FBI Said to Seek Phone Records of Reporters

On an evening when every politician in the Washington was trooping in front of the television cameras to add their commentary to the slurry of blather that is the immigration "debate," and most Washington reporters were trying to figure out whether White House political czar Karl Rove will be indicted this week, little attention went to what could turn out to be the most significant story of the day.

But as journalists wake up to the fact that they have apparently become the latest targets of the Bush-Cheney administration's abusive eavesdropping, that should change.

According to ABC News, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been quietly going after the phone records of news reporters as part of its investigations of leaks of information of government employees.

An entry posted Monday evening on The Blotter, an ABC News blog, by investigative reporters Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, reports that, "The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations. 'It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,' said a senior federal official."

The report by Ross and Esposito, respected journalists with solid sources in the law enforcement community, continued:

FBI officials did not deny that phone records of ABC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post had been sought as part of a investigation of leaks at the CIA.

In a statement, the FBI press office said its leak investigations begin with the examination of government phone records.

"The FBI will take logical investigative steps to determine if a criminal act was committed by a government employee by the unauthorized release of classified information," the statement said.

Officials say that means that phone records of reporters will be sought if government records are not sufficient.

Officials say the FBI makes extensive use of a new provision of the Patriot Act which allows agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL).

The NSLs are a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government.

Monday evening's report from Ross and Esposito followed their revelation earlier in the day that they had been told by "a senior federal law enforcement official" that the government is monitoring phone calls they and other journalists are making in order to identify confidential sources.

Ross and Esposito wrote in their mid-day Monday entry on the ABC News blog that:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

If these reports are accurate -- and Ross and Esposito have a solid record of getting things right -- it does not require much of an imagination to determine what has transpired.

Any serious discussion will turn, for reasons hardly unreasonable considering recent revelations regarding this White House's disregard for the rule of law, to the question of whether a frustrated Bush-Cheney administration is seeking the phone records of journalists not merely to identify leakers but to thwart the sort of whistle blowing that has embarrassed the president and vice president by linking them to warrantless wiretapping, rendition of prisoners, the defense of torture, the distribution of classified information in order to punish political critics and other abuses of power.

If the administration has begun reviewing the telephone calls of reporters not to catch lawbreakers but to prevent revelations of its own lawlessness, then this White House has strayed onto dangerous political turf.

To be sure, the Bush-Cheney administration would not be the first to go after journalists in order to protect itself from challenges to its authority. President John Adams actually jailed editorial critics in the early days of the Republic, provoking the crisis that would make him the first president to be defeated for reelection. President Richard Nixon produced an "enemies list" that included the names of prominent journalists such as Daniel Schorr.

This could mark a turning point for the usually pliant Washington press corps, however.

White House reporters are by any measure a docile lot, and there is no question that the Bush-Cheney administration has benefited tremendously from the frequently stenographic reporting of even its most outlandish spin by unquestioning national correspondents -- two words: "Judith Miller." But it is difficult to imagine, especially with the approval ratings for the president and vice president dipping to depths previously explored only by Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew in their darkest days of their diminishing power, that Washington reporters will take kindly to being spied on by an administration bent to shutting up confidential sources.

It is, of course, true that members of the White House press corps should not need a threat to their own privacy -- not to mention their most vital sources of honest information -- to be inspired to practice their craft as the founders intended. But the track record of the past several years indicates that a jolt of some kind was needed. Let's just hope that the reporters who cover Bush and Cheney will prove to be self-serving enough to now begin taking on an administration that appears to be bent on silencing the whistleblowers who are so necessary to the telling of the full story of what this White House is doing in our name but without our informed consent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols is the co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections and Destroy Democracy (The New Press).

Comments (139)

1. You know, for the past 5 years or so, the MSM has dutifully rolled over for their regular tummy rubs from the folks at BushCo. Now that a couple of them have begun to occasionally nip at the hand that's been feeding them, the White House wants to break out the muzzles and choke chains. They're terrified fo what some truly hard working, investigative types might find if they start digging. The big question is, will the MSM reporters start growling or will they be brought to heal?

   Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 01:01am

2. Lillian,

   I strongly suspect that the MSM-types will be "brought to heel".

   Now a days, I get my news mainly from The Nation Magazine and overseas newspapers. The internet makes this easy, and it is probably one of several major reasons that Republicans wish to draw the reins on this wonderful information tool. With the internet being free and unencumbered, Bush and the Republicans can't blind you with their propaganda.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 05/16/2006 @ 08:55am

3. With the internet being free and unencumbered, Bush and the Republicans can't blind you with their propaganda.

   Posted by ORAIBI1952 05/16/2006 @ 08:55am

   While this may be so, I'm still not taking the aluminum pie plate out of my hat.

   Posted by skeletonman at 05/16/2006 @ 09:12am

4. One thing that is being overlooked is the effect of this report even if it is not true, or is very limited.

   Whistleblowers will be disinclined to come forward if they believe that their calls can be traced. This applies not only to political leaks but to reports of corporate mismanagement and celebrity gossip.

   One of the long-term objectives of the government has been to discredit the press. Even the left now regularly criticizes the "MSM" for being too soft or compliant. The right attacks for the press being biased. The result is that the press is less trusted, less regarded as objective and accurate, and, now, as less able to keep a secret.

   All this will continue to weaken the press and make it easier for information to be controlled by official sources.

   I posted an essay recently which pointed out that the NSA data mining was better suited to spying on domestic political activity than on finding "terrorists". Here's a link if you are interested in reading it:

   Why Domestic Spying [dailykos.com]

   Posted by rdf at 05/16/2006 @ 09:23am

5. Were these reports on ABC World News Tonight...or just their blog?

   Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 10:04am

6. "Now a days, I get my news mainly from The Nation Magazine and overseas newspapers. The internet makes this easy, and it is probably one of several major reasons that Republicans wish to draw the reins on this wonderful information tool. With the internet being free and unencumbered, Bush and the Republicans can't blind you with their propaganda. "

   Posted by ORAIBI1952 05/16/2006 @ 08:55am | ignore this person

   News from the Nation..no proaganda there..

   Also, this is the last place Republicans would want to "reign it in", so to speak for 2 reasons..

   1. No one really reads this or takes it seriously except those here, evidenced by the same crowd always responds to each and every post..( my self included)..

   2. This site represents what the repubs figure is the far left of the dem site..the kook faction....the montra section..Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, Bush lied, 2000 election stolen,..et al, ad nauseum...they use it as a source of humour.

   3. This is no threat to them...right now their threat is from the conservative base...

   Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 10:16am

7. The 3rd reason above is mine...

   Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 10:18am

8. The right attacks for the press being biased.

   RDF, you are a Gold Star Virtouso of Understatement!

   And has anyone else noticed how the run-of-the-mill obseqious right wing loud-mouthed zombie --- always mewling and without a single cogitation in his or her head that has not been cultivated by RushBimbo --- is braying ever more regularly about the "liberal media"?

   Their Deciderator's approval is about at the level of LePen's poll numbers against Chirac --- so it must be someone else's fault, someone has to be blamed, it must be the mythologized liberal media filling people's head with fantasies.

   Any other explanations for the Deciderator's abysmal poll numbers? How about: After 5+ years, the public knows exactly where the Deciderator and his team stand, the public knows exactly what their competencies and priorities are. After 5+ years, the contours of reality are clear indeed with respect to the born loser who is Bush and his Spectrum7-style of governance.

   But the obediant rigthwing zombie cannot say this, cannot understand Truth from which a rightist is by defination angrily alienated. Instead, the dutiful rightwing goon reflexively takes the low raod and slurs the American public as uninformed (sniff! whimper), unable to reach rational judgements (boo-hooo!), and beholden to the "reality based community" from which the disgusting scourge of rightwing ideology mindlessly shrinks ...

   Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/16/2006 @ 11:12am

9. Reuters and bbsnews provide real news. I used to rely on NYTimes, but since hiring Judith Miller and their new cadre of Republican stenographers; that paper produces inconsistent, wildly differing stories on the same subject: depending on who the author is. FOX/CNN is as heavily biased as The Nation or Salon, and at least those outlets are either consistently pro-American (i.e. Salon), or consistent GOP mouth puppets (i.e. FOX).

   I tend to read FOX/CNN as I would with Nation or Salon, with a deliberate understanding that those outlets will skew and spin aggressively and unabashadly. Yet, those outlets do provide interesting outlets to view what the dark-side is thinking.

   I should think FOX/CNN rather prefers the government to intercept their communications to route out reporters on their payroll that aren't transcribing the GOP spin accurately enough.

   Similarly, the only news outlets that will complain about spying on American Journalists are real journalists - not the GOP mouth puppets on CNN and FOX.

   Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 11:12am

10. John,

    The ship is sinking...you're perched on the remaining 31% of that wreck. Most of the public's outrage at conservatives is due to the disaster in Iraq, and the resulting high energy prices as a consequence of Bush's further destablizing of the Middle East region. Consider that the Bush record domestically is even more horrendous. The so-called economic recovery, according to the Economic Policy Instititute, "by virtually every measure, the economy has performed worse in this business cycle than was typical of past ones." Private sector jobs are up 1% since 2001, compared to the 8.6% average of past recoveries. Investment is at 3.6% vs. 8.2%. GDP growth, don't worry, it is well below past recoveries. I could also make some comparisons of the Reagan economy to previous ones...not nice for your side, bro.

    I realize that your crew hates acountability, but what policies have they enacted that have not resulted in utter failure? You guys like to wash off the fact that opinion of the US is at an all-time low, as some kind of petty jealousy, but come on...things are not so pretty here in America (at least for about 80% or so). This whole "roll back the progresses of the 20th Century" is not working out very well.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/16/2006 @ 11:19am

11. MAASCH and MASK do not need an independent media to report on their right-wing government. The lies and and innuendo invented in a GOP led White House, combined with the GOP leaks of CIA covert operatives (whose spouses oppose unwarranted and baseless war in Iraq) to GOP stenographers like Judith Miller is the very definition of integrity for right-wingers like MAASH and MASK.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 11:22am

12. MAASCH - like most GOP sympathizers, you point to bad polls here and abroad and shout "It's just jealousy!!!". I guess that means 100% of Republicans polled that hate Clinton are likewise, jealous?

