Big Brother is watching...

[I miss Reagan]

Are you people so dumb that you can't grasp the very specific differences between the cases? I guess so.

Hey Black Dog is that any way to treat an old friend?

[Black Dog]

Hey Black Dog is that any way to treat an old friend?

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you didn't read the rest of the thread where I explained, in very simple terms, why the Carter/Clinton situations weren't analagous with the NSA program. I mean, I only did it three separate times.

Interesting that none of the individuals who raised that comparison (BHS, Shady, MB) have been by to try and counter my refutation.

[Montgomery Burns]

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree....Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

The bottom line:

81% of Republicans, 57% of Independents and even 51% of your opponents, the Democrats = mandate.

64% of Americans versus 23% of Americans = strong mandate.

What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? Get rid of these far-leftists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and replace them with centre-leftists. Honest, sometimes it seems like Al Qaeda is part of their voting base. They want Geneva Conventions rights for the terrorists, they get upset that the terrorists at Gitmo only get Duck a la Orange once a week, they whine about civil liberties regarding the govt eavesdropping on communications between foreign terrorists and American citizens, and they constantly demoralize the US military and at the same time, embolden the terrorists.

What's next?

Miranda Rights for the terrorists or they go free?

The war was illegal and immoral, ergo the Saddam trial is a sham and he should be put back in power?

The Republicans make their share of gaffes, but the Democrats seem to be out to lunch. Who is advising them on this strategy....or are they all infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)? If the MSM was anywhere fair-and-balanced, the Dems would be toast.

And a big FU to the NY Times for reporting secret information to the world. You jerks just gave secret info to Al Qaeda and associates and will cost American lives. I think Ann Coulter might have been on to something when she spoke of you....

[tml12]

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree....Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

The bottom line:

81% of Republicans, 57% of Independents and even 51% of your opponents, the Democrats = mandate.

64% of Americans versus 23% of Americans = strong mandate.

What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? Get rid of these far-leftists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and replace them with centre-leftists. Honest, sometimes it seems like Al Qaeda is part of their voting base. They want Geneva Conventions rights for the terrorists, they get upset that the terrorists at Gitmo only get Duck a la Orange once a week, they whine about civil liberties regarding the govt eavesdropping on communications between foreign terrorists and American citizens, and they constantly demoralize the US military and at the same time, embolden the terrorists.

What's next?

Miranda Rights for the terrorists or they go free?

The war was illegal and immoral, ergo the Saddam trial is a sham and he should be put back in power?

The Republicans make their share of gaffes, but the Democrats seem to be out to lunch. Who is advising them on this strategy....or are they all infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)? If the MSM was anywhere fair-and-balanced, the Dems would be toast.

And a big FU to the NY Times for reporting secret information to the world. You jerks just gave secret info to Al Qaeda and associates and will cost American lives. I think Ann Coulter might have been on to something when she spoke of you....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed Burns but these people are inherently STUPID...

[Black Dog]

The bottom line:

81% of Republicans, 57% of Independents and even 51% of your opponents, the Democrats = mandate.

64% of Americans versus 23% of Americans = strong mandate.

The bottom line is the question doesn't speak to the issue. The federal government already had the ability to eavesdrop on terror suspects using easily obtainable warrants. Instead they chose to flout existing laws and conduct warrantless spying on U.S citizens. So far we have only their word that they were only targetting terror suspects. Which, even if true, is no excuse for flouting the law.

Again, I suspect th erepsonses would breakdown somewhat differently if the question was "Do you believe the government should have the unrestricted ability to spy on American citizens" or the more trenchant "Do you believe there should be no limits placed on the Presidents power to fight terrorism?"

Because that's what this boils down to: the belief among G.O.P partisans that the president should have absolute power to do whatever he pleases in teh name of fighting terrorism.

What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? Get rid of these far-leftists like Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and replace them with centre-leftists. Honest, sometimes it seems like Al Qaeda is part of their voting base. They want Geneva Conventions rights for the terrorists, they get upset that the terrorists at Gitmo only get Duck a la Orange once a week, they whine about civil liberties regarding the govt eavesdropping on communications between foreign terrorists and American citizens, and they constantly demoralize the US military and at the same time, embolden the terrorists.

You know, I'm sure the Donks appreciate your advice , but something tells me you don't have their best interests at heart...

