What self-respecting righties should do....
Ah, holidays. The best part of drinking cervaza in Mexico and spedning time with my out-of-state family is that I had nearly a month devoid of the idiotic, mealy-mouthed, confusing ramblings of David Reinhard. It was a taste of freedom. But, like that inevitable New year's Day hangover, Mr. Reinhard's columns have come my way again, leaving me with a taste in my mouth similar to that of licking twenty ashtrays.
Before I begin with my evisceration of Mr. Reinhard's latest column, I hope everybody had a good Christmas. Yes, I said Christmas. If anyone is aghast that I, a liberal, used the "C" word, I want to point out that here in Portland, which voted 75% for Kerry, we had a Christmas tree. We had Christmas lights. We had a Christmas parade. We had Santa Claus at Meier & Frank. 96% of U.S. citizens consider themselves "Christian" to some degree, so relax all ready. Besides, this seems to be the 2005th year in a row that liberals' war on Christmas failed, miserably. Perhaps next year. Maybe we can occupy malls by spring, and get an early start on next year's war?
Oh, and my Christmas present cam a bit late this year- Jack Abramoff copping a guilty plea and agreeing to assist the Justice Department in their influence-peddling investigation. Happy new year to those slimy Republican bastards indeed....
Anyway, Dave would have you believe, if you read his latest column, that liberals disapprove of and would disallow warrantless wiretapping done by Dubya of suspected al Qaida members. After all, he quotes a December 28th Rasmussen poll, which stated that "64 percent of Americans believe the NSA intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects overseas and people here." Count me in among that 64%!
Wait, what's that you ask? "True_slicky, you agree with David Reinhard? Did the world just pause on its axis? Is Satan doing a triple-axel in Hades? What in tarnation is going on here?"
Of course I would want our top super snoops intercepting communications betwen al Qaida and possible internal cells within the United States. You would have to be a moron not to. Just do it legally, and within the framework of the Constitution, and everything is fine. You have the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts with the ability to dole out top-secret warrants- even retroactively, if needed- to allow these interceptions to occur. When Dubya steps around these courts and avoids these warrants, that can only mean he's hiding something. Who does he not want anyone to know he's keeping tabs on?
The question here is of language. I notice that the Rasmussen poll didn't ask "Do you agree that the President should have unregulated and unchecked power to spy on anyone domestically?" I would guarantee the answer to the question would definitely not be 64% "yes." Especially considering Bush's base- the rural, religious, "get off my land" and "I dont trust no gov'ment" voters. You think they'd agree with unchecked government spying on them? And remind them, this unchecked power would apply to both President Dubya and President Hillary. See what their answers are then.
Dave must not respect the average intelligence of The Oregonian readership. He must not, considering how he starts his latest feeble attempt playing pundit: "Self-respecting lefties couldn't come right out and say the Justice Department shouldn't open a probe into the disclosure of classified information on the National Security Agency's surveillance program." Never mind that the wording is absolutely atrocious. The fact is, self-respecting lefties actually can say the Justice Department shouldn't open such a probe.
Dave attempts to make a correalation betwen the outing of Valerie Wilson and the disclosure of the NSA's domestic spying program, stating that the whistle-blowers in each case blew the lid on top-secret government programs that should've stayed hushed up, and, by disclosing them, the whistle-blowers broke the law by unveiling national secrets.
This Republican talking point has been repeated incessantly with each new recent announcement of the Bush administration's shady dealings, in hopes of discouraging future whistle-blowers. One problem is, we need whistle-blowers. As the New York Times points out: "A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials." The revealing of Valerie Wilson wasn't an attempt by a whistle-blower to expose any wrong-doing or abuse of power. It was an abuse of power, a "cynical attempt to deflect the public's attention" by Vice President aide Scooter Libby to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson. On the contrary, the whistle-blowing of the NSA's secret domestic warrantless spying program is, actually, the reveal of an abuse of power (or rather the appropriation of power that didn't exist). Like every Republican talking point, when you think about it for two seconds, it ceases to make sense....
