The Times should be first in the dock. They published it, the idiots, because they thought they were uncovering illegal activity. It all comes down to the fact that it was perfectly legal.

However, the Times HAS done something illegal, immoral, and treasonous. Their stellar fact-checkers (lagging only behind CBS's research artists) gave them the green light to commit a grievious crime. The editorial staff is the group that needs to cool their jets in the clink. For maybe 25 years or more. Their ignorance is no excuse for leniency.

Book 'em Dan-O.

Yes we need to lock up the people who are reporting that the government is illegally spying on citizens, rather than the real criminals.

What a joke.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

It's called witholding evidence in a criminal investigation. The first sentence in the article makes that clear, or did you even bother to read it?

"Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell."

Far better that they be separated and share cells with other prisoners who could introduce them to the range of alternative life-styles available in jails.

Have an andro girl point at their naked willies!!!

I'm waiting for the day Pinch Sulzburger is frog-marched out of Times Square...

I also wonder about the timing of the NYT article.....??

Congress should have launched an investigation into the source of the leak the day it occurred, instead of trying to block renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. They need to check their classified information bucket, it looks like it might have a hole in it.

Journalists who leak security secrets should be hanged from a tree or shot at dawn

It's a hoot, seeing all the conservatives so studiously bent on finding out the identity of the leakers, and making sure they are sentences to the full extent of the law.

Tell me, if any of you can; which of you can point to any posts of yours here on Ace of Spades calling for a similar reaction to the Plame leak?

Regards,

bodhi

Jason, if you would peruse the archives you'd see that most of the regular commenters here were (are) of the opinion that anybody who leaks classified information should be prosecuted. You see, this is the real 'reality-based' community with real morals that don't change with each shift of the political winds.

Jason,

First there would have to have been a leak. Ms. Plame was a desk jockey at Langley. There is no way that she was in a covert job, as no covert agent would show up there due to the daily monitoring of the entrances to the CIA headquarters by other nations and groups spies. She had already been outed and that is why she was retired to a desk.

Without a secret there was no leak.

There is a specific law prohibiting naming covert CIA agents, whether you are of the opinion that they are desk jockeys or not. Is there a specific law prohibiting the release of information of the sort the Times published?

Just seeking clarification.

Brewfan writes:
Jason, if you would peruse the archives you'd see that most of the regular commenters here were (are) of the opinion that anybody who leaks classified information should be prosecuted.

You're the one making the claim. If examples are so numerous, feel free to point me to, say, three examples of conservatives who are regulars on this board who explicitly called for an investigation into the Plame leak.

I don't expect you to do my homework for me when I make a claim. Don't expect me to do yours.

Art writes:
First there would have to have been a leak. Ms. Plame was a desk jockey at Langley. There is no way that she was in a covert job, as no covert agent would show up there due to the daily monitoring of the entrances to the CIA headquarters by other nations and groups spies. She had already been outed and that is why she was retired to a desk.

Plame worked for a front company who set up stings trying to get terrorists to attempt to buy stinger missiles. The entire front company, the time, the money and anyone associated with it is blown.

I'd call that "damage to national security."

Further, as Doc pointed out, desk jockey or not, exposing her name is against the law. Have you or anyone else asked for Novak to be hung from a tree?

Me, I'll be clear. If it turns out that Bush is vindicated and that his wiretapping is found to be legal (I don't think there is any doubt that the courts will have to address it), then I will be in full support of an investigation and full prosecution of the leakers. Hell, I'll even write to my representatives asking for such and post a link to a scan of that mail here.

But your reply illustrates my point perfectly -- one rule for them, one rule for you.

Regards,
bodhi

You're the one making the claim

Here's what Jason said:

which of you can point to any posts of yours here on Ace of Spades calling for a similar reaction to the Plame leak?

Jason is implying nobody here wanted the Plame leaks investigated. Therefore, Jason is the one making the claim. So, Jason, put up or shut up.

which of you can point to any posts of yours here on Ace of Spades calling for a similar reaction to the Plame leak?

What are we, your fucking errand boys? Go find the posts yourself, asshole.

I'd call that "damage to national security."

Straw man.

Why do liberals ignore the actual argument, which is "which of these actually threatens the nation"?

Because they don't care about the nation.

"Bodhi" means "enlightenment" or "awakening." Maybe Jason is Buddha!

Om gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!

Unfortunately, I need to remind Buddha/the bodhisattva that leaking Plame's identity did not endanger national security. The recent leaks do endanger national security. I accept nasty things are done out of partisan spite, but they should at least not endanger the Republic!

Republicans care so much about the nation they are willing to trash the constitution to prove it. Why can't we lock all the traitors up?

Republicans care so much about the nation they are willing to trash the constitution to prove it. Why can't we lock all the traitors up?

I don't know?

Why can't you be original enough to think of a screen name? Some questions will never be answered, I guess.

I fail to see how the Government's actions in any way violates the Constitution. After all, various legal experts--even some who worked for Clinton--admit what the Government is doing is, in fact, legal.

Jason, all criminals should face justice. But the question you're asking is an odd one, because it's not at all clear that a crime was committed in the Plame case. There's a lot that's funny about that whole thing.

But yeah, for the record, if anybody (yes, even Dick Cheney) committed an illegal leak, they should be punished. Of course.

"Why can't you be original enough to think of a screen name?"

You mean as opposed to having a fake name?