And a big FU to the NY Times for reporting secret information to the world. You jerks just gave secret info to Al Qaeda and associates and will cost American lives. I think Ann Coulter might have been on to something when she spoke of you....

Given that the government has always had the ability to eavesdrop on conversations (not to mention the fact that Bush himself has, repeatedly, publicly gone into great detail about how the government engages in surveillance against terrorists; see below), this type of intelligence gathering is hardly a secret.

Here's Bush telling terrorists about roving wiretaps.

Here he is telling terrorists about "sneak and peak"searches.

And here he is talking about listening in on phone calls.

It's funny to watch the right wing twist themselves into pretzels to defend the gross abuses perpetrated by their party in the name of "fighting terror". It seems Republican partisans want a true nanny state, where Big Daddy government is allowed to do whatever it pleases (including violating the law and eroding civil rights) to protect the snivelling children from the big, bad bogeyman terrorists under the bed.

[Black Dog]

Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop: poll

56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

I said earlier that Republicans are bascially cowards who are so afrid of thier own shadows and the beasties that might lurk under the bed that they are willing to cede their civil liberties to Big Daddy government. It's always nice to see confirmation.

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.

Given that, in Republican land, the President is the law, then defining who is a lawbreaker becomes a bit problematic...

The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists.

"Of course," he added, "we all could be suspected terrorists."

[BHS]

BD:

I see you've tried in an earlier post to get me to refute your arguments about why what Bush has done (in a unique situation that neither Clinton nor Carter faced) is different from what Clinton and Carter did. But I'm not going to. You win. Well, sort of. The legality of FISA's curtailment of Presidential authority to approve wiretaps has never been tested by the Supreme Court and in such at test it would likely fail, so the likelihood of legal fallout is pretty much nil. And as Bush himself said (paraphrasing from memory), "If you're talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know about it". Which, in one short sentence, explains why there's unlikely to be any significant political fallout either.

But I'm bored with this topic. My primary interest with this turn of events is how it compares to the Plame controversy. But as of this writing I've not yet heard anything more than rumours about an inquiry into the leak, so the whole thing has been pretty much off of my radar for about a week or so now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

My primary interest with this turn of events is how it compares to the Plame controversy. But as of this writing I've not yet heard anything more than rumours about an inquiry into the leak, so the whole thing has been pretty much off of my radar for about a week or so now

Indeed, I haven't heard much either, but I haven't really gone looking. With the Plame investigation, I am assuming that the FBI will drag out the investigation, and then issue a statement (after an 'appropriate period of time') that there is not enough evidence to pursue a conviction. Much like they did during the Anthrax attack in the US (which was traced to a US military bio-weapons lab and then when errrrrch)

[Black Dog]

The legality of FISA's curtailment of Presidential authority to approve wiretaps has never been tested by the Supreme Court and in such at test it would likely fail, so the likelihood of legal fallout is pretty much nil.

I'll bite: why do you think such a test would fail? Given the potential Constitutional issues here, I wouldn't bet the farm if I were you.

And as Bush himself said (paraphrasing from memory), "If you're talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know about it". Which, in one short sentence, explains why there's unlikely to be any significant political fallout either.

Well, if people are willing to accept that distorted view of the issue, sure. But that's why opponents need to work to make it clear that the issue (and I don't know how many times I can say this before it sinks in) is really about the limits on Executive authority and the wisdom of trusting a government with a track record of both monitoring protestors and political groups and attacking any of its political foes as traitors. Put it bluntly, those seeking to minimize this are saying it is ok for George W. Bush to continue to violate the laws of the people and the government of the U.S.A because he says it's ok.

[YankAbroad]

Again, suppose Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter "did it" too.

If I murder someone and then point out that other murderers remain unarrested, on the run, and unconvicted, does that mean I shouldn't face the music myself? Of course not.

Ditto for people who murder our constitution.

[Black Dog]

Report Rebuts Bush on Spying

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.

The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.

...

The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.

The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.

"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.

In case you're wondering, the Congressional Research Service is the public policy resear ch arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

[BHS]

... trusting a government with a track record of both monitoring protestors and political groups and attacking any of its political foes as traitors...

As did every administration throughout the twentieth century, to varying degrees. Besides which, if the next attack came from "protestors" or "political groups" that the administration had treated with kid gloves the anti-Bush people would be the first ones shrieking that Bush hadn't done his job, a la the 911 commission.