But wait a minute! Dave trots out a quote from Cass Sunstein (who Dave makes sure to point out is a 'liberal'): "The claims [the President makes to authorize the spying program] are actually fairly modest, and not unconventional." That's it then! Dave's found a liberal that supports his views- and ignores all the grumblings coming from conservative Republican members of both Congress and the Senate in regards to Dubya's over-reaching of power. (Oh, and don't look, Dave, but Professor Sunstein's remarks have been debunked some time ago.) In fact, one can go no further than John Dean- perhaps the pre-eminent expert on the subject of Constitutional law- who, after saying 'whateverrrrrr'- has pointed out the fact that Dubya is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.
Wow. Can you wrap your mind around that? A President admitting to an impeachable offense? Just imagine if we had a Congress with any cajones. Or Democratic leadership. (Course, when the Abramoff saga blows through, that'll be what we have.) Let's also consider this quote from Bush at a 2004 campaign rally in Buffalo, New York: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." So, we have a President who has admitted to- according to a legal scholar who knows a thing or two about the subject- an impeachable offense. And has also been caught in an out-in-the open, bald-faced lie.
So, of course Dave is apologizing for him.
One more thing, does the name Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan sound familiar to anybody? No? C'mon, he was the al Qaida operative captured by Pakistani intelligence in the summer of 2004, and agreed to work undercover and send emails to his al Qaida contacts. He was such a coup for the United States- and the Democrats were having such a nice bounce post-convention- that Tom Ridge decided he'd share it with the rest of us. Thus nipping that little undercover operation right in the bud. But, hey- these guys are strong on terror, right?
Jeez, with actions like that, what self-respecting rightie can point any fingers or find fault with the left's critcisms Justice Department investigations into so-called "leaks"....
true_slicky
Before I begin with my evisceration of Mr. Reinhard's latest column, I hope everybody had a good Christmas. Yes, I said Christmas. If anyone is aghast that I, a liberal, used the "C" word, I want to point out that here in Portland, which voted 75% for Kerry, we had a Christmas tree. We had Christmas lights. We had a Christmas parade. We had Santa Claus at Meier & Frank. 96% of U.S. citizens consider themselves "Christian" to some degree, so relax all ready. Besides, this seems to be the 2005th year in a row that liberals' war on Christmas failed, miserably. Perhaps next year. Maybe we can occupy malls by spring, and get an early start on next year's war?
Oh, and my Christmas present cam a bit late this year- Jack Abramoff copping a guilty plea and agreeing to assist the Justice Department in their influence-peddling investigation. Happy new year to those slimy Republican bastards indeed....
Anyway, Dave would have you believe, if you read his latest column, that liberals disapprove of and would disallow warrantless wiretapping done by Dubya of suspected al Qaida members. After all, he quotes a December 28th Rasmussen poll, which stated that "64 percent of Americans believe the NSA intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects overseas and people here." Count me in among that 64%!
Wait, what's that you ask? "True_slicky, you agree with David Reinhard? Did the world just pause on its axis? Is Satan doing a triple-axel in Hades? What in tarnation is going on here?"
Of course I would want our top super snoops intercepting communications betwen al Qaida and possible internal cells within the United States. You would have to be a moron not to. Just do it legally, and within the framework of the Constitution, and everything is fine. You have the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts with the ability to dole out top-secret warrants- even retroactively, if needed- to allow these interceptions to occur. When Dubya steps around these courts and avoids these warrants, that can only mean he's hiding something. Who does he not want anyone to know he's keeping tabs on?
The question here is of language. I notice that the Rasmussen poll didn't ask "Do you agree that the President should have unregulated and unchecked power to spy on anyone domestically?" I would guarantee the answer to the question would definitely not be 64% "yes." Especially considering Bush's base- the rural, religious, "get off my land" and "I dont trust no gov'ment" voters. You think they'd agree with unchecked government spying on them? And remind them, this unchecked power would apply to both President Dubya and President Hillary. See what their answers are then.
Dave must not respect the average intelligence of The Oregonian readership. He must not, considering how he starts his latest feeble attempt playing pundit: "Self-respecting lefties couldn't come right out and say the Justice Department shouldn't open a probe into the disclosure of classified information on the National Security Agency's surveillance program." Never mind that the wording is absolutely atrocious. The fact is, self-respecting lefties actually can say the Justice Department shouldn't open such a probe.
Dave attempts to make a correalation betwen the outing of Valerie Wilson and the disclosure of the NSA's domestic spying program, stating that the whistle-blowers in each case blew the lid on top-secret government programs that should've stayed hushed up, and, by disclosing them, the whistle-blowers broke the law by unveiling national secrets.
This Republican talking point has been repeated incessantly with each new recent announcement of the Bush administration's shady dealings, in hopes of discouraging future whistle-blowers. One problem is, we need whistle-blowers. As the New York Times points out: "A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials." The revealing of Valerie Wilson wasn't an attempt by a whistle-blower to expose any wrong-doing or abuse of power. It was an abuse of power, a "cynical attempt to deflect the public's attention" by Vice President aide Scooter Libby to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson. On the contrary, the whistle-blowing of the NSA's secret domestic warrantless spying program is, actually, the reveal of an abuse of power (or rather the appropriation of power that didn't exist). Like every Republican talking point, when you think about it for two seconds, it ceases to make sense....
But wait a minute! Dave trots out a quote from Cass Sunstein (who Dave makes sure to point out is a 'liberal'): "The claims [the President makes to authorize the spying program] are actually fairly modest, and not unconventional." That's it then! Dave's found a liberal that supports his views- and ignores all the grumblings coming from conservative Republican members of both Congress and the Senate in regards to Dubya's over-reaching of power. (Oh, and don't look, Dave, but Professor Sunstein's remarks have been debunked some time ago.) In fact, one can go no further than John Dean- perhaps the pre-eminent expert on the subject of Constitutional law- who, after saying 'whateverrrrrr'- has pointed out the fact that Dubya is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.
Wow. Can you wrap your mind around that? A President admitting to an impeachable offense? Just imagine if we had a Congress with any cajones. Or Democratic leadership. (Course, when the Abramoff saga blows through, that'll be what we have.) Let's also consider this quote from Bush at a 2004 campaign rally in Buffalo, New York: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." So, we have a President who has admitted to- according to a legal scholar who knows a thing or two about the subject- an impeachable offense. And has also been caught in an out-in-the open, bald-faced lie.
So, of course Dave is apologizing for him.
One more thing, does the name Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan sound familiar to anybody? No? C'mon, he was the al Qaida operative captured by Pakistani intelligence in the summer of 2004, and agreed to work undercover and send emails to his al Qaida contacts. He was such a coup for the United States- and the Democrats were having such a nice bounce post-convention- that Tom Ridge decided he'd share it with the rest of us. Thus nipping that little undercover operation right in the bud. But, hey- these guys are strong on terror, right?
Jeez, with actions like that, what self-respecting rightie can point any fingers or find fault with the left's critcisms Justice Department investigations into so-called "leaks"....
true_slicky
posted by true_slicky at 7:28 PM
3 Comments:
What I found not surprising was that Dave, in his two columns on this subject, continued to recycle the same Republican talking points, even after they had been discredited and abandoned by other right-wing pundits.
Take, for example, Dave's line about Presidents Carter and Clinton using warrentless wiretapping -- true but fully within the FISA provisions as they stood at the time. Take, for example, Dave's use of the Tuong case decision, which he never fails to cite as coming from 2002. Again, true, but the 2002 decision is discussing what the law said in 1978.
Poor Dave -- will he ever stop reading the National Review and come up with something original.
Reinhard used his technique: "Self-respecting lefties couldn't come right out and say the Justice Department shouldn't open a probe into the disclosure of classified information on the National Security Agency's surveillance program."
Step #1 is always ... Put words or thoughts into the mouth of the enemy that seem indefensible. (Notice he doesn't quote anyone here, just says that's what "lefties" think.
Step #2 is to knock the straw dog down and show how stupid it is.
Step #3 is to associate everyone on the other side with that mentality and walk out of the ring grinning, having scored a knockout.
It is standard Reinhard, the mark of a lazy man who can't do his own research and justify his point of view.
I wonder if Dave willm ention the results of this poll, where 2/3rds of respondents of the John Birch Society have voted that "yes, Dubya should be impeached".
For some reason, I doubt it...
http://www.jbs.org/poll.php?vo=1
Post a Comment
<< Home