Republicans care so much about the nation they are willing to trash the constitution to prove it. Why can't we lock all the traitors up?

Ok. Fine. But first can we lock up all the Josies out there who are too stupid to think up a screen name?

Did I say it was my real name, moron?

Noooo...I said SCREEN name. There's a difference.

I guess thinking up fake screen names takes a great deal of originality, at least by Lee's standards.

I guess thinking up fake screen names takes a great deal of originality, at least by Lee's standards.

No, but it sure makes you anonymous trolls easier to insult.

Bodhi guy,

Here's the deal on the CIA agent law: "It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures."

So far, Fitzgerald has found that no one is indictable for violating this law. The only thing he could pin on Libby is false testimony. Plus, very little damage was done by the outing.

Here's the law that the NYT leakers seem to have violated:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html

If you give away NSA/comint stuff, especially during wartime, you need to be in jail.

"No, but it sure makes you anonymous trolls easier to insult."

I wouldn't worry about it, your insults are hardly noticed, and might as well be simple shouts out into an empty universe.

That was me ^

I wouldn't worry about it, your insults are hardly noticed, and might as well be simple shouts out into an empty universe.

Oh, my poor self esteem! You wound me, anonymous one!

Jason,

Did you call for an investigation of the Plame 'leaks'?

If Yes, are you now calling for an investigation of the NSA leaks?

The 7:46 post was me, not the 7:47 one.

""I wouldn't worry about it, your insults are hardly noticed, and might as well be simple shouts out into an empty universe.""

"Oh, my poor self esteem! You wound me, anonymous one!"

I'm just pointing out the facts. How you interpret them is entirely a making of your own invention. I'd like to say I'm sorry that you are taking it so personally, but really, I'm not.

Heh. At least you're playing along.

Think up a name. Become part of this sick family.

Become part of this sick family.

I call dibs on a drunk uncle role.

Back to (someone who's too timid, too stupid or just a stinkin' troll)'s original post: Libs/Dems/moonbats are great for reminding EVERYONE that one is innocent until proven guilty, and if certain "rights" are not conveyed in the process of arrest, even if guilty they are innocent. It seems to me you've assigned guilt to the administration (see definition of BDS) while bemoaning the fact that "real criminals" are going scott-free. What? No trial?

Your ilk is the kind that perverted the justice system to what it is today. In your drive to remove all responsibility from any criminal, you and your kind have made the entire system a cesspool of victimhood.

IF a crime was committed in "outing" a known desk jockey that her own husband outed multiple times over the years, nail the criminal that leaked her identity. If no crime was committed (something Fitzgerald should have concluded some 15 minutes into the investigation) then drop it and get over it.

In the NSA case, a crime was committed, possibly several. Nail the criminal(s) who did it. Even if his initials are Jay Rockyfeller or somesuch.

I call dibs on a drunk uncle role.

Heh. Sandy's going to start asking us to reach into his pocket so we can feel his old war wound.

BrewFan writes:
Jason is implying nobody here wanted the Plame leaks investigated. Therefore, Jason is the one making the claim. So, Jason, put up or shut up.

Oookay, little lesson in mechanics here for BrewFan: You can't prove a negative assertion. If I say something doesn't exist, I can't prove that it doesn't exist because if I say I haven't found it, you can just say I didn't look hard enough.

This is why people who say "there are no unicorns" aren't expected to prove it. The ones who claim the existence of a thing are.

You are making the positive assertion. That assertion, made by you, is that support for a rigorous Plame investigation exists here on Ace of Spades. It is not possible for me to prove that they don't exist. But CLEARLY if people here are calling for the leaker to be tried and hung from a tree, then we should find plenty of calls by Conservatives -- supposing they are consistent -- for the same thing in the Plame case.

So show and prove, Brew. You should have paid more attention in science class. But then again, science isn't exactly a conservative forte...

Lee, same goes for you.

Dave, I don't even understand your point. You're saying that the Plame leak did not damage national security? Simple question, simple answer: yes or no.

Muslihoon writes:
The recent leaks do endanger national security. I accept nasty things are done out of partisan spite, but they should at least not endanger the Republic!

Thank you for being honest. I now have on record one conservative who feels that exposing a CIA front company designed and created to catch terrorists trying to aquire stinger missiles is not damaging to national security.

Anyone else want to jump in?

Muslihoon continues:
I fail to see how the Government's actions in any way violates the Constitution. After all, various legal experts--even some who worked for Clinton--admit what the Government is doing is, in fact, legal.

Well, since we're swapping quotes:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed." - Norman Ornstein, scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute on Diane Rehm show.

Bush is "the first president to admit to an impeachable offense." - former Nixon White House counsel John Dean in public discussion with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

"The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime." - Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College and an expert on government surveillance of civilians

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear. At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."- Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law. Turley testified to congress in favor of Clinton's impeachment.

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses." - Bruce Fein, a former associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan in Washington Times article on Dec. 20

Should I keep going?

SJKevin writes:
Jason, all criminals should face justice. But the question you're asking is an odd one, because it's not at all clear that a crime was committed in the Plame case. There's a lot that's funny about that whole thing. But yeah, for the record, if anybody (yes, even Dick Cheney) committed an illegal leak, they should be punished. Of course.

I actually agree with this statement. congratulations. You are the first person here to gain even a glimmer of respect.

