 am | #

Casual Observer snd MD,

An anonymous blogger? Speaking engagements by a Vice President and UN Ambassador? That the search for evidence of AIPAC's warmongering machinations must stretch to such lengths speaks volumes about the fact-free nature of Glenn's accusations.

All I asked of Glenn was that he say something along the lines of, "It is a fact that Jewish Group X has done Y, and Y constitutes agitating for a U.S. war against Iran." He steadfastly refused to do so, choosing instead to dissect my motivations. Evidently, it is something he just knows in his gut.
Gator90 | 02.06.07 - 8:36 am | #

"Unlike you, who has formed one of those dirty opinions that the President has no right to break the law,..."

we are all Orthodontists. Long live Orthodontia!
.
yowzer | 02.06.07 - 8:44 am | #

"I don't know", "can't form an opinion" = chicken eggheads
ironranger | 02.06.07 - 9:02 am | #

Evidently, it is something he just knows in his gut.

Evidently, you don't follow his links.
Susan | 02.06.07 - 10:22 am | #

Maybe I missed it, but I think Noonan said he’s conflicted over who to “fight” first not who to “kill” first and then he says, “we must finally confront the domestic left and force it out of power and influence.”

That’s a big difference. I want to “fight” people like Noonan and force them out of power and influence. I don’t want to kill him. I think that’s what he said in your link. Noonan is a kook capable of saying such a thing, but I don’t think he did in this instance.

You're making the mistake of thinking Noonan writes or thinks in plain English. You're also thinking that Coulter is worse than Noonan because her rhetoric is more explicitly violent, the opposite is the case. Coulter is more what Dave Neiwert calls a pseudofascist, Noonan is closer to the real deal.

Translated back from totalitarian think (see Hannah Arendt, Origns of Totalitarianism), what Noonan wrote does indeed amount to deciding who to kill first Muslims or "liberals."

He wrote he didn't know what enemy should be addressed first, "Islamofascists" or "the Left." He's already advocating complete global war to kill "Islamofascists," and he's putting "the Left" on the same footing.

I've read enough of his blogging and understand enough of how authoritarian/totalitarian/fascist thought works to be able to see what he means when he writes something like that.
m.b.f. | 02.06.07 - 10:40 am | #

This is the same Benjamin Wittes who was all over television during Lewinsky telling us why Clinton was a criminal who should be impeached; who wrote a book about Ken Starr portraying him as "an honorably (and apolitically) motivated man"; and who defended the judicial usurpation known as Bush v. Gore. But now he's a neutral judicious arbiter of the most flagrant violation of search and seizure law in our history. Good to know. Thanks, TNR for bringing this quiet voice of reasoned legal analysis to our attention.
Potato Head | 02.06.07 - 12:16 pm | #

It sounds as though Gator90's
definition of evidence is a full fledged confession, Soviet style.
Public self accusations, micro photos hidden in fruit cake etc. After having seen Jose Padilla shown wearing goggles and sound deprivation head gear Is this where we are?

No lobby gives money for nothing. Look at the votes in Congress. Who is paying? Why?
Druthers | 02.06.07 - 12:16 pm | #

Gator:

"An anonymous blogger? "

What do you mean anonymous. The blogger is named in Greenwald's reference, and her name and bio appear at the top of her blog. The link, the name, is right there.

What, Gator, is the malfunction here.
casual observer | 02.06.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Sorry Casual, you didn't identify the blogger in your comment and I didn't realize it was someone previously identified elsewhere. You are welcome to substitute "obscure blogger who is not representative of any recognized organization" for "anonymous blogger" in the comment to which you respond.
Gator90 | 02.06.07 - 3:35 pm | #

Druthers,

Like Glenn, you mischaracterize my alleged definition of "evidence" without identifying anything YOU consider to be evidence. This discussion started when I asked Glenn to identify facts that supported an assertion he had made. He couldn't or wouldn't do so, and neither have you.
Gator90 | 02.06.07 - 3:45 pm | #

"Some day, we will finally learn what the program really was and why it couldn't, and then could, be approved through the FISA Court. Details will leak, or the technology will become too obsolete to warrant continued protection."

I doubt it. Sure, the technology will, someday, be seen as outdated, perhaps even primitive, but there will be a reason to keep the details of the program classified for a long, long time. But not because of the technological aspects. It'll be because of the embarassment that revealing those details would create for certain individuals and political parties.
rt | 02.07.07 - 12:14 am | #

gator,
"you didn't identify the blogger in your comment and I didn't realize it was someone previously identified elsewhere."