    Jealousy does not explain outright anger and hatred. It is the philosophy of openness, inclusion, and tolerance that GOP right-wing conservatives hate!!! MAASCH/MASK - we know you are not jealous of the booming economy or balanced budgets under Clinton. You are embarrassed your president SUCKS so much.

    What you hate is that progressives and liberals like Clinton will always side with civil liberties and peace LONG before endorsing the un-American activities the right-wing conservatives get erections over, such as warrantless wiretaps and war in the Middle East.

    ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THE FACT THAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SEEN FOR YEARS WHAT YOU ARE JUST BEGINNING TO FIGURE OUT: HOW MUCH YOUR RIGHT-WING POLICIES AND RIGHT-WING PRESIDENT SUCKS!

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 11:35am

13. OUST,

    Don't expect too many epiphanies from MAASCH, despite your best efforts at writing a clear-minded and generous letter. With the typical relativistic shitmess muddle that is the domain of a rightwing zombie, he has identified himself as a "LIBERTARIAN" even as he obseqiously barks like a chained dog in support of shit-for-brains obvious lurches toward STATISM.

    But it isn't just MAASCH: Remember, rightwingers have no principles, its all just words they mouth and excuses to indulge their anti-social fantasies, anchored in blind allegiance to whomever most resembles their beer-fart breathed, abusive and tyranical daddy within the political menagerie ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/16/2006 @ 11:39am

14. oustbush, isn't it 29% of that wreck now? and glenn, i don't think the numbers show the public knows exactly what is going on. they may finally have some vague idea. if they knew exactly what's going on, everyone but the oil and defense industry people would be screaming for impeachment. and who knows, maybe there are even a couple of people in the oil and defense industry who know the meaning of integrity.

    Posted by loveloki at 05/16/2006 @ 11:40am

15. But it isn't just MAASCH: Remember, rightwingers have no principles, its all just words they mouth and excuses to indulge their anti-social fantasies, anchored in blind allegiance to whomever most resembles their beer-fart breathed, abusive and tyranical daddy within the political menagerie ...

    Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 05/16/2006 @ 11:39am | ignore this person

    kinda like, i don't need to know why we're at war or how we're at war or anything about the war. all i need to do to be a good patriotic citizen is spend $1.79 on a yellow car magnet and scream obscenities at anyone who wonders why our people and their people are losing their lives. i'll support our troops by telling people to shut up, don't question, don't think...or you're a terrorist too.

    Posted by loveloki at 05/16/2006 @ 11:49am

16. well, a lot of the current russian mob seems to have benefitted from the post soviet purge of the institution, leaving out in the cold very capable former agents with "skills" and nothing official to do with them. undoubtably many sympathizers remained on the inside, to the benefit of the pink slipped.

    bushco's politicized purge of the cia, in an effort to scapegoat and cover up its own incompetance, immorality, and criminality, has freed a lot of spooks, my friends, folks with skills and axes to grind, who undoubtedly maintain contact with secret allies still on the inside.

    remember, bushco is evil and corrupt, but it is also greedy, arrogant, and ultimately inept. their greed and incompetance are their weaknesses. their arrogance blinds them to this.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2006 @ 11:53am

17. Going back to Ollie North 20 years ago, and fast-forward to DeLay today: we have a Republican mind-set that rewards and admires the most aggregious drug-dealing, terrorist-funding, illegal, and criminal behavior here at home, and throughout the world.

    Why should we be surprised in the least by the conservative, right-wing sanctioned, CIA-run torture camps, or warrantless wiretaps on American journalists in America???

    I think LOVE says it well when only non-conservatives can admit to finding more moral leadership and economic stability coming from Exxon than from Bush! Again, it is AMAZING conservatives (and so-called LIBERTARIANS) are blind to this sad and ironic reality.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/16/2006 @ 11:58am

18. RDF

    Livin in this Redneck corner of a Red state I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy of Greg Palast's Armed Mad House yet. But in an interview on Democracy Now he refers to a chapter where he arrives at much the same conclusion as you do. He just takes it a step further by arguing that the monitoring of political groups is less to disrupt their activities and more to create a huge data base which will help immeasurably to better repress nonrepub voters in 2008. He makes the claim that 2 million potential antidubya votes were repressed in 2000 and 4 million in 2004 but that we ain't see nuthin' yet.

    Posted by MikeKing at 05/16/2006 @ 12:07pm

19. Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO 05/16/2006 @ 11:22am | ignore this person

    I think that ALL I asked was "Were these reports on ABC World News Tonight...or just their blog?

    Posted by MASK 05/16/2006 @ 10:04am | ignore this person"

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 12:12pm

20. Enjoy the polls guys...at your own peril. I am libertarian, which by any measure puts me far away from the rants here..but Outsbush is wrong in his premise..

    Oil is high because of unstability in Iran and in Niger, combined with high, high demand by India and China. Even my 80 years old mother grasps this and she in no Repub...you are dim and probably can't afford gas at $ 1.50 a gallon, which slants all your views to those pesky rich....silliness.

    Because,

    I don't tend to give presidents credit for the economys good or bad times as I think economics is bigger than any one man, however, there are exceptions when the changes are dramtic turns on a massive scale,, IE, FDR and Reagan...Clintons economy and Bush was an after effect of Reaganism...and tax cuts as it engine. No one will ever argue you can tax yourself into prosperity except here ...by those who have no capital or an inability to generate any or generate jobs for others..

    One last note, Bush is in trouble due to Iraq(no quick fix and poor after war planning) and he is in trouble with his conservative base. If his base shows up and votes in 06...you all here will crying agian..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 12:54pm

21. After 5+ years, the contours of reality are clear indeed with respect to the born loser who is Bush and his Spectrum7-style of governance.

    Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 05/16/2006 @ 11:12am

    What is a "Spectrum7-style of governance"?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/16/2006 @ 1:07pm

22. Spectrum7

    Bush the great businessman.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898920079.html

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/16/2006 @ 1:11pm

23. One more on Spectrum7

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715317/posts

    Bush's great strength is his consistency. And he's always been a hanger-on, a swindler, and a cheat. And a failure. Consistently.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/16/2006 @ 1:17pm

24. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 12:54am: Oil is high because of unstability in Iran

    Golly gee, Mr. Maasch. And who exactly is responsible for the "unstability" in Iran?

    One last note, Bush is in trouble due to Iraq(no quick fix and poor after war planning)

    Sure. But he is also in trouble because he runs an incompetent, criminal adminstration. And he is in trouble because he has created a police state in America. And he is in trouble because he thinks himself to be a dictator. And he is in trouble because he spews lies whenever he speaks. And he is in trouble because he illegally invaded and occupied a country that was not a threat to us. And he is in trouble because he is threatening to commit additional war crimes by nuking Iran. And he is in trouble because he lost an entire goddamn city. And he is in trouble because he is an arrogant megalomaniac that most people can no longer stomach for more than a few seconds without throwing things at their tv. And he is in trouble because the maximum IQ of those that continue to support him has dropped into the 60s.

    and he is in trouble with his conservative base.

    Not to mention, liberals, centrists, radicals, anarchists, nazis, libertarians, and socialists. Perhaps you should just say that he is in trouble with his American base.

    If his base shows up and votes in 06...you all here will crying agian..

    What base? People with IQs in the 40s?

    Just think, if you hold out long enough, Mr. Maasch, you can be the last man standing in the base.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 1:19pm

25. No one will ever argue you can tax yourself into prosperity except here ...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 12:54am

    I get tired of debunking this conservative myth, but it needs to be done. For the umpteenth time, taxe rates are not very important in determing prosperity. Innovation and interest rates are much more important.

    The post-WWII boom occurred despite a top rate of 82 to 91%!!! From 1971 to 1981 the top rate was 70% in good times and bad. The economy continued its cyclical nature, largely unaffected by this high rate. In Reagan's second year in office, the rate was 50%, where it stayed for 5 years, during which time the economy grew nicely. This rate would be considered "confiscatory" nowadays and conservatives would lie out the wazzoo to predict gloom and doom if anyone tried to go back to this rate.

    The top rate was dropped from '87 to '90, and then bounced slightly higher in '91 to 31%. Yet with these much lower rates we still had a recession which cost the first Bush his job.

    When Clinton got into office, the top rate was raised to 39.6% in 1993, where it stayed during the entire boom of the 1990's!

    That's right, folks: Clinton raised taxes and we had prosperity!!! I am not saying the prosperity was due to the tax increase. I am saying it really didn't matter, one way or the other.

    Unless you raise taxes to the extreme, then they have little impact on the economy. Sorry, JOHN, your statement is hogwash.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/16/2006 @ 1:31pm

26. I-LOVE-PHYSICS,

    I presume you are a Ph.D. now, my heartiest congratulations.

    Ever notice that more liberal-leaning people tend to have Ph.D.s? That is because a Ph.D. cannot be purchased (say, for 50k)and it cannot be inherited (like the Oval Office; if his name was Geroge Walker, he wouldn't fucking be there). A Ph.D. has to be earned and, from what I understand, it requires a wedding of self-discipline and intelligence to pursue it to the end. And where does that leave a conseraLoser, except laughably out of his or her depth? Congratulations, once again, ILP.

    MYPARA has already answered in part but it bears repeating: Spectrum7 was one of Bush's train wreck diasters as a drunken 1980s "business man". I cannot rember the details on the "companies" that he ran into the ground with his shrewd acumen refracted through martinis mixed delicately in a beer stein, until finding suckers impressed by the family name to bail him out; or which company's suspicious behavior necessitated an investigation for insider trading by the FTC under the stern eye of a family friend. It's all a Bush-on-a-barstool blur which failure is which, but Spectrum7 was one of his semi-youthful bed-shitting experiences. In any event, Bush's failures in the present should not be surprsing given the mickey-mouse-pissing-in-a-sandbox conduct of what he was ostensibley trained to do in "business".