[nameless] writes:
Here's the deal on the CIA agent law: "It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures."

I didn't ask for anyone to be convicted by a court of public opinion. I asked whether it should be investigated vigorously.

So far, Fitzgerald has found that no one is indictable for violating this law. The only thing he could pin on Libby is false testimony. Plus, very little damage was done by the outing.

Kind of like Clinton getting head from Monica? Not a crime, but the lying about it was? Like that?

I think they called it "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Max writes:
If Yes, are you now calling for an investigation of the NSA leaks?

Yes and yes (qualified). You should have read my post before. My willingness to press for an NSA leaker investigation is predicated on whether or not Bush's actions turn out to be legal. If they are, then yes. If not, then no.

Carlos writes:
IF a crime was committed in "outing" a known desk jockey that her own husband outed multiple times over the years...

Frequently claimed, never substantiated.

Regards,
bodhi

"I actually agree with this statement. congratulations. You are the first person here to gain even a glimmer of respect."

If you agree with a person they deserve respect (well, a glimmer). If you disagree, they don't? Congratulations, you are a pompous ass.

Oookay, little lesson in mechanics here for BrewFan: You can't prove a negative assertion blah blah blah

Then why did you make one? Why don't you try making positive assertions. Oh wait, I know. Its because you don't have any facts to support your BDS. But due to the advanced nature of your disease you can't keep from saying stupid things. I present this as proof:

You are the first person here to gain even a glimmer of respect.

As far as I can see you have absolutely no basis for your arrogance. You may take this negative assertion and shove it straight up your ass, shit-for-brains.

If I say something doesn't exist, I can't prove that it doesn't exist because if I say I haven't found it, you can just say I didn't look hard enough.

Searching through comments is difficult on this site, but I know that I said several times that if a crime had been committed, it should be investigated and those involved should be prosecuted. There's one example for you. As I recall that was a fairly common position, but I'll let the others speak for themselves.

But your whole argument is poorly founded (and, sadly, completely supportive of our decision not to accept your earlier invitation). We're saying: "If the Plame investigation was so important, why isn't the NSA situation treated the same way?" Why not answer that question?

Instead, you clumsily attempt to turn it on us by implying that we can't support the NSA investigation if we didn't support the Plame investigation. That doesn't follow.

If a crime was committed, then I want someone punished for it, that goes for Plame and the NSA breech. If Plame's ID was classified and Libby or Rove leaked it, then they should go to jail. Now prove that it was classified and explain why the NSA leaks aren't treated equally by liberals.

I guess thinking up fake screen names takes a great deal of originality

Or possibly intelligence, which would explain why this latest castrato troll couldn't think of one.

Plame worked for a front company who set up stings trying to get terrorists to attempt to buy stinger missiles. The entire front company, the time, the money and anyone associated with it is blown.

That's a pretty exaggerated version of Brewster, Jennings & Associates. From Wikipedia:

There is no evidence that BJ&A has ever had any employees other than Plame.

. . . and the 'stinger missile sting operation' is not very well sourced, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can guide me to something more substantive than Joe Klein's version.

I guess thinking up fake screen names takes a great deal of originality

Not really - it just takes manners.

"Frequently claimed, never substantiated."

Jason, the best substantiation available at this point is a neighbor's claim. It seems to me something Mr. Fitzgerald might be interested in pursuing if he wasn't out to blame everyone at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. But I digress.

If your "concerns" over outing someone intricately involved with front companies and such was real, I would suppose you were incredibly outraged by the NYT when it published the names, locations, personnel, etc., of several such front companies a few months ago.

What's that? You weren't? Well, if "outing" a non-agent is so bad and treasonous and damaging to this country, why isn't the treasonous publishing of that information, that demonstrably injured the security of the United States?

Yes, I wrote "treasonous". The NYT published information they knew was highly classified, knowingly and with malice aforethought, and everyone involved, including the traitor who gave them that information, and every reporter, editor and publisher who had a part in the decision to publish should be tried and, if found guilty, should be sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed by law. This "leaking" crap has got to stop. Now.

Isn't there some law that prohibits knowingly receiving classified information you aren't cleared for? I seem to remember something about that when I received my clearance.

steve writes:
If you agree with a person they deserve respect (well, a glimmer). If you disagree, they don't? Congratulations, you are a pompous ass.

I respect anyone who is consistent. If someone says that neither leak deserves an investigation, they deserve respect. If someone says that both deserve an investigation, they deserve respect.

The conversation isn't helped by twisting the conversation into something it isn't just for purpose of demonizing me. =)

BrewFan writes:
Then why did you make one? Why don't you try making positive assertions. Oh wait, I know. Its because you don't have any facts to support your BDS.

That's like asking someone who says "there are no unicorns" why they don't provide a positive assertion. What positive assertion would you suggest?

geoff writes:
Searching through comments is difficult on this site, but I know that I said several times that if a crime had been committed, it should be investigated and those involved should be prosecuted. There's one example for you. As I recall that was a fairly common position, but I'll let the others speak for themselves.

Excellent. Thanks. Another person who has earned some respect.

But your whole argument is poorly founded (and, sadly, completely supportive of our decision not to accept your earlier invitation). We're saying: "If the Plame investigation was so important, why isn't the NSA situation treated the same way?" Why not answer that question?

I've said multiple times in this thread that should the president's actions be deemed legal then I fully support an investigation, a serious investigation, on who leaked it.

