Comments on: Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)

By: Paul Filler

Paul Filler — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 12:14:20 +0000

..’This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration’..

This type of thinking is not correct. We keep hearing this…somehow you writers always need another reason for not saying that the Dems are lying and doing what they do to get Bush, not some old theory to back you up. So..come on grow up and start stating what is really going on! We readers get it now, this is not the 70’s any more. Start writing without flourishes like above. You are beginning to sound like network news. You are smarter and need not use cruches as they do.

By: shingles

shingles — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:25:08 +0000

PCD, this guy pretty much hits on the head what I was saying:

http://markearnest.net/news.cgi?nid=188

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:21:09 +0000

Shingles, you’ve talked yourself in a circle. It’s not that hard. Robertson didn’t like the spying stuff at all. He couldn’t rule against it because he’d be overturned and too many overturns, and he’d be known as the 9th Circuit of FISA. He did what Democrats from Jim McDermott and David Bonior have done, taken secret stuff to the NYTimes and demanded to be an anonymous source. The Times probably started running Robertson like a KGB Spymaster runs his traitors.

By: shingles

shingles — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:53:41 +0000

OK. So there’s speculation that Judge Roberson is the leaker who leaked information about the NSA bypassing the FISA courts. My question is, how could Judge Robertson leak something if the FISA court that he sat on was in the dark about the fact that they were in the dark?
This doesn’t make any sense.
In order for him to leak, someone from inside the executive branch would have had to leak it to him.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:31:15 +0000

Oh, shingles, in case you are also ignorant of Judge Robertson, here’s a link to “The Right Politics” page with links for you to follow to see why Liberal Judge Robertson may be the leaker and why he’s not hearing cases.

http://therightpolitics.com/page/3/

By: shingles

shingles — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:29:18 +0000

PCD, this is turning into the “PCD and Shingles Show”.

I didn’t say that the courts should run wars. You’re missing what I’m saying, which is that you don’t give the executive branch unlimited and unchecked powers. During a time of war, yes, powers should be broadened – I have no problem with this. My point is that there needs to be some sort of minimal, minimal, minimal, I repeat, minimal oversight. I simply do not trust giving the executive branch unlimited and unchecked powers. No matter who’s in charge. Period.

No, the courts are not the supreme power in the US.
But neither is the executive branch.

It is just SOME people who can’t win an election with their ideas have to resort to the courts with unelected judges to implement them or thwart elected officials.

I agree.
But this has nothing to do with what I’m saying here.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:18:53 +0000

shingles, the left doesn’t want W to be able to exercise ANY of his Constitutional powers as Bush sees fit. The courts do not run wars, nor are they to try combatants. You might have an argument if the President was like Clinton and used the NSA to spy on Jesse Helms, but he’s not spying for personal political reasons or payback. It is for legitimate security reasons.

FYI, Has former FISA judge Robertson heard any cases? You may see that he’s going to be identified as the leaker of the NSA stories to the NYTImes, and that is why he’s not hearing any cases.

The courts are NOT the supreme power in the US, nor is Congress, nor is the President. It is just SOME people who can’t win an election with their ideas have to resort to the courts with unelected judges to implement them or thwart elected officials.

By: shingles

shingles — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:11:06 +0000

Explain exactly how I am misinterpreting FISA. Do you even know what I said about FISA or are you mixing me up with someone else? All I said is that it allows for retroactive warrants. And that its historically acted like a rubber stamp. Both statements are true.

From there I went on to question the NEED for the NSA to bypass the FISA courts. Who knows, maybe there IS a need to bypass them. My larger point was a larger Constitutional issue, about handing over unchecked power to the executive office (particularly during a potentially never ending war). I find it strange that conservatives seem to have no concerns about this at all. Particularly since governmental power will ALLWAYS expand, if given the opportunity.

And for the record, I think its crap to blame Bush for not preventing 9/11 just as I think its crap to go further back in time and blame the Clinton administration.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:55:57 +0000

No, it doesn’t shingles. Your point on Gorelick has been shotdown so many times, too.

Baklava has shot you FISA misinterpreters down so many times here that it is not funny.

By: shingles

shingles — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:42:53 +0000

How did I miss that?! And where was I when that happened.
Point taken, I was wrong.
See, I can admit when evidence proves me wrong.
My other point about the FISA court still stands though.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:02:51 +0000

Shingles,

You are a poor researcher. I found plenty on Sandy Berger’s conviction on Google. Try this article from the Clinton News Network:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/

Do you have a clue now, shingles, or are you going to be Stuck on Stupid by continuing your false claims?

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:53:55 +0000

shingles,

You couldn’t find anything on Berger like his conviction? True he got a slap on the wrist sentence, but he was convicted. Blows your credibility to crap, shingles.

By: shingles

shingles — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:35:18 +0000

PCD, and you say that Tommy better get a clue?!

Both the Gorelick and Berger allegations proved to be unfounded (do a cursory google search) even though their continual recitation among the faithful might make you think otherwise.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT conspiracy.

Likewise, no one wants bureaucracy to get in the way of our safety. HOWEVER, the FISA court is NOT an example of bureaucracy. 1) It issues retroactive warrants, in the case of “boom, you’re dead” potential situations. 2) Its been a rubber stamp court that has rejected one or two possible warrents out of THOUSANDS over the years. So where’s the bureaucracy there? Bureaucracy is the setting up a hugely expensive prescription drug program that’s administered by the state.

Its nice to keep repeating sentiments and talking points that sound good. But it helps if they’re also true.

By: PCD

PCD — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:37:14 +0000

tommy, why should I do what you haven’t done?

Gorelick put up the wall which kept DOJ from sharing information from the 84 bombing of the Trade Towers from the National Intelligence agencies. You must have been sleeping when this was brought up in the 9/11 hearings. Gorelick should have been kicked off the commission and put into the witness chair UNDER OATH, althogh she’d perjure herself like a true Clintonista. Also, remember Sandy Berger stealing and destroying documents that implicated the Clintons in weakening our defenses that allowed 9/11 to happen.

You have to get a clue, Tommy.

By: tommy in nyc

tommy in nyc — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:24:36 +0000

Give me a break PCD blaming people like Jamie Gorelick are making easier for terrorists easier to attack is country is bunk. We as a nation can’t keep drugs and illegial immigrants out of this nation after 5 years of a Bush 43 in charge but you’ll make left responsible for questioning the erosion of our civil-rights as a pretext for this nation’s failure to protect against another terrorist attack is simply unture. You fail to realize that we domestic terrorists also. Man dude wake up and smell the coffee.