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/16/2006 @ 1:42pm

27. ASTROTURF ALERT:

    DontRegulate.org, which has some banner ads on this site, is an "astroturf" organization funded by major telcos, and headed by sellout Mike McCurry.

    Many of the sites we visit have a policy of not excluding advertisers because of their political content. While this is an admirably democratic policy, it is yet another illustration of how we need to be that much more critical about our sources of information.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0512-31.htm

    We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/16/2006 @ 1:49pm

28. The republicans' great strength as late has been their ability to shape the public discourse, define the issues. They practically own the language, and this ability has allowed them to divide us into groups that they have defined, then pander to each group, telling them what they want to hear with eerily effective Orwellspeak. "Conservatives", "Evangelicals", "Culture of Life" proponents, and many otherwise well-meaning pigeonholed citizens have come to realize that most of what they've been told by Bush and his cronies amounts to exactly dick. They are awakening to the painful fact that they have been used as $tepping $tones in this administration's egregious consolidation of power for the unitary executive and his greedy, corporate-friendly henchman. More and more excrement is sticking to the blades of the fan, and it's starting to stink.

    It should come as no surprise that these fascist con artists are ginning up a full-court press designed to squelch discourse and dissent. As desperately as they need to pull something out of their well-greased asses before November, Americans who want their country back need to jam a huge chunk of democracy up there and break it off.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/16/2006 @ 2:27pm

29. "Conservatives", "Evangelicals", "Culture of Life" proponents, and many otherwise well-meaning pigeonholed citizens....

    Posted by DRHAMMER 05/16/2006 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person

    Boy, Doc....good thing the LEFT doesn't do that....like "working families" (as opposed to the mythical families that DON'T work), or "contributions" (the aborted attempt by pre-1994 Bill and Hillary to alter the term for TAXES) (or "government investments", the one that WORKED) or "progressives" (because "liberal" can't be "sold" anymore)!

    Posted by Mask at 05/16/2006 @ 3:02pm

30. Friends: Set aside the partisan issues for a moment. This alarming incident should be a wake-up call for journalists, activists and ordinary citizens about the power of the information technology our lives are enmeshed in. History suggests that if the technical ability to do a thing exists, then it will sooner or later be used. Like mining a database of every phone call made in the U.S. The power of info tech is growing so fast that this will seem primitive in only a few years. That's the challenge we must and will tangle with, regardless who occupies the WH.

    Posted by john.howley at 05/16/2006 @ 3:03pm

31. It's about time that it was made clear to the the hamster brigade that AMERICA no longer consents to George Bush.

    Posted by ZERO 05/16/2006 @ 2:15pm

    And for the visual, go to the updated red/blue map of the USA on davidcorn.com.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 05/16/2006 @ 3:13pm

32. I just read a Washington Post blog from a guy in Washington state. He reports an NSA monitering station at Yakima, Washington which is monitoring conversations. I went on on maneuvers at Yakima with an Army Signal Unit in 1963 or 1964 near a place called Rattlesnake hill or ridge. We had good reception.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 05/16/2006 @ 3:34pm

33. Posted by MASK 05/16/2006 @ 3:02pm

    All politicians exploit the language to some degree. The republicans just seem to have elevated it to an art form. Falling back on the "Nyaah nyaah nyaah, they did it too!" argument shows a distinct penchant for pissing into the wind.

    But what are the odds that you could read the entire post and respond to its context? Do you honestly feel that it's a good thing that the administration wants to data-mine reporters' phone records for potential sources? Do you really think they are confidant that they will survive November?

    Or has Bushco stolen everything out of your toolbox except the all-purpose, one-size-fits-all, adjustable distraction?

    Posted by drhammer at 05/16/2006 @ 3:42pm

34. Despite the fact that these posts are monitored by the NSA.... it's EASY to avoid using communication vehicles that are subject to monitoring. If reporters aren't smart enough to use anonymous methods when they are discussing classified information with whistleblowers, then their extended visit to Gitmo will have been a self-inflicted wound. So to speak.

    Outsmarting the monitoring capabilities employed by the US (in this particular case) just isn't that tough. I anticipate a change in tactics by anyone actually engaging in communications they want to keep secret, a little more effort and logistics required, but otherwise no change in the status quo.

    Lastly, any journalist that didn't already KNOW that this was possible and take steps to mitigate the risk (given appropriately high-impact conversations to protect) is neither a student of history nor a fan of spy novels. Some attention to both might be considered a prerequisite to continuing and unincarcerated success.

    Posted by mkh at 05/16/2006 @ 4:12pm

35. I've been away for a awhile from this endless circle jerk of the usual suspects on both sides of the aisle (because it just makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall to be doing something actually useful)...

    I'll be damned if I didn't pop in today only to find another stellar example of why some people here piss people off and make rational and calm discussion difficult if not impossible (which I also admit I have done many times, just so I don't come across as a hypocrite).

    This right here is some seriously condescending shit if I ever heard it:

    "Even my 80 years old mother grasps this and she in no Repub...you are dim and probably can't afford gas at $ 1.50 a gallon, which slants all your views to those pesky rich....silliness."

    "No one will ever argue you can tax yourself into prosperity except here ...by those who have no capital or an inability to generate any or generate jobs for others..."

    Can't afford to pay $1.50 for gas... Implying that those who post here (specifically those who lean left) are totally non-productive members of society because they aren't rich or don't own businesses...

    You know what's funny? I have never met a poor person so pompous.

    The writer seems to have as much contempt for the poor as he delusionally believes everyone leftish does for the rich...

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/16/2006 @ 4:17pm

36. And watching the Daily Show last night was great - watching the before-exposure and after-exposure statements by the misadministration about this whole wiretapping business was priceless.

    Dog-wagging, manipulative, clearly deceitful and disturbing, but priceless.

    I pray (there's an unusual line for me) that the tide continues to turn and these criminals get their due.

    It's what's best for our country.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/16/2006 @ 4:19pm

37. The republicans' great strength as late has been their ability to shape the public discourse, define the issues. They practically own the language, and this ability has allowed them to divide us into groups that they have defined, then pander to each group, telling them what they want to hear with eerily effective Orwellspeak.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 05/16/2006 @ 2:27pm

    The important thing is to prevent the Republicans/conservatives from declaring this Era of Bad Feelings to be a Bush issue rather than a conservative issue. Conservatives, whether Republican or in Democrat clothing, have given most of the last five and a half years of presidential misrule a standing ovation. Now that polls are slipping to the depths, they have sat down and placed hands in lap.

    I saw them. You saw them. They have voting records. They cannot get away with blaming Bush for actions they could have prevented. Make certain that anyone who played a part in this disastrous time in our history has to earn an honest living come January 2007. Good luck to them given their skill sets.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/16/2006 @ 5:02pm

38. The announcer on the radio just referred to the Resident as "Mr. Bush", not "The President", not "President Bush", when discussing the WH finally agreeing to brief the entire Senate Intelligence Committee on these programs...

    Also one in every three recently polled prefer Democratic candidates to the Republican ones in the upcoming Congressional elections...

    The times, they are a-changing. Again. The cows are coming hoooooome...

    I love that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/16/2006 @ 5:11pm

39. Whoops - last comment was intended to read "two in every three recently polled..." not one.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/16/2006 @ 5:31pm

40. ...Clintons economy and Bush was an after effect of Reaganism...and tax cuts as it engine.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 12:54am | ignore this person

    It seems that, no matter how many times and how many ways the whole "voodoo economics" thing gets debunked, some people will simply never believe what's right in front of thier eyes. At this point, even Bush's OWN economists don't believe it!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR200605 1400806.html

    Posted by Lillian at 05/16/2006 @ 7:20pm

41. Take a look at inflation, Lillian. 0.9% for April. 2.5% in the first four months of this year. Looks like our president has dropped Reagan as his idol and is now looking one president farther back for economic inspiration.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/16/2006 @ 7:31pm

42. I have to repeat:

    WHO ELSE WILL HAVE THE COURAGE?

    The news media can write articles and voice opinions about how President George W. Bush and his cronies have lied about this and that. (In fact, what took them so long to realize that.) But, this still means nothing. Such revelations of Truth have become the back and forth cackle of gossiping spin masters signifying nothing, as nothing has changed.

    But no, the real deal is when one reporter, that first one, upon being chosen by President Bush to ask a question at one of his press opportunities, stands up and summons the Strength and Courage to ask, " Mr. President, when you lied about...!" Or, at the very least,... "Mr. President, were you lying when you said...?"

    That's what it will take --- before the rest of them will do the same. It's time for someone to say that the Emperor has no clothes to his face.

    That's also when the evidence for impeachment will be brought forth before the American Public, and that's when it will mean something. Now we only hear the Truth as it is, "...twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools." (Kipling)

    Just as Republicans constantly accused Clinton of lying, together with Clinton's defense of his "private life" lie brought the Public into play, so can the Press bring out the Truth. And let's put Bush and Cheney under oath as well. Only then, will the Wisdom of Truth find its place in our great land.

    Until then, lying continues to be our government's national pastime. We have come to expect it. We take it for granted. We kill and die for it. And the shadows of sadness remain our constant companions..

    Ray McGovern had Courage when he questioned Donald Rumsfield

    --- WHO ELSE WILL HAVE THE COURAGE TO ASK FOR THE TRUTH?

    the end

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 05/16/2006 @ 7:55pm

43. "Golly gee, Mr. Maasch. And who exactly is responsible for the "unstability" in Iran? "

    As everyone knows..Carter..the forgien policy genius and economic guru(22% inflation, 21% interest rates).

    Any other questions, Einstein?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 8:01pm

44. I

    "I get tired of debunking this conservative myth, but it needs to be done"

    I am tired of you thinking you have debunked anything.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 8:10pm

45. New Dawn,

    Welcome back..

    "The writer seems to have as much contempt for the poor as he delusionally believes everyone leftish does for the rich..."