Instead, you clumsily attempt to turn it on us by implying that we can't support the NSA investigation if we didn't support the Plame investigation. That doesn't follow.

See, a huge, huge gripe I have is partisanship. Yes, I'm progressive. But one thing that burns my *** is when politicians (left, right, whatever) are willing to turn a cheek to their own party's transgressions.

While there is no way for you to know this except for my say-so, I was a fan of Clinton but when he lied about it, that's when I vocally backed off my support for him. In so many words I said "I don't think his sexual peccadelloes should be open for questioning, but he lied about it, and that's wrong."

digitalbrownshirt writes:
If a crime was committed, then I want someone punished for it, that goes for Plame and the NSA breech. If Plame's ID was classified and Libby or Rove leaked it, then they should go to jail. Now prove that it was classified and explain why the NSA leaks aren't treated equally by liberals.

In fact what you've written here is all I'm looking for. Was Plame's ID classified? As far as I know, but we don't even need to go there because none of us know if Rove leaked it. But we're getting an investigation which is proper.

Remember, Fitzgerald didn't exonerate anyone at all. What he did do is indict Libby for obstruction, which means that Fitzgerald wasn't able to get honest answers. If this shuffles out that Fitzgerald gets everyone to cooperate and no crime was found to have been committed, excellent! The process has worked.

But you can't expect me to answer for all liberals. As I stated, I believe all parties turn their heads when it's convenient, which is bad. Just because I believe in progressive politics doesn't mean I back everything liberals do.

In the same way, I don't expect you, or geoff, or anyone else to answer for conservatives as a whole. If someone's stance has been consistent, what more can I ask of you?

geoff writes:
That's a pretty exaggerated version of Brewster, Jennings & Associates. ... and the 'stinger missile sting operation' is not very well sourced, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you can guide me to something more substantive than Joe Klein's version.

Ah! Now we're getting some honest discussion!

Maybe you're right. Maybe the situation is inflated. If you'd like to have a public debate about it, I'm interested in doing the research.

What I'm really interested in here is a discussion that goes beyond "you're an ass."

So thanks.

If your "concerns" over outing someone intricately involved with front companies and such was real, I would suppose you were incredibly outraged by the NYT when it published the names, locations, personnel, etc., of several such front companies a few months ago.

I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with this event but if things are as clear-cut as you present it, yes, I'd be pretty pissed.

What's that? You weren't?

Bzz. No fair, giving me an opinion I never stated and then shooting it down.

Provide me a few links and if you want, I'll look into them and give you an honest answer.

Regards,
bodhi

PS: I appreciate the replies I'm getting. About half of them are in a useful direction.

Jason -

"The conversation isn't helped by twisting the conversation into something it isn't just for purpose of demonizing me. =)"

1) I wasn't trying to help the conversation

2) I was merely pointing out that you are pompous in your treatment of others

3) Demonizing is a bit of hyperbole isn't it

4) "PS: I appreciate the replies I'm getting. About half of them are in a useful direction." is also a pompous statement

Obviously, there is no point to us discussing this further since it does not pertain to the political issue being discussed. It comes down to form, not views on this issue. I think you are a pompous ass, you disagree.

I think you are a pompous ass, you disagree.

I happen to agree with that one. But I guess that means I won't be getting the bodhster's respect. Damn, and the respect of left-wing trolls means so much to me, too...

It's obvious Jason already has his mind made up about this stuff. Don't confuse the boy with those pesky facts. You know people in the 'reality based community' aren't interested in, well, reality.

Just flame the pompous little shitweasel until he cries for his mommy.

I was not agreeing or disagreeing with Jason's views on the issue. I was merely pointing out that his tone is pompous as hell.

Not so trollish, but definitely lacking perspective, and seems to have lived in the echo chamber for his adult life (which, by all indications, has been brief).

Geoff (channeling Insp. Clouseau): What is your position here?

Jason: Troll-boy.

Geoff: Stick with this site and we'll make you a troll-man!

steve writes:
I wasn't trying to help the conversation

Then you'll understand if I don't take you seriously.

I was merely pointing out that you are pompous in your treatment of others

Why? By saying I'm glad there was some actual dialogue by about 50% of the people, all of which don't agree with me on the particulars but have gotten past the "you suck" stuff?

Yeah, that's real pompous. =D

Demonizing is a bit of hyperbole isn't it

demon: a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin.

I wrote that consistency deserves respect. You characterized that as me giving respect to those that agree with me (which, by the way, there have been none, so your suggestion is an impossibility). So you've turned my attempt at sincere dialogue into something decidedly more evil.

No, I don't think it's hyperbole at all.

But you've already said you're not interested in trying to help the conversation. So I should expect more of it from you.

Aha! Here it is!

I think you are a pompous ass, you disagree.

Oh well.

zetetic writes:
I happen to agree with that one. But I guess that means I won't be getting the bodhster's respect. Damn, and the respect of left-wing trolls means so much to me, too...

Frankly, after years on religious forums, the fact that 2-3 people seem to be interested in getting to the truth, I'm thrilled. If you're not one of them, it's your loss, not mine.

Lee Atwater writes:
It's obvious Jason already has his mind made up about this stuff. Don't confuse the boy with those pesky facts. You know people in the 'reality based community' aren't interested in, well, reality.

The oldest attack in the book.