The blogger's name and link were provided in the piece you were criticizing--the piece these comments are attached to--and not 'elsewhere' as you describe it. You are now exercising willful blindness--and, much as I love to argue, I can't argue with that.
casual observer | 02.07.07 - 11:39 am | #

Glenn Greenwald neglected to mention Benjamin Wittes ties to Kenneth Starr. He used to write editorials supporting the Starr witchunt for the Washington Post editorial page. He also wrote a book portraying Starr as a misunderstood decent prosecutor who was just doing his job and getting unfairly criticized by that evil Clinton.
Nan | 02.07.07 - 7:27 pm | #

runescape gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:31 am | #

EVE ISK


EVE ONLINE ISK


EVE ONLINE
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:33 am | #

isk EVE online


EVE ISK


Cheapest EVE online isk


runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:34 am | #

buy EVE online isk


cheap EVE online isk


EVE online sale


runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:56 am | #

isk EVE online
EVE ISK
Cheapest EVE online isk
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:58 am | #

EVE ISK
EVE ONLINE ISK
EVE ONLINE
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 5:59 am | #

buy cheap guild wars gold
guild wars gold
buy guild wars gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:00 am | #

cheap MapleStory mesos
cheap guild wars gold
guild wars sale
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:02 am | #

gold guild wars
cheapest guild wars gold
Guild Wars Power leveling
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:04 am | #

GW gold
Guild Wars
Guild Wars gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:05 am | #

Guild Wars money
Buy Guild Wars gold
cheap Guild Wars gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:05 am | #

vanguard woefeather
maplestory mesos
buy MapleStory mesos
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:08 am | #

buy vanguard gold
buy vanguard money
buy vanguard soh gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:12 am | #

vanguard power leveling
vanguard sage of heroes power leveling
vanguard flamehammer
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:16 am | #

vanguard woefeather
maplestory mesos
buy MapleStory mesos
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:19 am | #

cheap MapleStory mesos
MapleStory sale
Cheapest MapleStory mesos
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:23 am | #

buy cheap maplestory
maple story
MapleStory mesos
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:24 am | #

maplestory gold
MapleStory mesos gold
MapleStory mesos money
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:27 am | #

wow gold
wow gold us
wow gold eu
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:30 am | #

wow money
wow money us
wow Gold
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:31 am | #

wow money eu
wow 1-60 power leveling
wow us 1-60 power leveling
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:34 am | #

wow eu 1-60 power leveling
buy wow gold
buy wow gold us
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:34 am | #

gaia gold
gaia online money
gaia money
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:46 am | #

gaia online money
gaia online gold
gaia online
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 6:48 am | #

cheap gaia gold
buy gaia online gold
buy gaia online money
runescape gold | Homepage | 05.18.07 - 7:06 am | #

Thanks.

You are welcome to add your links to FREE weblinks directory
Diwi | Homepage | 05.29.07 - 5:37 pm | #

http://www.webmotril.com
http://www.webmotril.com/directo...-web/ index.html

http://www.foros.webmotril.com
los foros
http://www.anuncios.webmotril.com
http://www.webmotril.com/partners3.html
anunciate ya anuncios gratis
http://www.chat.webmotril.com
ven a chatear gratis
http://www.links.webmotril.com


liens gratuits en dur
http://r.guerrero.free.fr/
http://r.guerrero.free.fr/directory/

web directory

http://www.inmobiliaria.webmotril.com
http://www.richard.webmotril.com
http://www.manga.webmotril.com

http://www.internet.webmotril.com

http://www.love.webmotril.com
http://www.movil.webmotril.com

http://pages.over-blog.net/
http://tempsperdu.over-blog.org/

http://angifere.over-blog.com
http://laguiaweb.blogspot.com/
portal web | Homepage | 09.08.07 - 2:57 pm | #

Dear Oprah,

I am writing to you about discrimination which has been expressed by the selective enforcement of city ordinances against me with respect to my rental business in Southern Indiana once city officials discovered that I am a Jewish person.

More about me: I was named to the "30 under 30" list by my alma mater and did my PhD work at Princeton Univ. under John Nash. I am a applied mathematician/ entrepreneur in my day job.

In the years since I completed my undergraduate work at IU in 1998, I proceeded to buy a small number of rental properties in Bloomington, Indiana, which I have successfully run as a side business for a number of years.