As for using government resources for attacking political foes, I refer you to the precedent Clinton set when he used the FBI to dig up dirt on his enemies. Not that you're a big fan of Clinton either, and not that I'm defending the practice. It's just that I read a lot of posts in this forum that seem to imply that no presidential malfeasance predates January 2001.

[BHS]

Again, suppose Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter "did it" too.

If I murder someone and then point out that other murderers remain unarrested, on the run, and unconvicted, does that mean I shouldn't face the music myself? Of course not.

Ditto for people who murder our constitution.

That's a lousy comparison, in that it begs the question of whether a crime as been committed to begin with. As for murdering the constitution, I gather you're no fan of Roe v Wade either.

[Guest eureka]

It is true that every US administration has done the same. Much more was done by Hoover that was not authorized by the administration.

Interestingly, FDR did authorize the FBI to carry out wiretapping and other surveillance tactics.

[Black Dog]

As did every administration throughout the twentieth century, to varying degrees. Besides which, if the next attack came from "protestors" or "political groups" that the administration had treated with kid gloves the anti-Bush people would be the first ones shrieking that Bush hadn't done his job, a la the 911 commission.

So your defense comes down to: state surevillance of citizens is okay because evrybody does it and besides, some peopel might be guilty of something?

As for using government resources for attacking political foes, I refer you to the precedent Clinton set when he used the FBI to dig up dirt on his enemies. Not that you're a big fan of Clinton either, and not that I'm defending the practice. It's just that I read a lot of posts in this forum that seem to imply that no presidential malfeasance predates January 2001.

I don't think anyone's naive enough to beleive that no administration ever did a bad thing (personally, I'm of the belief that the Presidential honour roll is a rogue's gallery). But I'm not sure anyone has ever witnessed this amount of corruption and criminality in one administration (at least since Nixon). I have to wonder if that's because new comunications technology makes spreading information and exposing the abuses of the state that much easier.

[Black Dog]

Jesus. This administration can't even spy on its own people right:

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends

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

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

What? Incompetence under the Bush administration? I thought they were doing a heckuva job.

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

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

So not only did the program involve spying on American citizens (again, in violation of standing law), it also swamped investigators, which no doubt hindered there ability to track down real leads.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

Maybe one of the Bush True Believers can explain how a program that led investigators to dead ends and resulted in no arrests or prosecutions can still be so vital and life-saving taht revealing its existence can cause such severe damage to national security. Cause I can't get my head around it. Nor can I grasp why it was necessary to bypass FISA in the first place.

And before anyone trys to point out that the apparent inefficiency of the program means it was ultimately harmless, consider the example of the beauracratic apparatus of the Soviet Union and how incompetence flourishes in closed, authoritarian systems.

[YankAbroad]

As for murdering the constitution, I gather you're no fan of Roe v Wade either.

I don't have a strong opinion on Roe v. Wade, as abortion doesn't strike me as a particularly major issue. The overemphasis on it, to the detriment of basic Fourth, First and Second Amendment rights which are being actively undermined by this clearly criminal administration, is corrosive to our country -- regardless of what political or party affiliations you have.

[YankAbroad]

Nor can I grasp why it was necessary to bypass FISA in the first place.

Because as is so often the case with politician, the law (including the Constitution) is for the "little people" to follow, not our masters.

Our masters forget the whole concept of the country, which isn't "daddy knows best" paternalism, but accountability to the electorate.

Bush is commander in chief of the army, not the country, he has a legal obligation to report to Congress (as the executive who works for them), and he took an oath NOT "to keep America safe by any means necessary" but to uphold the Constitution.

There's no reason he need violate the Constitution to do so, except that he has contempt for this country and its institutions and wants to do things his way. He's clearly broken the law, he should be impeached and tried for that lawbreaking, but he will not be because of the sclerotic political conditions in Washington.

[BHS]

What? Incompetence under the Bush administration? I thought they were doing a heckuva job.

1) The NSA isn't a product of the Bush administration. It's policies and procedures were in place long before Bush came into power.

2) If checking out false leads indicates incompetency, then every law inforcement agent in the history of the universe is incompetent. I think you've set your ideal standards a little out of the real world's grasp.

So not only did the program involve spying on American citizens (again, in violation of standing law), it also swamped investigators, which no doubt hindered there ability to track down real leads.