Actually, I didn't realize that the Valerie Plame/stinger missile story wasn't as strong as I thought. I'll have to go back and find out what the story is.

This is why my attraction to science is so strong. I believe that truth can always be questioned. I expect you'll find that I'll say "geeze, you're right, I was wrong" a few times.

But you've already got me pegged as having my mind made up. This is theology, the opposite of science. Can't get anywhere if you're already 100% sure I'm wrong. Why try?

You seem to have your mind made up that liberals are idiots. Some are. But don't project your own dogmatic worldview on me. Won't work.

geoff writes:
Not so trollish, but definitely lacking perspective, and seems to have lived in the echo chamber for his adult life (which, by all indications, has been brief).

Hey, I guess I got my wish sooner than I thought.

The reason I'm a progressive and I visit this board is precisely for this reason. I've suspected that listening only to progressives has caused me some harm, which is what I set out to correct in my first post here. You might recall the responses I got to that one.

I think people tend to confuse "this idea is idiotic" with "you're an idiot." Some people can see past it. Those are the people I'm interested in talking with.

Those who want to flame me and paint me as a blinkered liberal ...good luck and have fun. No skin off my nose.

It's kind of like honor -- you can only lose it, nobody can take it away from you. Likewise, I know my motives. I decide how honest they are, not the people here.

But to reiterate the point that I've been attacked for, I appreciate the conversation with people who will stick to attacking my ideas, not me.

Regards,
bodhi

The reason I'm a progressive and I visit this board is precisely for this reason.

Well, keep at it and the treatment will improve. But starting off with an accusation of hypocrisy (your first entry on this thread) will not promote a good faith discussion. People here enjoy ripping on the regulars, let alone those who jump in and start insulting them.

You might recall the responses I got to that one.

Wow, yeah, I sure did. That was great reading. The best part is that you're so friggin' clueless in your self-important quest for enlightenment to see that you got your ass flamed off for that because you lack nettiquete.

To put it simply, if you want to engage a community in conversation, learn to listen more than talk.

Jumping into a thread with the idea that the internet just sprang up yesterday and certain ideas had never been explored until you conceived of them just makes you more fun to laugh at, man.

Jason,

We don't treat Plame-gate the same as the leaks on the CIA airlines, secret prisons, and NSAsources and methods the same because we treat the cases according to their seriousness. I'll say this slowly for you: At the time her ID was leaked SHE. WAS. NOT. COVERT. She had been driving through the front gate at Langley for SIX. FRIKKIN'. YEARS. You might as well be going after Bush because he was drinking after the passage of the Volstead Act. We aren't up in arms over Plame because NO. LAW. WAS. BROKEN. AND. NO. ACTIVE. SECRETS. WERE. COMPROMISED. Neither of which could be said about the current leaks, which to involve the illegal leaking of truly classified materiel to the detriment of national security during a time of war.

GET.

YOUR.

OWN.

BLOG.

MacStansbury,

From the style of your post in comparison to parts of mine, I gotta ask if that was directed at me.

But to reiterate the point that I've been attacked for, I appreciate the conversation with people who will stick to attacking my ideas, not me.

This from the guy who's very first comment on this thread was a personal attack on the integrity of the commenters on this blog (and without the courtesy of even reading the Plame threads to give some credibility to his accusation). Then when its suggested you do a little research before making accusations you decide to use a ruse of how you cleverly made a negative assertion to confuse the stupid rethuglican wingnuts. So now, you've been thoroughly bitch slapped with facts and you want us to believe you are some 'seeker of truth'. Bullshit. You're just another lefty troll who came here and got a virtual swirly.

Dave, I don't even understand your point.

Yes, I can see that.

The 8:44 was me. Loose shit.

You seem to have your mind made up that liberals are idiots.

And you're not doing anything to change that view, cupcake.

Plus, I honestly don't care if you're right or wrong, to be completely honest. Not because I'm unconcerned with truth, but because I'm just not interested in what you think at all.

Seriously, do you honestly expect to come in here, having made a very poor entrance, and have people respect your opinions? Sorry, cupcake, but this is a slightly tougher sandbox than Daily Kos.

Those who want to flame me and paint me as a blinkered liberal ...good luck and have fun. No skin off my nose.

From Gravity Bomb, Jason's Blog:

December 14, 2005
A look at the United States policy of "extraordinary rendition" (aka: outsourcing torture).

This is your country, kids.

Who Would Jesus Torture?

December 8, 2005
Bush claims any concerns about Iraq is mere political posturing. I perform a little reality-check on the Chimp-in-Chief's so-called "plan."

December 5, 2005
Not a bad show at all. Long, you can be forgiven for skipping the list of Republicans who are under investigation, indictment or conviction for screwing people. Runs about ten minutes long. I actually run out of breath. It's sad.

O'Reilly trips overhimself in his war to save Christmas (a concept funny even before you get to Bill talking), Bush pretends what's old is new while omitting Really Bad News about the war on the ground and a HUGE list of current Republican investigations and convictions.

Yeah, you're a fucking moderate voice of reason there. Way to go.

It's a HUGE list of current Republican investigations and convictions. F'n' GINORMOUS.

Well, two indicted. Scooter Libby Plametastical Double-O Soccer Mom "Can't Indict for the Crime of Outing But We'll Take Lying" and Austin Grand Jury-shopped "Oops We Tried to Indict Using the Wrong Law - Ronnie Earle Stepping All Over His Dick" bullshit Delay investigation.