However, about 2-3 years ago, the normal flow of my side rental business ran into some serious roadblocks.

It started when two housing inspectors made a number of explicit anti-semitic statements to me and to a Jewish tenant at one of my rentals.

Soon thereafter, four (4) groups of my otherwise law-abiding and happy tenants were threatened with $10,000 + fine (assessed PER tenant) for alleged ordinance violations.

Long story short, I was soon stuck with numerous vacancies and left paying the mortgage payments on these properties which were subsequently burglarized and vandalized. At the same time, the Housing Department caused complaint inspections to take place at these properties, identifying dozens and dozens of "defects" in the properties not otherwise noted in previous move-in inspections and causing me to incur thousands of dollars of needless "improvements".

And then the Legal Department went to work on me, filing at least five (5) lawsuits against me for alleged ordinance violations, and at the same time, the Legal Department Chief's wife, over at Student Legal Services, encouraged my erstwhile tenants to sue me for recovery of their security deposits, in spite of their breaches. I was soon dealing with about ten lawsuits at once.

So in April 2007, I filed a lawsuit against the City of Bloomington for violating my right to equal protection of the law, and a number of other civil rights violations. For reasons unbeknownst to me, I have become of the despotism of city government in small town Indiana. My attorneys have recently discovered that my case is not unique. Another Jewish landlord also has a case pending in federal court against the City, regarding the improper withholding of a building permit based upon the impermissible consideration that the prospective buyer of the commercial property in question was a Jewish investor from New York.

My life has been turned upside down by the systematic abuse of ordinances and
judicial proceedings. I find it outrageous that such a negative spirit still thrives in modern America. I would love the opportunity to talk about my story on your show, as I think it is in the public interest.

Seth Patinkin
Seth Patinkin | Homepage | 10.28.07 - 3:23 pm | #

There is something strangely odd about the dead silence from the presumed leaders of the black community after the Iowa elections, in that in all other racial issues, they are quite vocal about the racial community and its feelings.

The indication that the election is rooted in racial issues can be felt from Obama's remarks after his Iowa win in saying that "They said this day would never come..."

From 30+ years of MLK Messiah messages, the fact that the election is now greeted with such dead silence is extraordinary, if not unrealistic.

Are whites naive not to question this silence of the dead when racial political issues have become the central focus of the campaign?

More than politically incorrect, it may well be political ignorance or political insanity on the part of whites since blacks remain but 10% of the population.

The few inquiring minds of whites, or vocal endorsements by blacks should signal a political coup rather than an electoral victory.
Pat | 01.10.08 - 12:26 pm | #

Casino Bonuses – Keeping it Straight Ya’ll



Give me a break, everyone that is posting about free casino bonuses, please be accurate.
There are such things as no deposit bonuses however, they usually amount to 15-25 bucks a pop.
The bigger bonuses that everyone keeps rambling about are given only upon making an initial deposit with
the online casino, which has minimum requirements that should be met for the player to actually collect the bonus.
My recommendation is to read the promotions page extremely carefully and understand all the conditions for being
eligible for collecting the different bonuses. My 2cents. Peace Out.
James | Homepage | 03.06.08 - 11:51 am | #

I will leave tracks though it doesn't understand well.
DCカード | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 9:44 pm | #

Really informative blog
Hazem | Homepage | 08.10.08 - 4:54 pm | #

custom badges
lapel pins manufacturer
MP3 Players
lapel pins | Homepage | 08.21.08 - 5:06 am | #

thanks you..
arıtma | Homepage | 02.17.09 - 5:55 am | #

Hello to all game lovers. I have very good news to all of you. There is a new online game that called Vanguard Gold. So, just relax and enjoy.
________________________________________
cristiano
Yes but when you really look at what is out there or is it their you will find that it is the only thing that can be said or done about the whole thing.
Vanguard Gold
cristiano | Homepage | 04.09.09 - 9:37 pm | #

thanks
korkuluk | Homepage | 04.16.09 - 10:57 am | #

Thank You..
yozgat otelleri | Homepage | 04.29.09 - 11:22 am | #

Higher education is a dream that is definitely worth having. Do not allow financial limitations to keep you from your goal if possible but enter into all financial arrangements with great caution and thought.
syarih | Homepage | 05.15.09 - 10:57 am | #

thank you..
su arıtma cihazı | Homepage | 06.15.09 - 8:49 am | #

thanks
izmir matbaa | Homepage | 06.29.09 - 8:45 am | #