Um, which ones were the real leads? I guess you can't really be sure until you investigate, or unless you're an armchair terrorism expert from Edmonton who knows everything there is to know about who the "real" bad guys are and what motivates them.

Maybe one of the Bush True Believers can explain how a program that led investigators to dead ends and resulted in no arrests or prosecutions can still be so vital and life-saving taht revealing its existence can cause such severe damage to national security. Cause I can't get my head around it. Nor can I grasp why it was necessary to bypass FISA in the first place.

And before anyone trys to point out that the apparent inefficiency of the program means it was ultimately harmless, consider the example of the beauracratic apparatus of the Soviet Union and how incompetence flourishes in closed, authoritarian systems.

Here's the thing, though: because this was a classified program, we don't yet know (and may never know) exactly what sort of results it yielded. Cheney (or Big Time or whatever you call him) has indicated without going into detail that the program has yielded results. You can choose to think the whole thing is a crock and that he's lying to protect the administration's collective ass. Fine. Just keep in mind, the people who attack Bush every day on every issue they can, trying their damnest to discredit, impeach and indict him, have very little to say about this issue. The Democrats in the know about national security seem to be okay with this.

By the way, it's kind of cute the way you slipped in the authoritarian canard at the very end. I'll have to remember to accuse the Dems of being authoritarian in every post I write after November '08. Except I won't because I think better of Dems than you do of the Republicans. (Hell, I think better of the Trotskyist loons who infest every protest march on University Ave in Toronto than you do of the Republicans.)

Also, as I've stated in other threads, I genuinely believe that a free media and a vigilent public combined with a healthy, mature democratic political process place an effective constraint on government's natural tendency toward authoritarianism. In other words, I believe that government will always bend toward authoritarian impulses over time, but that our system of collective self-examination prevents government from going too far in that direction, and therefore our political process is ultimately self-correcting.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

A very good post indeed.

"Also, as I've stated in other threads, I genuinely believe that a free media and a vigilent public combined with a healthy, mature democratic political process place an effective constraint on government's natural tendency toward authoritarianism. In other words, I believe that government will always bend toward authoritarian impulses over time, but that our system of collective self-examination prevents government from going too far in that direction, and therefore our political process is ultimately self-correcting." (BHS)

I suppose this is what led some dude (Churchill, I think) to say, "Democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but it is better than all the others". A free media is most likely unattainable, save for a few independent or publicly funded outlets, but they won't be mainstream, and will therefore look somewhat partisan (and will usually be 'left'). A vigilant public is another challenge. The 'unwashed masses' are (as seen by some) to be used as consumers, not watchdogs.

[Canadian Patriot]

While you guys argue and watch fony politics and partisan hackery on T.V. George W. Bush out smarted you all he has signed executive orders basically giving him absolute authority.

These are dangerous times and will only get worse.

Echelon has been well established and monitors over 3 billion communications a day it also has a staff of 30k to operate the systems and sift through data.

[Black Dog]

Here's the thing, though: because this was a classified program, we don't yet know (and may never know) exactly what sort of results it yielded. Cheney (or Big Time or whatever you call him) has indicated without going into detail that the program has yielded results. You can choose to think the whole thing is a crock and that he's lying to protect the administration's collective ass. Fine. Just keep in mind, the people who attack Bush every day on every issue they can, trying their damnest to discredit, impeach and indict him, have very little to say about this issue. The Democrats in the know about national security seem to be okay with this.

In other words, wher ethere's no smoke, there's no fire? Feh. The U.S. Democrats can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone make a serious effort to hold the administration accountable for its actions (especially since they seem to be taking most of their cues from Republican partisans who warn that Dems can't win on national security issues, because, you know, Republicans always have the best interests of their electoral foes at heart...)

By the way, it's kind of cute the way you slipped in the authoritarian canard at the very end. I'll have to remember to accuse the Dems of being authoritarian in every post I write after November '08. Except I won't because I think better of Dems than you do of the Republicans. (Hell, I think better of the Trotskyist loons who infest every protest march on University Ave in Toronto than you do of the Republicans.)

You obviously haven't been paying attention to my feelings on the Democrats either. No partisan I.

Also, as I've stated in other threads, I genuinely believe that a free media and a vigilent public combined with a healthy, mature democratic political process place an effective constraint on government's natural tendency toward authoritarianism. In other words, I believe that government will always bend toward authoritarian impulses over time, but that our system of collective self-examination prevents government from going too far in that direction, and therefore our political process is ultimately self-correcting.