No convictions yet. It's a culture of corruption I tell you. And that is one huge list.

Those who want to flame me and paint me as a blinkered liberal ...good luck and have fun. No skin off my nose.

If by "blinkered" you mean "having one's head lodged up one's rectal orifice," then I'd say you've done the painting yourself, and in fact you've created a masterpiece.

Jason they only attack you because they have nothing of substance to say with respect to your points. The personal attacks are essentially declarations of defeat.

Jason has a sweeeeeetie.

Jason they only attack you because they have nothing of substance to say with respect to your points. The personal attacks are essentially declarations of defeat.

In the words of the great philospher Steve Perry, "don't stop believin'."

A sweetie indeed. But what does Jase holler out in the throes of their disgusting gay-shepherd grappling? "I love you, colon?"

Republican meanies!
All you do is attack attack attack.

While all we lefty/liberals do is present facts and logic. We never attack you Rethuglicans no matter how much you parrot the message of the Chimp-in-Chief.

I don't see a good reason why Liberals need to apologize for using reason and logic. It is so much easier to wallow in ignorance and simply loft insults, pedestrian though they are. However, I can’t imagine that it offers much satisfaction in the end to prove only one thing, that is how ignorant one is.

I don't see a good reason why Liberals need to apologize for using reason and logic...

Is that what you call Jason's posts and the stuff he puts on his blog? What's reasonable and logical to you? The "Chimp in Chief" title for the president, or the "Who Would Jesus Torture" nonsense?

Tell me, anonymous fuckweasel, whether you can find either reason or logic in either of those statements.

Plus, could we please cut it out with the "boo fucking hoo" bit?

Insults? Personal attacks?

That's how we roll. Roll with us, or shut the fuck up and go play in another sandbox.

I know nothing of Jason's blog, or even that he had one. However, if there is any association with reality in your accusation I would put Chimp in Chief alongside anonymous fuckweasel. It must be very frustrating to not be able to rise above that level of rhetorical degradation.

Sorry shithead, I'm not the one putting on airs. I don't pretend to be reasonable. Jason does.

I don't see a good reason why Liberals need to apologize for using reason and logic.

I don't either. If you want to actually use some I'll revisit the question.

anonymous fuckweasel

That's pretty routine treatment for comment authors who are too rude to use a nickname. Doesn't have anything to do with the arguments themselves - just a comment on your manners.

"I don't pretend to be reasonable"

I might say you have done an admirable job demonstrating that.

Thanks for your approval.

Oh, I'm sorry. Was that supposed to hurt my widdle feelings?

I might say you have done an admirable job demonstrating that.

Oh, might you? I can't wait.

"Was that supposed to hurt my widdle feelings?"

Not unless you take offense to facts. I was just saying you do a good job of making it clear that you are not interested in reasonable discussion. My mistake I suppose is assuming topics are posted for the purpose of discussion. Perhaps the moderator should save him or herself a great deal of effort and simply post one topic.

I was just saying you do a good job of making it clear that you are not interested in reasonable discussion.

I've reviewed all the anonymous comments from the beginning of the thread, and I don't see any facts or reasoned arguments, just pejorative, presumptive statements concerning 'Republicans trashing the Constitution,' and a lot of defensive nonsense. Maybe I missed your reasoned overture - if so, please direct me to your more substantive arguments. Otherwise, please realize that you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Not unless you take offense to facts. I was just saying you do a good job of making it clear that you are not interested in reasonable discussion. My mistake I suppose is assuming topics are posted for the purpose of discussion. Perhaps the moderator should save him or herself a great deal of effort and simply post one topic.

No, then it would be Atrios' blog and the web already has one of those.

In all seriousness, those of us who comment regularly on this blog are always willing to debate liberals and one another on the issues of the day. If you'd take the time to read through some of the longer threads on issues like taxation, immigration and right-to-death cases, you'll see a lot of good discussion.

What I have a problem with is people like you. You're not interested in discussion - you parrot the same insipid talking points at every conservative blog and don't even bother creating an identity to spout them under. You just pull into a conservative blog, vomit out your pearls of wisdom that we've heard countless times from others like you, and go on your merry way.

So please, don't expect us to be reasonable with you. Personally, I'm interested in debate - but I also enjoy insulting the odd shithead like yourself who doesn't deserve the time it takes to engage in discourse.

Long post short - I'm having fun with you, cupcake. This is enjoyable for me, and the experience is improved every time you respond.

Please, continue.

Lee I'm happy to be of service. Please knock yourself out.

Perhaps the moderator should save him or herself a great deal of effort and simply post one topic.

If you get the least bit interesting he might give you an avocado.

Lee I'm happy to be of service. Please knock yourself out.

I don't know, you're getting somewhat dull.

Lay some crazy on us and we'll see about letting you back into the FlameBait club.

Lee I honestly don't get much of a kick out of insulting people. I much prefer reasonable discussion where even if I don't agree with all points presented there is the opportunity of possibly learning something. I don't know any of you, have nothing against any of you, recognize your right to express yourself, and as a Christian fear the Lord enough to follow his commandments.

I much prefer reasonable discussion where even if I don't agree with all points presented there is the opportunity of possibly learning something

So when is that facet going to emerge? Kick it off - give us a reasonable launching point. Or at least make Lee happy and call him names.

There ya go. I knew you had it in you, cupcake.