    I have no contempt for the POOR, as I spent so many years in the condition..and to some degree I still am...I do however, have contempt for many of the liberals here who are stuck on everything revolving around the same montra...we all know it, Bush lied, Cheney, haliburton, 2000 and 2004 election stolen...

    have you also noticed nothing changed from that montra, too? Regardless of what subject is posted?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/16/2006 @ 8:20pm

46. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 8:01pm: Golly gee, Mr. Maasch. And who exactly is responsible for the "unstability" in Iran? "

    As everyone knows..Carter..the forgien policy genius and economic guru(22% inflation, 21% interest rates).

    I am confused, Mr. Maasch. You said that the recent run-up in gas prices were caused by the instability in Iran. You now claim that the instability in Iran was caused by Carter. Are you saying that the recent run-up in gas prices is caused by the instability in Iran which was caused by Carter's policies 30 years ago?

    Any other questions, Einstein?

    Lots of them. But, if "its carter's fault" is an indication of the intelligence of your answers, its not worth the effort.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 8:59pm

47. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 8:10pm: I am tired of you thinking you have debunked anything.

    I am tired of you thinking you are thinking about anything.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 8:59pm

48. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 8:20pm: have you also noticed nothing changed from that montra, too?

    Its mantra. And haven't you noticed? We've added the "police-state" thing to the mantra.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/16/2006 @ 9:01pm

49. Posted by MASK 05/16/2006 @ 12:12am

    yeah, whatever! lol

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2006 @ 9:29pm

50. "Golly gee, Mr. Maasch. And who exactly is responsible for the "unstability" in Iran? "

    As everyone knows..Carter..the forgien policy genius and economic guru(22% inflation, 21% interest rates).

    Any other questions, Einstein?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 8:01pm

    actually, john, it all goes back to the 50's when the US and UK, in response to threats by irans more or less democratically elected government to nationalize the oil industry, blatently meddled in their internal affairs, and instituted a monarchical dictatorship (the shah) friendly to our oil and strategic interests. makes our current pretentions at spreading democracy and freedom especially hypocritical.

    funny how when i, in the middle of the old confederacy, point this out, get chided for bringing up something that happened "so long ago" by people who get all flustered about crap that happened over a hundred and sixty years ago...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/16/2006 @ 9:41pm

51. hamsters are the only americans that ever got their asses kicked in a war.

    (and one hundred and sixty some years later... they're still a bunch of losers)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2006 @ 9:57pm

52. For all you MSM haters, Here's an article to make you hate this administration a little more. I don't know if it's true but it sure sounds like this administration's MO. It looks like Berlusconi may have received a pentagon contract to build presidential helicopters in thanks for his help in providing Bush the phony Niger yellowcake info. Here's the site: http://www.alternet.org/story/36183/ What do you think? Newbie here

    Posted by yuca2 at 05/16/2006 @ 10:05pm

53. Posted by ZERO 05/16/2006 @ 10:56pm

    the hamster heaven forum

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    (I think liberty might be able to elaborate on that)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/16/2006 @ 11:26pm

54. Maasch -

    Now that you mention it, I am sick of mantras too.

    Like blaming Jimmy Carter for today's problems in Iran.

    (or Bill Clinton for just about everything else)

    Have a good night.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2006 @ 11:46pm

55. how can anyone who knows the history of US iran relationship not wonder why so many iranians (and others) hate us? WE destroyed THEIR democracy for OUR profit. of course this (along with all the other similar actions of the past century) is simply ignored (by us) and those who point it out are often considered unamerican.

    the power of "pride". how nauseating. we have elevated a vice to a virtue. "pride" is THE most powerful form of self deception, filtering out all information that is unflattering to self (or self identified group) and elevating all other self practiced VICES be they GREED, GLUTTONY, RAGE, VANITY, SLOTH, LUST, or my own addition, chosen IGNORANCE, to virtue.

    i once talked to a foriegn exchange student who, after a couple of drinks and a dose of my ibblosophy, confided that she had never visited a country so flag waving full of itself that she felt compelled not just to refrain from saying ANYTHING REMOTELY UNFLATTERING, but in fact got the feeling that many americans were actually insulted if she did not constantly tell us how wonderful we are.

    humility - the virtue, not being caspar milktoast, not letting others trample one down, but realizing that ultimately no matter how smart, rich, strong, handsome, talented...we are all equal. we in this country need to get off this frustrated demigod delusion of ourselves and face up to the hungry ghost reality...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/17/2006 @ 12:01am

56. humility - the virtue, not being caspar milktoast, not letting others trample one down, but realizing that ultimately no matter how smart, rich, strong, handsome, talented...we are all equal.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 05/17/2006 @ 12:01am

    I think it's important to remember that all conservatives except UN ambassador John Bolton are Casper milquetoasts.

    (which might explain why they are incapable of humility)

    At the time of the Bolton nomination, Hamster senator and spokes rodent George Allen was fond of saying that Bolton the only man for the job because they (conservatives) couldn't send Casper milquetoast to the UN...

    They (conservatives) couldn't send Mr. Peepers.

    it's also important to remember that all conservatives except for John Bolton, in addition to being Casper milquetoasts, are also Mr. Peepers

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 12:34am

57. this has been a public service announcement

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 12:34am

58. John,

    In recognition that you appear to be a nice guy, I will try not to be too insulting.

    Your reference to Carter being at fault for the instability of Iran, I will assume, is some pathetic thesis laying blame on the Carter administration for not preventing the Iranian people from overthrowing a mudering dictator (the Shah) in a popular revolution. John, do you ever fly out of DC? If you use the airport named Dulles, spend a moment in reflection on the the brothers for whom its named; John F. Dulles and Allen Dulles were crusading fanatics intimately involved in the illegal and violent overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh (1953). Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the ruler until 1979. He was a cruel and brutal tyrant. Here is an excerpt for you taken from the work of a British journalist, Robert Fisk (highly respected)--here he quotes from an eye witness account of another reporter, Derek Ive, of the Associated Press, as Ive enters a Savak agent's (the Shah's secret police) home during the revolution: "There were vases of flowers in the front hall. But downstairs there were cells. In each of them was a steel bed with straps and beneath it two domestic cookers. There were lowering devices on the bed frames so that people strapped to them could be brought down onto the flames." John, it gets worse but I'll spare you the grotesque details. The Shah was a very, very bad man.

    The US destroyed democracy in Iran and replaced it with a "king" willing to stabilize Iran for US business interests; while maintaining his postion through brute force and violence. Do you think this has anything to do with what happened in 1979? What about the Reaganites providing satellite technology to Saddam Hussein so that he could pin point Iranian troops with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war (Iraq was the aggressor)? Would you consider the Iranians as having any shred of credibility in criticizing the US?

    The only person I've seen you defend when it concerns torture or unscrupulous war tactics is GW Bush, and since the Shah is not Bush and was terrorizing his own people (with American guns and support) this must mean something to you...must conjure up some trace of sympathy for the long suffering of the Iranian people. No, it does not excuse what happened during the revolution, or the present insanity...but it does give context. I'm sorry, but a more comprehensive context is what I see many conservatives lacking in their analyses. Black/White ideology is so medieval.

    But then again, I must be full of shit because I allegedly can't afford to pay $1.50/gallon for petrol...HaHaHa! That's funny, John. Disagree with someone and write them off as most likely poor and bitter. Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh tactic. Very weak. Or blame Carter or Clinton.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:08am

59. ibble,

    "actually, john, it all goes back to the 50's when the US and UK, in response to threats by irans more or less democratically elected government to nationalize the oil industry, blatently meddled in their internal affairs, and instituted a monarchical dictatorship (the shah) friendly to our oil and strategic interests"

    Your right...it was Trumans fault..however, Carter really stepped upo to the plate.

    A number of my friends fathers were executed in Iran after Carter turned away from the Shah and in effect aided Komannie(sp) return. Shah was no great democrat, but he did improve the life of many his people, instituted a more modern Iran, actually helped Israel and was a stablizing balance in the gulf. Maybe actually could have check mated Iraq. I am aware of Savak also...so the place needed work, but now the place needs an enima and brain surgey...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:16am

60. Zero,

    I know, it shouldn't be done...the above reply to Maasch...but I could not help myself after the whole Carter=bad Iran today comment.

    Glenn C. Lemmon,

    You have very good style, while assaulting these conservative creeps. Excellent work.

    LoveLoki,

    Hi. How's beautiful Montana? I recently watched the movie A River Runs Through It, for the hundredth time or so (I love flyfishing and I love MT).

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:18am

61. Oust,

    Actually, I don't think you are full of shit and I am aware of the truth in your last post..I also don't think the Irainian people got rid of the Shah anymore than the "students" took over the US embassy.

    I don't blame Carter for everything, but I am more than willing to call Carter a completer failure as a president and as a leader. He is a great humanitarian and I would love to live next door to him...I wouldn't want him to guard my house....The American people didn't want him either, as he was fired by a large majority. Bush 1 was also fired...BTW, I did not vote for Bush 1.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:22am

62. John,

    It was Eisenhower who green-lighted Operation Ajax (removal of Mossadegh because he nationalized Iran's oil). Stop being so partisan at the expense of facts. The Shah was as bad a murderer as any in the region- and that is a low (or high) standard.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:24am

63. Outs,

    I agree with you on the movie....friends of mine owned some of the land where it was filmed...they were allowewd to watch the filming...I loved the place.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:24am

64. John,

    Mossadegh was not a communist, and he wanted to reform Iran along the lines of how you describe the Shah, but without the violence. Mossedegh was western educated; he was a good man.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:28am

65. Oust,

    I agree. It is worse now, I believe..Maybe the Shah could have been brought in the modern world with pressure..what they have there now is ridiculous..extremely dangerous and volital(sp)..religious nuts..not different to religious nut everywhere. Including the US.

    Whenever someone announces "they have found the true truth", I start looking for the door...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:29am

66. Outs,

    I agree with you on the movie....friends of mine owned some of the land where it was filmed...they were allowewd to watch the filming...I loved the place.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 01:24am | ignore this person

    John,

    Thanks. Yes, it's quite a place. I used to live up in the northwest corner of MT, working in fisheries (studying an endangered trout--the Bull Trout).

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:30am

67. John,

    Yes, the current leadership is quite frightening. I just don't think our current policies are doing anything but throwing fuel on the fire.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:33am

68. Oust,

    "Disagree with someone and write them off as most likely poor and bitter. "

    It has nothing to do with disagreeing per say, but a pattern I have noticed is the ones who rant against the "rich" or the corporations seem to link them all to greed and evil,...and if you scratch the surface you find they have failed in some area which they feel has keep them from getting "rich"(whatever that means)unfairly, so a scape goat must be id'ed.

    Sometimes, not all.

    I am tired and must sleep..gotta catch a plane at 6:00 am.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:35am

69. Well John, it's quite late, I have to hit the hay. Til the next day. Goodnight. Damn! Being polite to conservatives! Probably a good thing.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:37am

70. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 01:35am | ignore this person

    Strongly disagree here...but for another time.

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:39am

71. BTW,

    I love trout fishing(we fly fish)..used to live in Colorado..my son(14 yrs old) and I are going back to the Flat Tops again this year for a week. Horse and us head in with tents.. natural streams, cutthroat, Browns, no whirling disease...catch and release. Pure joy..natures church and we seen and talk God up there everyday!!! Good for me and my son together....

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:40am

72. Good night to you, too

    :)zzzzzz

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 01:41am

73. Last frivolous post:

    Apology to GlennC. Lemon (mispelled your name earlier).

    Posted by Oustbush at 05/17/2006 @ 01:47am

74. John Maasch,

    As I think you can see by now, and perhaps are trying to puzzle out, arguing with the leftists at The Nation is a bit like trying to reason a Benedictine monk out of his belief in God. It can't be done, and perhaps should not be tried. You can't reason a man out of what he hasn't been reasoned into in the first place.

    Here's a pretty interesting excerpt from an article on the subject:

    But why did Sorel, trained as an engineer and knowledgeable about science, reject scientific socialism? The answer, I think, is that Sorel suspected that socialism, in practice, simply might not ever really work. Jonah Goldberg points out Sorel "remained at best agnostic" about whether the General Strike would usher in socialism; but I would go further: Sorel himself was skeptical not only about the efficacy of the General Strike, but about the possibility of socialism as a viable economic system.

    For example, in the introduction to Reflections on Violence, Sorel says that the French thinker Renan "was very surprised to discover that Socialists are beyond discouragement." He then quotes Renan's comment about the indefatigable perseverance of socialists: "After each abortive experiment they recommence their work: the solution is not yet found, but it will be. The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength." (Italics mine.)

    Sorel's response to Renan's comment is not to say, "Renan is wrong; there is a socialist solution, and one day we will find it." Instead, he focuses on the fact that socialists gain their strength precisely from their refusal to recognize that no socialist solution exists. "No failure proves anything against Socialism since the latter has become a work of preparation (for revolution); if they are checked, it merely proves that their apprenticeship has been insufficient; they must set to work again with more courage, persistence, and confidence than before...." But what is the point for Sorel of this refusal to accept the repeated historical failure of socialism? Here again, Sorel refuses to embrace the orthodox position of socialist optimism; he does not say, "Try, try, try again, for one day socialism will succeed." Instead, he argues that it is only by refusing to accept the failure of socialism that one can become a "true revolutionary." Indeed, for Sorel, the whole point of the myth of the socialist revolution is not that the human societies will be transformed in the distant future, but that the individuals who dedicate their lives to this myth will be transformed into comrades and revolutionaries in the present. In short, revolution is not a means to achieve socialism; rather, the myth of socialism is a useful illusion that turns ordinary men into comrades and revolutionaries united in a common struggle -- a band of brothers, so to speak.

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 08:17am

75. The media is the problem. If I hear another so-called democrat say that the problem is that the Democrats can't "define" themselves, I'm gonna scream. How did the freakin' Republicans define themselves? It was broadcast constantly over the Bush echo chamber: the tv and radio. Why can't America realize who owns the media? At least in Italy, when I was there recently, people would smirk at the media, knowing Berlusconi owned it. The greatest lie the media has sold this country (and the most interesting psychologically), is that the media is controlled by liberals. Bill Maher rocks. It's a shame the best news on tv is on the comedy channel.

    Posted by anothernumber at 05/17/2006 @ 08:39am

76. Posted by ANOTHERNUMBER 05/17/2006 @ 08:39am

    I feel your pain. How can anyone say the Dems have not defined themselves as Bush=bad, anti-Bush=good? Even the stupid red-staters ought to be able to understand that.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 09:16am

77. hail caeser!

    I think bush defined himself as bad

    we just didn't sit there in blissful ignorence

    (pom poms at the ready)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 09:21am

78. It isnt a warrantless surveillance program. It is a terrorist surveillance program. And, it is international calls only - not domestic. And, it only applies to terrorists.

    George Bush has a plan for victory in Iraq. Why doesnt the media ever report all the good news from Iraq? All the media ever reports about Iraq, is the people being slaughtered, kidnapped, tortured, not having electricity, not having sanitation, not having drinking water, the streets not being safe. Iraq is approaching a turning point.

    Reporters have always kind of sided with the terrorists.

    (I have to point out this is a satire of Conservative beliefs, or it wouldnt be obvious given the degree of Conservative ignorance of we face today)

    Posted by conshame at 05/17/2006 @ 09:32am

79. Will,

    Regrettably your posts are no longer good even for entertainment value. I no longer find the circular logic on this site entertaining, it has become too mundane. Also, I find that it offends my dignity to argue with someone who can't even call me 'ignorant' without misspelling it. Sorry.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 09:32am

80. Posted by CONSHAME 05/17/2006 @ 09:32am

    Wow, for a minute there, I thought you were sane. Thanks for the disclaimer.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 09:34am

81. the why are ya still hear?

    your not one of those hamsters that's paralysed by sex and voilence on TV and just can't seeem to find the strenth to rach over and hit the of button on the remote...

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 09:34am

82. r ya?

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 09:35am

83. correction... are you?

    (forgot I wasn't talking to CPT)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 09:37am

84. Crates full of Bricks of freshly minted $100 bills in Iraq - no tracking whatsoever.

    Posted by conshame at 05/17/2006 @ 09:42am

85. Posted by CONSHAME 05/17/2006 @ 09:42am

    Crates full of Bricks of freshly minted $100 bills in Iraq - no tracking whatsoever.

    Perhaps we should be sending them Visa cards?

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 09:54am

86. Conservatives like George Bush not like keeping track of the crates of $100 US bills hot off the printing press. The Conservative wants George Bush keeping track of journalists.

    Posted by conshame at 05/17/2006 @ 10:06am

87. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 01:16am

    oh, i am no fan of the religious extremists of any kind, including the shia muslim freaks of iran. furthermore, its hard to argue that the nature of the post revolutionary iranian government(s) have been morally superior to the crimes of the shah...

    nonetheless who knows what may have been the nature of iranian history had we and the british not intervened where we had no business.

    carter? well, nobody is perfect, but to ignore the "malaise" (that he correctly identified) of post vietnam hangover america in the late 70's and assume we were ready to jump into another foriegn military involvement (especially in light of the US/UK iranian history) is a bit...assumptive...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/17/2006 @ 10:07am

88. Posted by CONSHAME 05/17/2006 @ 10:06am

    Conservatives like George Bush not like keeping track of the crates of $100 US bills hot off the printing press. The Conservative wants George Bush keeping track of journalists.

    You do know that Iraq has no banking system? No way to pay for reconstruction or any other service, except in cash?

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 10:08am

89. Yup....if BushCo has their way any of them "nay-saying" confidential informants and their terrorist-supporting journalist buddies will be guests of the big black DHS vans who will award them their GITMO vacation certificates.

    Cloak-n-Dagger

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/17/2006 @ 10:59am

90. hello again to you too, oustbush. montana is great as usual. a little too hot though. winter seems to be going away more each year.

    Posted by loveloki at 05/17/2006 @ 11:13am

91. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 10:08am: You do know that Iraq has no banking system? No way to pay for reconstruction or any other service, except in cash?

    How convenient for your corrupt buddies.

    And you do realize that accountants can keep track of cash payments, if they choose to. Apparently, our government prefers not to. Gee, I wonder why?

    Oh, and it is so good to have you back, Moronificus. The hamster brigade has not been complete without you.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 11:39am

92. "The writer seems to have as much contempt for the poor as he delusionally believes everyone leftish does for the rich..."

    I have no contempt for the POOR, as I spent so many years in the condition..and to some degree I still am...I do however, have contempt for many of the liberals here who are stuck on everything revolving around the same montra...we all know it, Bush lied, Cheney, haliburton, 2000 and 2004 election stolen...

    have you also noticed nothing changed from that montra, too? Regardless of what subject is posted?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/16/2006 @ 8:20pm | ignore this person

    John - It's mantra (sorry, but that just makes me mental, like when our resident red pit bulls constantly spell hypocrisy "hypocracy")...

    And perhaps that mantra hasn't changed much because those things you mentioned are worth repeating.

    Bush IS a liar, by the way, John, and so is Dick Cheney, and many of Halliburton's dealings ARE as shady as a crack dealer on a a dirty street corner, c'mon.

    And did you not just hear Bush repeat recently that there is no intention to monitor domestic-only calls, just ones in which one party is out of the country (and that with a court order - sorry, wrong again), but now the recent news is that there is an ongoing and massive compilation of call records that are strictly domestic... Do you not find that the least bit curious or disturbing?

    A_N_D

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 12:54pm

93. Nice comment, New Dawn. TWhat enrages me about the attitude found among our "right" posters is their assumption that everyone envies them their status, and that if we are in opposition, it is because we want to deny them their slice of the trough. The opposite is true. They can have whatever they want, more than they can spend in a lifetime, that's fine with me, I've never been that damn poor in my life. But they shouldn't be allowed to run the government, just because they own a lot of shit. Ownership and entrepreneurialism are not the only things that generate wealth, or innovation. At the end of the day, these people identify with what they own rather than who they are, and assume everyone else who has a problem with their ideology is jealous of them. I mean, damn, I've got a house on a lot that's 960 square feet, it's small, and it's more than I can handle on my own. Why in the hell would I want what they have? I can barely keep up with my regular chores. I just don't believe material status or ownership should confer more privilege than it already has. It certainly doesn't generate any wider wisdom, given the tone of most of the rantings we see here.

    Posted by Sweetdaddy at 05/17/2006 @ 12:54pm

94. And hey hey, it's Pontifitard!! Welcome back, little guy!

    How's things in the willingly blind apologism business?

    Enjoying your new status as part of the less-than-a-third-of-the-country who still supports this sham and failure of a President?

    So, when are you leaving again?

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 12:58pm

95. Posted by NEW DAWN 05/17/2006 @ 12:58am

    How's things in the willingly blind apologism business?

    Better than the blind hatred business, I expect.

    Enjoying your new status as part of the less-than-a-third-of-the-country who still supports this sham and failure of a President?

    Well, we'll see how that works out in the next election. Remember the far left is still a small minority in this country, I believe that a lot of Bush's low popularity is due to conservatives who are disenchanted with the out-of-control spending of the Republican Congress. Thus, I don't think the left will benefit.

    So, when are you leaving again?

    Well, probably as soon as I get fed up with the blind Bush and America-hating of the traitorous, treasonous left. So hold forth, if you will.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 1:29pm

96. Banter with Retardicus - as useless as ever...

    A_N_D: How's things in the willingly blind apologism business?

    Pont: Better than the blind hatred business, I expect.

    Yes, you folks are doing far more business... Certainly true. but there's no "blind hatred" here, Pont. Just reasoned, rational, fact-based disgust and contempt for this abject failure of an administration... I am not surprised, however, given your posts, that this continues to elude you.

    A_N_D: Enjoying your new status as part of the less-than-a-third-of-the-country who still supports this sham and failure of a President?

    Pont: Well, we'll see how that works out in the next election. Remember the far left is still a small minority in this country, I believe that a lot of Bush's low popularity is due to conservatives who are disenchanted with the out-of-control spending of the Republican Congress. Thus, I don't think the left will benefit.

    First off, I am not "far left" and don't speak for them or anyone else... Just for me.

    Second, the citizenry of our fine country are not JUST disenchanted with Bush over out-of-control spending... Have you forgotten about wars, disasters, the economy in general, etc. etc. ad nauseum? Pick up a newspaper every now and then, won't you? There's a lot of info out there for those who care to look for and see it.

    And lessee, now... 51% to 49% percent on Bush at election time... Now, 31% of the public supports the guy, a loss of 18 additional percentage points... Seems to me that a significant portion of the right and middle have come to their senses and realized their mistake in electing this scum for a president... Is that that "new math" you're working with?

    A_N_D: So, when are you leaving again?

    Pont: Well, probably as soon as I get fed up with the blind Bush and America-hating of the traitorous, treasonous left. So hold forth, if you will.

    Ah, yes, dissent is "treasonous" and "traitorous" these days, isn't it? How Rovian. The founding fathers would find you a joke and a coward with that attitude, Pont. They would also likely find that those definitions fit many of your current dear leaders to a "T".

    And so do I.

    Hurry up and reach your breaking point, will you, Pont? I can't wait to celebrate your departure from this forum and your accompanying these scum to their proper place in history -

    obscurity.

    Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 1:47pm

97. "and the most interesting psychologically), is that the media is controlled by liberals. Bill Maher rocks."

    Bill Maher is a BIG LIB...and the MSM is liberal, except Fox...everyone knows this and has for years...most of the MSM vote DEM by their own admission...check out the future journalists and the schools who cook them...no conservatives on staff..so it only follows logic...

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 2:13pm

98. Ponti,

    I enjoyed your post and read the link. The problem I have with most on the left is that they don't see themselves a socialist at all, which most are in the long run..

    Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 2:16pm

99. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 2:16pm

    Glad you enjoyed it, John. I'll post more as it becomes relevant.

    Make no mistake, though, the Bush-hating is purely derivative of the underlying socialist philosophy of the left, and it is about as voluntary as a gag reflex with them. If you were around when Reagan was President, it's all very familiar. And rest assured, when Bush leaves office, it'll all be forgotten, even as it as transferred to the next Republican.

    The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.

    They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule.

    http://tinyurl.com/a2463

    The left hates America because it is living proof of the fundamental falseness of their faith in socialism. The most powerful and successful country in the history of the world, America is like a sharp stick in the eye to the lovers of Castro, Mao, and Lenin.

    Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

100. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 2:13pm: nd the MSM is liberal, except Fox...everyone knows this and has for years

     No Ma, everyone doesn't know this. Because its simply untrue. The MSM has been protecting your boy the Decida and his crime family since 2000. Why would a liberal media protect a lying, incompetent, corrupt, right-wing, authoritarian fool with a god complex?

     check out the future journalists and the schools who cook them...no conservatives on staff..so it only follows logic...

     I have no idea of the ideological background of journalism schools. And neither do you Ma. But, that doesn't stop you. Because, you just make stuff up, like all the whackjobs from the hamster brigade.

     In any event, Ma, you have previously claimed that all schools are dominated by extremist lefties, not just journalism schools. (Some rant about leftists being unable to actually do anything, so they run off and hide in the ivory towers of academia...) So, by your "logic", all professions should be dominated by extremist lefties, since all of the schools that cook professionals are dominated by extremist lefties. So, us extremist anti-american leftie socialists must totally dominate society. So why are you always calling us a fringe group?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 2:51pm

101. Well, probably as soon as I get fed up with the blind Bush and America-hating of the traitorous, treasonous left. So hold forth, if you will.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 1:29pm |

     bush hating is patriotic stuff. supporters of those who lie us into self profitting wars and threaten the integrity of the constitution are the anti-americans...

     see? its so easy call people un-american. others can call you unamerican too...

     arent you talented!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

102. Posted by NEW DAWN 05/17/2006 @ 1:47pm

     Regrettably, NEW DAWN, I have neither the time nor the patience to debunk the BS that permeates your post. I'll settle for the more salient points, however:

     Second, the citizenry of our fine country are not JUST disenchanted with Bush over out-of-control spending... Have you forgotten about wars, disasters, the economy in general, etc. etc. ad nauseum? Pick up a newspaper every now and then, won't you? There's a lot of info out there for those who care to look for and see it.

     Do you know anything about the state of the economy? It's going great, by the way, by almost all objective measures. Not that you would know that, by reading the slanted liberal newspapers, so your ignorance may be excused.

     Ah, yes, dissent is "treasonous" and "traitorous" these days, isn't it? How Rovian.

     Dissent itself is not treasonous. However, embracing America's enemies in order to obtain partisan advantage is certainly treasonous. And yes, most of you on the left I certainly characterize as treasonous, and I will tell you so at every opportunity. If you don't like it, that's just too bad.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

103. The left hates America because it is living proof of the fundamental falseness of their faith in socialism. The most powerful and successful country in the history of the world, America is like a sharp stick in the eye to the lovers of Castro, Mao, and Lenin.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

     everyone to the left of you is not a socialist. furthermore, bullshit. many programs once considered socialist function perfectly well in a free market economy. i'm sure you are proud of your intelectual ability to be perverse. good for you.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/17/2006 @ 2:57pm

104. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/17/2006 @ 2:45pm: The Day the NSA Issue Died

     Love, you are kidding right? The issue dies because the Decida decides to brief the members of congress that he has been required to brief by law all along. And this causes the death of the issue why? And, as a born-again fascist, do you even understand what the issue is?

     Besides, wouldn't the death of this issue be bad for your boy? Haven't the right wing whackjobs been spewing about how this issue helps the president?

     It appears that the GOP and Dems are doing a little "kiss and make up"

     Exactly what aspect of this report sounds like "kiss and make up". If that's what you call "kiss and make up", I would hate to be your significant other.

     so there goes another "impeachment" issue.

     That's ok. We've got plenty more.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 2:57pm

105. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 05/17/2006 @ 2:57pm

     everyone to the left of you is not a socialist.

     Straw man, never said it.

     What I said is that the underlying philosophy of the left, socialism, is fundamentally un-American, which is why you leftists, more or less, hate America and the capitalism that has made it great.

     furthermore, bullshit.

     The kind of cogency I expect from the left.

     many programs once considered socialist function perfectly well in a free market economy.

     Oh yeah, like what?

     i'm sure you are proud of your intelectual ability to be perverse.

     Actually, I'm proud of my intellectual ability to recognize the world as it exists correctly. I happily live in that world, rather than the fantasy world you leftists live in.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 3:05pm

106. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/17/2006 @ 3:09pm

     LVL, this is a great article, you should read it. It explains how otherwise rational people can behave irrationally, as this board dramatizes so effectively:

     http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I

     the whole point of the myth of the socialist revolution is not that the human societies will be transformed in the distant future, but that the individuals who dedicate their lives to this myth will be transformed into comrades and revolutionaries in the present. In short, revolution is not a means to achieve socialism; rather, the myth of socialism is a useful illusion that turns ordinary men into comrades and revolutionaries united in a common struggle -- a band of brothers, so to speak.

     It's a cult, really. Something to believe in, when conventional religion is to be scorned. A bright and shining lie, leaving a trail of bloody corpses.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 3:25pm

107. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 3:25pm: It's a cult, really. Something to believe in, when conventional religion is to be scorned. A bright and shining lie, leaving a trail of bloody corpses.

     Right Ponty. And the cult of anti-bush is growing. We are everywhere now. 2/3 of America and growing. Your next door neighbors have flipped. Some of your drinking buddies are wavering a bit.

     At work, the cult is everywhere. No more sitting around the lunchtable marvelling at the size of Mr. Mission Accomplished's manly engine. Hell, you can't even open your mouth at work, the presence of the cult is too strong.

     And its getting harder and harder to resist us. Constantly spinning reality to show that we have always tortured, and spied on ourselves, and imprisoned people without trial. We have always had a president that openly breaks the law, and illegally invades other countries. We have always been led by timid cowardly men who watch day after day as american citizens cry out for help from a storm of historic intensity and respond with the waiter's reply "sorry its not my table, but somebody should really do something about it".

     We are growing Ponty. And we are "leaving a trail of bloody corpses" behind.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

108. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

     We are growing Ponty. And we are "leaving a trail of bloody corpses" behind.

     Yeah, right. Win some elections, then maybe I won't think you're talking out of your ass.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 4:13pm

109. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/17/2006 @ 3:58pm

     How's your boy Chavez, doing ORWELL? Ever meet an anti-American dictator you didn't get the warm and fuzzies for? Or a pro-American dictator you didn't hate? But you're not traitorous, nah, not at all. You're a patriot. Yep, a real patriot.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 4:20pm

110. LL

     It ain't dead....we're just getting around to peeling the scab off. Now maybe we will start to see what sort of pustulating mass Dubya has been making.

     Ponti-boy

     You mean a pro-American despot like Dubya hisself?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/17/2006 @ 4:24pm

111. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/17/2006 @ 4:24pm

     You mean a pro-American despot like Dubya hisself?

     Please specify whether you're talking about your own fevered imagination, or in the real world, where the real people live?

     Posted by pontificus at 05/17/2006 @ 4:35pm

112. Pontifucus -

     A few weeks ago when we were going back and forth on a few issues, I actually thought you might have some degree of smarts, even if I disagreed with your conclusion or argument.

     But, I have to rethink that after reading your nuggets like "America-hating of the traitorous, treasonous left ... the lovers of Castro, Mao, and Lenin ... embracing America's enemies ... most of you on the left I certainly characterize as treasonous ... you leftists, more or less, hate America and the capitalism that has made it great"

     You are just another crackpot only here to stir up agitation.

     Bye.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/17/2006 @ 4:47pm

113. Pontifitwit -

     I do not "hate America", nor am I a socialist, nor do I have any "love" for "Castro, Mao, and Lenin". You'll find nothing in any of my posts to indicate any of these things. This isn't even a nice try. You are simply delusional.

     "Regrettably, NEW DAWN, I have neither the time nor the patience to debunk the BS that permeates your post."

     Nor the intelligence, facts, or ability to admit when you are wrong...

     I say "read a newspaper" and you retort by implying that all of the newspapers I read (not that you have any clue which newspapers I actually read) are "slanted left". I'm getting the feeling you fall back too often on calling things you disagree with "slanted left", "traitorous", or "treasonous" instead of relying on an actual argument...

     You blather on, "Dissent itself is not treasonous. However, embracing America's enemies in order to obtain partisan advantage is certainly treasonous."

     Name one thing I have ever said in any post, anywhere, that demonstrates that I "hate America" or that I "embrace America's enemies", delusional one.

     Further, Ibble confronted with your broad-brushing of the left as predominantly socialist. You responded with "What I said is that the underlying philosophy of the left, socialism, is fundamentally un-American, which is why you leftists, more or less, hate America and the capitalism that has made it great."

     There you go again... you love to throw folks who disagree with you into nice little groups because diverse opinions befuddle you... You just did, again, exactly what Ibble was exposing about you, and you still don't get it.

     And then this see-saw you're riding with the false prophet, Liberty... You two just tickle each other to death, don't you? "It's a cult, really. Something to believe in, when conventional religion is to be scorned. A bright and shining lie, leaving a trail of bloody corpses."

     You just described the Bush regime's modus operandi and the current definition of two of the world's predominant organized religions to a "T".

     And you're both still too stupid to realize it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 5:09pm

114. I'll count on one of our resident economy scholars to debunk your economic outlook...

     Meanwhile, I will go back to generating personal income! :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 5:24pm

115. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 4:13pm: Yeah, right. Win some elections, then maybe I won't think you're talking out of your ass.

     Ah hell, Ponty. You and I both know that you don't do no stinking thinking, regardless of what happens. Thinkings for wusses, not real american patriot boys like you.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 5:30pm

116. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 4:20pm: Ever meet an anti-American dictator you didn't get the warm and fuzzies for?

     Well, now that you mention it, I'm not too keen on George W.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 5:32pm

117. Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 2:54pm: Regrettably, NEW DAWN, I have neither the time nor the patience to debunk the BS that permeates your post. I'll settle for the more salient points, however:

     Wow. I can't wait. The Ponster is gonna use facts and reasoning to rebut New Dawn's salient points. This is gonna be good.

     Do you know anything about the state of the economy? It's going great, by the way, by almost all objective measures. Not that you would know that, by reading the slanted liberal newspapers, so your ignorance may be excused.

     Umm. Gee Pont. That was kinda disappointing. I was hoping for some facts. Is "It's going great, by the way, by almost all objective measures", the whackjob version of a fact.

     Oh wait, I see. You can't get the facts because the anti-american leftie media is hiding the true bliss and joy of our economic state. Damn leftie media.

     But surely, Americans would recognize the booming economy in their own lives, right Ponty. So why do 2/3 of the country say the economy is going badly? Oh, I know. They are just stupid. Right?

     And yes, most of you on the left I certainly characterize as treasonous, and I will tell you so at every opportunity.

     Great. And I will tell you that I consider scared little bed-wetters like yourself who, out of their uncontrollable delusional fear of the terrorists, drool in support for the imposition of martial law at home and empire abroad to be quite treasonous. But I'm not going to tell you so at every opportunity. Its not worth the effort to keep restating the obvious.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 5:43pm

118. OR,

     "I have no idea of the ideological background of journalism schools. And neither do you Ma. But, that doesn't stop you."

     I saw it on a John Stoessel report on ABC a few weeks back....I don't have the exact date...20/20 I think. He went to the schools and interviewd the profs and administration...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 5:44pm

119. Or,

     Not all lefties are fringe group, just some,....you are a subset of the left. The left DOES dominate the schools system..from the unions to the tenured profs and they are what they are...it is no secret and not a crime...just be honest about the influence...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 5:48pm

120. OR,

     The polls you love so much say that 89% of the responds are optomistic and positive about the future....polls are all manipulated by the way questions are asked...

     And by almost ANY measure the economy is roaring along to the envy of the world...you should jump in..the waters fine...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/17/2006 @ 5:51pm

121. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 5:44pm: I saw it on a John Stoessel report on ABC a few weeks back....I don't have the exact date...20/20 I think. He went to the schools and interviewd the profs and administration..

     Gee Ma. I had no idea. So, Stoessel was able to determine from his anecdotal interviews that there are "no conservatives on staff" at any journalism schools. And this was on some show you saw a few weeks back. Very convincing.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 5:57pm

122. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 5:48pm: Not all lefties are fringe group, just some,....you are a subset of the left. The left DOES dominate the schools system..from the unions to the tenured profs

     Is that domination by the fringe left or the mainstream left?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 5:58pm

123. Let's ask ourselves this: what is the best way to end-run the Administration and maintain leaks, free reporters from the fear that they, and their sources, are being electronically spied on, and thus insure that the truth reaches us? Let's not lie down and let these fascist bastards defeat us.

     Posted by icarus9 at 05/17/2006 @ 6:01pm

124. the instability in Iran was caused by Eisenhower, as everybody knows, really

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2006 @ 6:05pm

125. Dissent itself is not treasonous. However, embracing America's enemies in order to obtain partisan advantage is certainly treasonous."

     like Reagan negotiating with the Iranians before and after he was elected. yes, treason

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/17/2006 @ 6:09pm

126. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/17/2006 @ 5:51pm: The polls you love so much say that 89% of the responds are optomistic and positive about the future....

     Gee Mr. Maasch. I missed that poll. Could you provide a link to it?

     polls are all manipulated by the way questions are asked...

     Ah, the new Laura Bush talking point. The polls only show the Decida and his policies to be unpopular because they are manipulating the respondent.

     That explains those fox polls [tinyurl.com]. Fox has always been a nest of subversive lefties. Look how their poll manipulates the respondents. Only 33% approve of Dear Leader.

     And by almost ANY measure the economy is roaring along to the envy of the world...you should jump in..the waters fine...

     Yes. But you wouldn't know it by watching the moonbat dominated Fox. Hell, their poll says that 72% of Americans say the economy is in poor or fair shape.

     Fox has clearly taken advantage of the stupidity of its viewers to manipulate them into thinking that the booming economy is a bust. They are nothing but a bunch of anti-american liberal kooks who side with the terrorists.

     Oh, and Ma. With your strong understanding of economics, I am sure that you can understand how purchasing everything on credit (with no intention of ever paying off the debt) can make certain economic indicators go up.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/17/2006 @ 6:09pm

127. There is a connect-the-dots relationship among all these elements: WMD lies and distortions, Plame leak, NSA spying violations, torture violations,dramatically increased classification, cronyism, corruption, lack of Congressional oversight, Majority bullying and threats, suspension of investigations into criminal wrongdoing by the Administration, 911 Commission omissions and distortions, Patriot Act, media inattention and downright complicity, election fraud, public apathy.

     Notice that it all goes back to the citizenry. We need to mobilize and expose and discuss and vote all of these people out of office. We must start with the Republicans, but then we also need to give warning to the Democrats, not to play that Majority Tyranny Game or we get rid of them. It is the incumbent we need to throw out.

     Third party does not work because it allows the incumbent a better chance of winning. It must be a two-step process to get rid of all incumbents. Vote Democrat this November, no matter who, even the incumbent if Democrat, and then let them know immediately that immediate impeachment of Cheney-Bush is expected or the new incumbent will be thrown out next time.

     Posted by lockerh at 05/17/2006 @ 6:18pm

128. There is a connect-the-dots relationship among all these elements: WMD lies and distortions, Plame leak, NSA spying violations, torture violations,dramatically increased classification, cronyism, corruption, lack of Congressional oversight, Majority bullying and threats, suspension of investigations into criminal wrongdoing by the Administration, 911 Commission omissions and distortions, Patriot Act, media inattention and downright complicity, election fraud, public apathy.

     Notice that it all goes back to the citizenry. We need to mobilize and expose and discuss and vote all of these people out of office. We must start with the Republicans, but then we also need to give warning to the Democrats, not to play that Majority Tyranny Game or we get rid of them. It is the incumbent we need to throw out.

     Third party does not work because it allows the incumbent a better chance of winning. It must be a two-step process to get rid of all incumbents. Vote Democrat this November, no matter who, even the incumbent if Democrat, and then let them know immediately that immediate impeachment of Cheney-Bush is expected or the new incumbent will be thrown out next time.

     Bob Locke

     Posted by lockerh at 05/17/2006 @ 6:21pm

129. EXPOSURE:

     ...I get fed up with the blind Bush and America-hating of the traitorous, treasonous left...

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 1:29pm

     The left hates America because it is living proof of the fundamental falseness of their faith in socialism. The most powerful and successful country in the history of the world, America is like a sharp stick in the eye to the lovers of Castro, Mao, and Lenin.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 2:48pm

     Dissent itself is not treasonous. However, embracing America's enemies in order to obtain partisan advantage is certainly treasonous. And yes, most of you on the left I certainly characterize as treasonous...

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 2:54pm

     What I said is that the underlying philosophy of the left, socialism, is fundamentally un-American, which is why you leftists, more or less, hate America and the capitalism that has made it great.

     Posted by PONTIFICUS 05/17/2006 @ 3:05pm

     No broad brushes here...

     Does anyone besides me get the impression Pontifi-nitwit has been reading a lot of sites like the tinyurl link he posted above (and that by a complete nobody who just happened to figure out how to get a blog account)?

     I wonder what it's like to live in mortal terror of Pont's nebulous concept of "the left"?

     The gibbering and drooling to himself can't be far off...

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 6:49pm

130. And Pont -

     We needn't wait for one of the resident economic scholars here to evaluate U.S. citizen's view of the economy - Fox News has already polled on that one...

     Orwell was kind enough to provide you with the tinyurl link above (Posted by ORWELL2005 05/17/2006 @ 6:09pm)... but you wouldn't dare go read it, would you? If you do, let's hear you vilify that nasty ol' Fox News for being so left.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/17/2006 @ 6:53pm

131. If this thread isn't a case in point for the underutilization of the ignore button, I hesitate to think what will make the case for the rest of my lefty buddies. John Maasch is probably a decent guy, so in need of friends that he offers beers to anyone who will correspond with him. But he writes without taking advantage of the great resource that is the internet or, even, a high school history book. While opinions can and should vary widely, facts is facts. Then there is Pontificus, who is almost certainly not a decent guy since his only resource to conceal his lack of knowledge is a pitbull mentality. Like John, he feels free to throw out fantasyland history; unlike John he spits into each post to try to spread his conservative cooties to each of us. (We've got our shots, dude). Like John he discounts any report that comes out of the media because it is tainted by liberals, so uncertain they are of their own abilities to dissect reality from propaganda that they ignore the coming economic freefall on which we are about to find ourselves thanks, I suppose, to Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman.

     In the midst of these two desperately thick guys comes LL, so full of internet-generated knowledge, so gifted with crafting a post, so inadequately prepared to go from fact to analysis to evaluation to informed opinion. But when he's not looking down his nose at us, LL at least attempts to get things right. He often fails, but the attempt is there.

     But the main problem is that these posts are not just nuisances; they are boring. I can even go for wading through NACL's madman impersonation (I am hopeful he is simply acting the part) before the silliness of Pontificus or Barry25.

     Where's Freiheit?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/17/2006 @ 8:43pm

132. Tj

     This is all they have left.

     while sad, it is also humerous and heart warming.

     what do you say we retire them peacefully and never wake them from their wonderful dreams to have to face anything other than the visions of the sugerplumbs already dancing in their heads

     Posted by Will C. at 05/17/2006 @ 10:22pm

133. good characterizations, TJ. yes after a while tedium does set in. you can only argue with ignorant boneheads for so long. I mean how many timers can you argue with folks that STILL believe Saddam had the weapons, and that he was the scourge of mankind.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/18/2006 @ 08:17am

134. Posted by ORWELL2005 05/17/2006 @ 6:09pm

     John Maasch, in a futile attempt to educate the ignorant, wrote:

     And by almost ANY measure the economy is roaring along to the envy of the world...you should jump in..the waters fine...

     ORWELL, demonstrating that in his world, perception=reality, wrote:

     Yes. But you wouldn't know it by watching the moonbat dominated Fox. Hell, their poll says that 72% of Americans say the economy is in poor or fair shape.

     And ORWELL, not caring about, or perhaps utterly indifferent to the current economic statistics which indicate a great economy, argues that because the great mass of America feels that the economy is bad, then it must be bad. Never mind the low unemployment of 4.7 percent, the huge growth in the economy of 4 percent per year (dwarfing the loser socialist economies the left wants us to emulate), etc. It's all about the feelings for ORWELL. Only when it suits his political agenda, of course.

     The fact is, almost all of you lefties are basically intellectually dishonest fools in the service of a failed socialist philosophy. Oh yes, I know, you don't like to be called socialist, who in America does? All Americans know that socialists are losers, so in America, the socialists call themselves 'leftists', 'progressives', blah blah blah, anything but the real thing, which is socialist. But we know who you are, no matter how much you would like to hide.

     And of course the feelings of the public about the economy illustrate perfectly well how the liberal media has distorted perceptions through their dishonest reportage. The economy is doing great, yet the media reports the opposite.

     Posted by pontificus at 05/18/2006 @ 09:17am

135. Maasch:

     Let me get this straight. A journalist's report on OTHER journalists proves that the OTHER journalists are politically biased, but of course, the journalist reporting this story is NOT biased.

     OK.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2006 @ 10:43am

136. Yeah right Pontificus. Another conservative acting as the self-appointed barometer of what "most Americans" think.

     In Newsweek's latest poll, 71% think the country is heading in the wrong direction. So much for the conservative experiment. Your time at the helm is over. America has had enough.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/18/2006 @ 10:48am

137. Pont -

     You are a self-inflated idiot, plain and simple, which makes it doubly funny when you talk about 71% of the country having a "perception" problem. You know better than almost 3 out of every 4 people you meet, eh? Too funny.

     If that's so, then why do you not realize that the unemployment numbers still fail to account for those who have dropped off of the rolls beause they couldn't find work and exhausted their benefits? Still unemployed (or DRAMATICALLY underemployed) and no longer on the rolls, but in your world, things are going swimmingly...

     If you know better than everyone else, it's no wonder you can ignore our current deficit situation. The major economists all talk about this deficit in far-from-rosy terms, but that doesn't matter to you, because you know better. Those morons, what do they know? They must have slept through all of their collective years at college, unlike you...

     We also know what you are, Pont, no matter how much you would like to hide from facts. It does no good to post articles, links, etc. to a man like you, since you simply excuse away uncomfortable facts that dispute your position as, what was it, oh yes, left. Never mind having a rational argument or trying to get past your rabid partisanship and work towards what's best for our country as a whole.

     You fall back immediately onto hyperbole, left-bashing, and dare to call it "fact", i.e. "The fact is, almost all of you lefties are basically intellectually dishonest fools in the service of a failed socialist philosophy..."

     Again, where are you reading all of these socialist philosophies from posters on this board? I seem to have missed those posts - must be my "perception problem".

     Or more likely, yours. You embarass yourself here, Pont.

     Posted by New Dawn at 05/18/2006 @ 12:32pm

138. FBI WIRETAPPING JOURNALISTS!

     This headline would have shocked and petrified Conservative Journalists like the traitors Novack and Miller just 6 years ago! Discovered by the FBI, leaks of a CIA agents name by a DEMOCRAT would have meant the death penalty.

     Of course, it was a REPUBLICAN that leaked a CIA agent name. Typically, there is not only no outrage or apology: No, the rightwing defends the behavior.

     Now, as long as their treasonous team is in power - suddenly wiretaps and CIA leaks sound like a good idea.

     Conservatives do know the difference of right and wrong. And, they will do the wrong thing every time if it helps the "right" wing.

     Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 05/18/2006 @ 12:50pm

139. Hi all, noob here. I find it interesting that the "hamster brigade" (I love that!) here belittles socialism without, apparently, knowing anything about it. If that is the case, here is a little primer:

     Socialism in a nutshell

     In a socialist society the means of production [1] are owned by the workers rather than by a rich minority of capitalists or functionaries. Such a system of ownership is both collective and individual in nature.

     It is collective because society can control production unlike the economic anarchy of capitalism and because production is for the common good rather than for individual profit.

     At the same time it is individual because workers are no longer a 'collective' mob of alienated non-owners employed by a minority of owners. Work becomes a free and self-affirming activity for each worker and they receive the full fruits of their labor. The capitalists and their servants no longer control production nor grow rich from other's toil. Everybody is an owner. Socialism is genuine free enterprise.

     The personally empowering and cooperative nature of socialist ownership underpins similar changes in other aspects of life. Socialism means far healthier individuals and human relationships. It means full participation by each individual in the intellectual, cultural and political life of society.

     Socialism requires a revolution with three main stages: firstly the emergence of a workers' movement committed to socialist revolution, secondly the achievement of political power and the expropriation of the capitalists and thirdly a period during which workers learn how to be owners and rulers and cast off the psychological and ideological dross of the past.

     Socialism will not be an utopia simply created in people's minds. It will be the product of economic and social development. In developed countries it is now possible for everyone to live a reasonably affluent life and be free of long hours of routine toil. This creates a better basis for cooperation and mutual regard. Historically, where equality would have meant shared poverty, it was inevitable that a minority would plunder, enslave and exploit the majority. At the same time rank and file workers are progressively acquiring through their experiences, the abilities to do without an elite. Their general level of education and training has advanced significantly over the last couple of generations. The work they do, while still totally oppressive, has an increasingly mental and conceptual content. And they now have extensive access to cultural and intellectual resources and the diverse experiences of living in a modern society. So while socialism was impossible in the past, these emerging conditions make it inevitable in the future.

     Footnote [1]. The means of production comprise everything, except labor, that is used in production, namely, factories, plant, equipment, offices, shops, raw materials, fuel and components.

     from: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/

     Posted by cliffy at 05/18/2006 @ 4:20pm