Cute. Naive to the nth degree, but cute. First, you start with assumption of a free media (as though the press cares for anything more than ratings and advertising than any old-fashioned ideas about "afflicting the powerful" and such) and a vigilant public (as though the public can't be bought off with sloganeering, propaganda and simple pleas to "values"). In other words, checks and balances can be subverted or even co-opted.

But beyond those points (which are debatable), the fact is, authoritarian systems do arise from democratic systems if the culture is predisposed to such a system. And I hapen to believe that the U.S. post 9-11 is fertile ground for the authoritarian impulses of government to find expression.

[BHS]

In other words, wher ethere's no smoke, there's no fire? Feh. The U.S. Democrats can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, let alone make a serious effort to hold the administration accountable for its actions (especially since they seem to be taking most of their cues from Republican partisans who warn that Dems can't win on national security issues, because, you know, Republicans always have the best interests of their electoral foes at heart...)

Granted, all. Just be careful who you lump in with partisan Republicans. There are a lot of people currently on the fringes of the Republican camp, who were Democrats before and are looking for a way to jump back to that ship, whose advice for the Dems is genuine.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to my feelings on the Democrats either. No partisan I.

I didn't mean to imply that you were. "I think better of the Dems than you do of the Republicans" was meant only to convey that I don't experience the revulsion you do, which I guess from your point of view makes sense, as you dislike both parties (perhaps considering them too much alike?).

Cute. Naive to the nth degree, but cute. First, you start with assumption of a free media (as though the press cares for anything more than ratings and advertising than any old-fashioned ideas about "afflicting the powerful" and such) and a vigilant public (as though the public can't be bought off with sloganeering, propaganda and simple pleas to "values"). In other words, checks and balances can be subverted or even co-opted.

But beyond those points (which are debatable), the fact is, authoritarian systems do arise from democratic systems if the culture is predisposed to such a system. And I hapen to believe that the U.S. post 9-11 is fertile ground for the authoritarian impulses of government to find expression.

1) I guess we can go ahead and get rid of the CBC, since you've effectively rebutted it's raison d'etre. (Yay!)

2) I take free media to include anyone who expresses their opinion publicly by whatever means are available to them. The laws protecting the media apply to all of the citizenry on equal terms. (The current brouhaha in the US about journalists claiming a privilege for protecting their sources is a matter for another thread.) For Peter Mansbridge the media is his perch on the CBC and his columns in Macleans. For you and me it's this political forum and our blogs (or whatever else you endeavour in). You may denegrate the latter, but the internet has had (and will increasingly have) a role in the free expression and spread of political idea(l)s. We're just early adapters. (Or, we're CB radio geeks who haven't figured out yet that we're actually objects of ridicule. You decide.)

3) I know you're concerned about low voting levels, and that concern arises from your feeling that people are disaffected with the political process. I assume that you vote, and perhaps your concern and your efforts make you unusual. Also, I don't buy that you can be bought off with propaganda, and perhaps that makes you unusual too. Are the two ways that you're unusual connected? If enough people are like you, does that not make a difference? If so, how many is "enough"?

4) I'm trying to figure out your last point. I think you're referring to the Romans going from an elected Senate to an imperial dictatorship, and perhaps to post Great War Germany sinking into Nazism. I don't agree that either of the two situations bare enough resemblance to today's US to make the analogy work.

[Insom Elvis]

I don't recall the context, but did Bush not describe the Constitution as a "piece of paper?" Did he not also say something like that as President he is the Law?

I'd like to see that on video! And when viewed I'd have to say he's as stupid as whoever led you to believe anyone would say that and not be slammed out of this country faster than people are permitted to enter it. He can spy on my conversations all he wants. It would be nice to speak in total privacy, but then congress doesn't care who I went home with last night. I don't want to see a state of martial law emposed on the U.S., but I'd rather Bush know what toothpaste I used than not know that the guy down the block has an R.P.G. aimed at a populated hotel.

[Black Dog]

This is worth a look and a giggle.

Ruber Stamping Our Rights

The gag is the same types championing Bush's warrantless spying were, just a few years a go, a -twitter over Clinton's "rubber-stamp" warrant-based FISA eavesdropping.

Which leaves me wondering: does the modern, mainstream conservative movement have any central alues beyond obediance to Bush? How did it devolve into a personality cult?