You may not have insulted people using profane terms, but you did a pretty good job casting aspersions on our honesty, our ability to debate and our willingness to make substantive points.

But it's okay if you don't want to let the fact that you actually did engage in such behavior harm your inflated self-image. I'll understand.

Or at least make Lee happy and call him names.

Bring. It.

geoff it takes two to tango. I have been rather busy since arriving absorbing insults. However, I perhaps mistakenly assumed that the thread had something to do with the discussion of whether spying on citizens, without a warrant, is legal. Personally I haven't seen an argument yet which explains why it is. If it is OK to do so why do we have the FISA legislation? That surely counts as government waste if the government is no longer under any obligation to respect our civil rights.

"You may not have insulted people using profane terms, but you did a pretty good job casting aspersions on our honesty, our ability to debate and our willingness to make substantive points."

Lee I apologize if you interpreted that way. I was under the impression that you were happy to paint yourself in that way, that you were in fact proud of being and acting ignorant.

Nope. Not happy about it, but wanted to let you know exactly why I was taking particular enjoyment in tossing insults your way.

I'm tired of trolls. I'm a conservative who's sick of being compared to Hitler, the Taliban or whatever mass-murdering dictatorial regime your side feels like aligning us with. I'm tired of the unrelenting and often unfair attacks on the president for things his predecessors did while all of you remained silent and the hypocrisy and cynicism inherent in those attacks.

I'm sick to death of the canonization of attention seekers like Joseph Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. I'm tired of the one-sided reporting on the economy and Iraq and angry that your side seems unwilling to give this president credit for anything that goes right, and blame for everything that goes wrong.

So I took it out on you. Maybe that was unfair, but to be honest I'm not really interested in being fair to your side anymore. I just want you guys to keep losing elections and will do my part to keep that happening until you come to your senses.

Lee so you feel the same way we did when Clinton was in power. It seems to me that politics may have digressed to the simple repetition of 4 to 8 year cycles of revenge. Now it is your turn to absorb what was done to Clinton. It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving side I know.

Lee so you feel the same way we did when Clinton was in power. It seems to me that politics may have digressed to the simple repetition of 4 to 8 year cycles of revenge. Now it is your turn to absorb what was done to Clinton. It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving side I know.

And with that, my point is proven. You aren't interested in discourse, or reasonable behavior.

You want revenge.

Fuck you.

Sorry, but you earned it with that comment.

However, I perhaps mistakenly assumed that the thread had something to do with the discussion of whether spying on citizens, without a warrant, is legal.

No, *this* thread was focused on the partisan nature of the Dems' national security concerns.

As for FISA vs. the executive orders, I personally haven't bothered with it much, since I'm sure the issue will be sorted out in the courts. I do believe, however, that if the President sought competent legal counsel before enacting the surveillance program, the yammering about impeachment proceedings is just more partisan excess.

Lee it seems to me that the Liberals have supported Bush in just about everything he has done, including the war on Iraq. Yes there are a few hotheads but the party obviously doesn't speak with one voice. It is a big tent. You include me in the hothead camp without knowing what my views are on a variety of issues. However, when you feel victimized I suppose it is easy to fly off the handle, as you are ably qualified to demonstrate, by your actions.

Sorry for existing and not agreeing with everything you say. Your actions demonstrate that reasonable discussion may no longer be a possibility.

Sorry, cupcake. You no longer have the moral high ground, and you're sounding increasingly ridculous to boot.

Revenge revenge revenge.

Honesty is always so simple, isn't it?

ridculous = ridiculous

Also, no need to apologize for not agreeing with everything I say.

No one's perfect.

It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving side I know.

awwwww

Hey no name I hope you see why there is no point in talking to a bunch of fag traitors.

Now, Proud Liberal Chopper Jock here, he knows what it's like to be on the receiving end.

And he digs it.

Also, no name. To answer a question you had about the legality of wiretaps:

Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: "President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents."

Precedent, one of the cornerstones of law.

To PLV: go back to whatever rock, hole or ho-banging shitheap you call home.

Damned HTML skills. Second paragraph, starting with "In the Dec 15 Chicago Tribune," should be italicized as well.

Lee it seems to me that the Liberals have supported Bush in just about everything he has done, including the war on Iraq.

That is indeed quite contrary to our perception. Why?

Because Howard Dean and John Kerry were taken seriously as candidates by the Democrats.

Because Ted Kennedy's outrageous statements were never rejected by anybody in the Democratic party.

Because The Daily Kos is the most popular political webblog on the Internet.

I could go on, and on, and on, but the point has been made. Sadly, the moderate liberal voice seems to have been buried in the noise generated by the more extreme liberals. Many here have lamented this fact - we believe that two strong, rational parties are critical to the functioning of our political process. Many here, including Ace, have voted Democratic in the past.

So we'd like to believe that there is an engaged, moderate liberal element joining in the debate, but it's imperceptible on the web and in the media. And if you're part of that element, then kudos, but you're a rare soul among a flood of hyper-liberal trolls. Hence the presumptive, reception.

Lee

More recent reports indicate that the Carter and Clinton examples also contained certain provisions, including the stipulation that no American citizen could be spied on, without a warrant.

Geoff I am a Liberal, accused of being a moderate, or even conservative, on certain issues. However, I am a Liberal because of what Liberalism means to me from a political and philosophical point of view. I know that means different things to different people.

More recent reports indicate that the Carter and Clinton examples also contained certain provisions, including the stipulation that no American citizen could be spied on, without a warrant.

Care to provide a link, or a reference?

Because I don't see anything of the kind in the Carter Executive Order.

Of course, you're probably going to throw Section 302(a)(1) at me:

"physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."

The relevant words here?

Information and foreign power.

There is the RNC Talking Points article in the WP and the Media Matters Dissection of all the talking points todate here.

Sorry, cupcake. Media Matters isn't a source. I provided an actual executive order, not a liberal outlet.

Try again, darling.

And you still haven't explained why two lawyers from the Clinton administration disagree with you on this one.

I guess the Washington Post is a Liberal outlet too, is it, as if that has anything to do with the truth?

There is no disagreement if you look at the full context of what the lawyers said. Yes the president could spy without a warrant, as long as it was not a US citizen he was spying on. I'm sure the RNC would like to compare these two events, but unfortunately for them, they are not equal. One cannot blame an orange for not being exactly the same as an apple.

So show us the full context, cupcake.

I mean, if it explains the inconsistency in your argument, shouldn't you be able to show us exactly what these lawyers said?

It is either the forth or fifth time now but what the heck why not one more. The full context is spying was permitted without a warrant, as long as it wasn't a US citizen being spied on. For that you need a warrant.

I don't know if I can find a way to make it any more simple for you to follow.

As I said earlier, I don't have a personal interest in this issue, but here's a couple of links to conservative lawyers' analyses of the legal points:

Power Line 1

Power Line 2

And here's the DoJ's statement on the authority of the President.

Hope this helps.

It is either the forth or fifth time now but what the heck why not one more. The full context is spying was permitted without a warrant, as long as it wasn't a US citizen being spied on. For that you need a warrant.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I want quotes that show, in CONTEXT, that those lawyers agree with you.

I've tried for these last few posts to be reasonable, but I guess that didn't work with you, so I'll just go back to being a bastard.

Will that be okay with you, cupcake?

Or are you going to whine about what a big fucking meanie I am again?

To clarify - I don't want what you think. I want what they said, 'kay?

Got that? Enough small syllable words for you?

Geoff while Lee is off on another temper tantrum I'll read those links. I assume they represent the legal analysis, from a Republican point of view do they, or are they objective?

Geoff while Lee is off on another temper tantrum I'll read those links. I assume they represent the legal analysis, from a Republican point of view do they, or are they objective?

Can't do it, so insult the guy who asks the question.

Nice.

Very nice. You've met my expectations.

Geoff as Lee was demonstrating how quickly he can fly off the handle I read the first essay. It essentially argues the same thing as the articles I had posted earlier. However, it does try to stretch the limits of the law by suggesting that the intercepts are taking place on foreign soil, rather than on American soil. That is the justification they use for spying on American citizens, without providing a reasonable justification for doing so, as the constitution requires. Of course we don't know if the intercepts are being conducted offshore or not, as the author admits.

Oh, please. All of your posturing can't ignore one basic fact - you can't answer my question, so you're trying to change the subject "ignoring" me.

Guess that means I win, huh cupcake?

Feels good. Where's my trophy?

Lee I would love to come back to whatever point it is you think you are making, as soon as you calm down. However, my time is limited and I would rather spend it with more serious posters. I hope that doesn't offend nor inflame you further. Just trying to be honest bro.

That is the justification they use for spying on American citizens, without providing a reasonable justification for doing so, as the constitution requires

How do you know, Josie, that they are spying on U.S. citizens? Isn't it true that the U.S. end of the conversation being monitored belongs to a foreign spy? You lefties seem to want to jump to the conclusion that the U.S. side of the conversation is a citizen. The other fact you seem to overlook is that the foreign end of the conversation is known enemy agents.

I'm quite calm, actually. Sitting on the couch, watching a rerun of "Raymond."

Oh, and laughing my ass off at your 'earnestness.'

Come on, I told you I was an asshole. Deal with it, cupcake. Don't take it personally.

Brewfan I believe there are reports that the surveillance has targeted US citizens, many who have nothing to do with terrorism. This only underscores how important it is that a full-scale investigation takes place, to find out exactly what the facts are. If the government has nothing to hide then they surely will welcome an investigation, and even encourage it. After all it is our personal freedoms that separate us from tyrannical forms of government. Freedom is something moderate Republicans and Liberals ought to be able to unite around.

"Come on, I told you I was an asshole."

Lee I don't recall arguing with you on that point.

No you didn't. And I appreciate that.

I really did try to be a non-asshole for awhile, though. I think I deserve a cookie for that.

Guess I'll have to settle for beer.

Honestly?

I'd feel bad if I, you know, had emotions like anyone else. It seems, though, that on this issue, you, I and the other posters on this board are going to have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the law in this case.

You're a good sport, cupcake. If we were in the same state, I'd try to get you drunk and get you to tattoo Ronald Reagan's face on your arm for kicks.

I believe there are reports that the surveillance has targeted US citizens

That may be but that does not preclude them from being foreign spys placing calls, sending emails, etc. to known terrorist phone numbers, email addy's, etc. Be practical for a moment. The next Mohammed Atta may be a citizen. Are his or her 'rights' worth the 1.7 million lives that would be lost if a suitcase nuke explodes in NY? This is intelligence gathering in a time of war we're discussing, not the gathering of evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution.