The "adolescent kicking the shins of its parents...." is an excellent analogy. And remember no spanking allowed.

Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

He, like most people, is dismayed that the editor of the New York Times,

The only people dismayed are those who know this will drop Republicans even further in disfavor with the American voting populace.

Yes

What cubanbob said. Keller and his ilk have been pissing on this administration for years. Those are our sons and daughters fighting over there and they deserve better. Why is Bush, so otherwise courageous, afraid to do what needs to be done?

The only people dismayed are those who know this will drop Republicans even further in disfavor with the American voting populace.

Lee, you have got to be kidding if you think the bulk of the American voting populace does not side with President Bush and the Republicans on this.

Don't think so, let's just wait until November. I have a feeling you'll be pretty disappointed in the results.

Could someone sue the NY Slimes the next time the US is struck by terrorism?

The only people dismayed are those who know this will drop Republicans even further in disfavor with the American voting populace.

Please keep this up. It is only going to insure that there will never be another Democratic president and it will re-elect Republicans.

Lee is a proven anti-American propagandist. That 's why he is not disturbed by the NYT behavior. He may be even in full support of it. Typical of the left: enjoying the protection and freedom provided by free/democratic America while excusing or even aiding its non-democratic/dictatorial enemies.

J. R. I suspect we won't have to wait for November, that the results should show up in the polls in the next 30 days, if not sooner.

FYI -

Many people believe that the Federal government is violating the Constitution and our inalienable rights and covering it up under the guise of "national security". You may disagree with these people, and the Times.

However, this answers your question as to why the Times and others are "against America". They are not. Their motivation is fear of abuse of unchecked power by the Federal government.

Their motivation is hatred for the Bush administration period.

Lee
Polls are like assholes-everyone has one . Only thing is that yours is just below your nose.

J. R. I suspect we won't have to wait for November, that the results should show up in the polls in the next 30 days, if not sooner.

When that time comes, will you declare how wrong you were? If the polls show that America has no problem with whats going on, will you own up to incorrect assertions? Somehow I doubt you will.

Many people believe that the Federal government is violating the Constitution and our inalienable rights and covering it up under the guise of "national security".

What inalienable right is that, the right to wire money to terrorist organizations overseas?? Seriously, what right is being infringed upon here?

914

Whatever. If you already "know" the answer to a question. there's no reason to ask it.

The NYT is not at war with America. They are simply PO'd at not being in power--like the rest of the Left. They are willing to pay any price, including the destruction of this country, in order to regain that power.

The elitist on the Left so desperatly want to establish a "ruling class" to subjugate the unwashed masses they would love to see the terrorists win.

Question their "patriotism"? That assumes they have any. The only thing the Left cherishes is power adn ruling over others.

The ny slimes prints what its audience wants. That's their business plan. That's how they sell newspapers. Nobody with any intelligence reads that rag. Smart people are not their audience.

No, the New York Times is at war with Bush.

J.R. -

Hi! I didn't really set out to defend the Left's position or attack the Right's. I was merely explaining the motivation and concerns of many on the left.

However, FYI, the Left is not in favor of the terrorists. It is truly astounding to those on the left that people on the right believe this. We WANT the U.S. to pursue the terrorists; we also want the government to protect the inalienable rights of those of us who are NOT terrorists. In fact, the areas targetted by terrorists tend to be BLUE areas, not red. (NYC not filled with Bush supporters...)

Really, I think the "left's" position is pretty close to what "conservatives" used to believe--a limited government with ONLY the powers delegated to them. The Constitution was set up, in large part, to prevent a concentration of power that might lead to tyranny. To have the executive branch spying on citizens without a warrant, unchecked by any other branch of government, poses a threat.

Publicus -You are correct about the conservatives "flip-flopping" on limited government. It would appear they lost their backbone on 9/11.

The New York Times has a front page article today talking about progress in Iraq with regard to rising enrollment in schools. Did you catch it?

Publicus -You are correct about the conservatives "flip-flopping" on limited government. It would appear they lost their backbone on 9/11.

Lee -

Well, both conservatives and liberals have flipped on limited government. It seems like whoever is in power wants unlimited government...

Personally, I want ANY president's powers to be checked...Bush, Clinton, anyone...

Publicus - just curious - can you name any inaliable rights that you have given up under Bush?

Like Murtha, the editorial board of the NY Times sees the US as a greater threat to the world than Islamofascism, Iran or North Korea. They truly believe this and will do everything they can to sabotage the United States efforts to fight these evils.

It is our duty to fight back.

Big Mo! (love your screen name!)

Warrantless wiretapping, American citizens held in secret without access to lawyers and due process, torture...I'd feel less concerned if I knew WHAT the limits on the President's power was with respect to these things.

I don't consider it limited when the President alone determines which situation's give him unchecked power to act; it's frequently stated that he's only acting against terrorists—I'd like a second opinion from a court to make sure.

Would you like Hillary Clinton to have the power to make people disappear based on her opinion that she thinks they're bad people? I wouldn't want Bush, Clinton or anyone to have that power...

Pub,
You really didn't answer the question. And I do recall reading (I will have to check for a link later) that Congress was aware of this program and had no problem with it.

Again, what inalienable right is being infringed upon here? And I never said anything about the left being on the side of the terrorists, I think that meme is ridiculous. This is about the NY Times (LA Times and WSJ as well) and their blatant disregard for national security by printing this story.

Pubicusq

I see you didn't write "illegal" warrantless wiretapping, since it was legal. I notice you don't mention that those American citizens being held without "due process" were captured as terrorists under American laws that would permit the military to "due process" them with a quick bullet to the head. I see you want to be the one to define "torture", whether it is the renegade actions of a few putting panties on prisoners' heads, or the use of fear to extract info that can save American lives. You want to paint all Americans with your broad slimy brush. You are one of those that deserve "neither security nor liberty".

Hi!

The inalienable rights I am referring to is to not be detained or imprisoned or tortured without due process. (I don't think our government should torture anyone even WITH due process.) I don't care if Congress was aware of it or not.

BTW - I am appreciative that you don't think the left is on the side of the terrorists. I believe that some people on the Right are. However, I believe that people on both the left and right are, largely, sincere.

twolanefish -

Some of the actions of the Bush administration with regard to prisoners and prosecution HAS been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court; some hasn't; some are still under dispute and undecided.

So, I wouldn't say that all the administration's actions are legal.

I WOULD say that they are an example of concentration of unchecked power that I believe poses a danger of abuse...and may pave the way for some future president to become a tyrant.

American citizen or not, take up arms against America in a time of war and kiss your "inalienable" rights goodbye. What is it about the concept you refuse to accept? It is the law of our land. Try as you might to wrap these enemies in the Constitution, it does not apply to combatants in war.

The inalienable rights I am referring to is to not be detained or imprisoned or tortured without due process.

Leaving alone your interpretations of who is being illegally detained or imprisoned or tortured that twolaneflash brings up. What does this have to do with the NY times leaking a classified spying program about wire transfers to terrorist orgainzations?

Publicus - Thanks for the compliment on my screen name.

But none of what you list is illegal. What happened at Gitmo and Abu G. rises to the level of "torture." Abuse, sure. But torture? Hell, no.

And the top-secret programs are not illegal. So what J.R. and Twolaneflash said (except for his last sentence) is correct.

And by the way, if Hillary Clinton did the same things, and conducted this war in the same manner as Dubya has, I would be on her team.

I AM NOT JOKING.

Bush hasn't done this because it's his opinion that they're bad people. I don't know where in the world you get a whacked out idea like that. They ARE bad people.

And also, Congress has given him power to act. Congress could actually revoke a lot of his freedome to act by cutting off all funding, as they did when we abanonded South Vietnam in 1975.

So again, what inalienable rights have you given up?

NONE.

Pardon, I meant none of what happened at Gitmo....

Also, I don't believe most Democrats and liberals are on the side of the terrorists.

But if my rhetoric matched the rhetroic of my country's enemies, I'd probably want to take a serious, hard look at myself and my positions.

Conservatives only say such things because it's very easy sometimes to do a side-by-side comparison of what's said by Democrat or liberal big-whigs with what's said by many of our enemies It's often very similar.

Now, there ARE a handful of whacked out lefties that ARE on the side of the terrorists, whether they care to admit it or not. The nuts in Code Pink come to mind.

Hi!

I guess we just disagree, which is fine...

I don't buy your arguments; I think the president has too much power. Just because you like the way he's exercising it doesn't change that. You believe that Congress's ability to cut off funding is sufficient division of power. I think that cutting off funding for the war would do nothing to limit the president's unilateral power to detain, imprison and torture citizens whom he (personally) thinks pose a danger.

I also continue to believe that many things are classified to protect the administration's power, not to protect our power to fight terrorists. There's a long history of such abuses of power in this country under protection of "national security" and "executive privilege."

That said, you present a laudable case which I respect. I'm just less trusting than you are. You may see me as a liberal, but I think of my politiclal philosophy as coming from Lord Acton - power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Or, as Reagan said, trust but verify.

Cheers!

Big Mo,
Well said. Always enjoy your post.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014512.php

Powerline folks made the obvious point that the MSM at least always try to make the worse possible judgement regarding the US military.

Lee,
What you clearly fail to see, is that not everyone sees these things as reps vs dems, or in a filter of help or hurt Bush.
Folks are ticked off at the behaivor of Times because they feel it hurts the country and the safety of its citizens.

The MSM in general is suffering from BDS and consequently has decided to become a 4th branch of the goverment.

One that from all appearances is above the law.

Publicus,
I have one question, based on your statement:
I also continue to believe that many things are classified to protect the administration's power, not to protect our power to fight terrorists.

Do you think that this is one of those times?

I agree with you that not all secrets of this or previous admins are anything but ass covering maneuvers, however I can't view this as a binary equation where all or no secrets are fair game to the press.

Publicus - thanks for the pleasant discussion! Would that they were all like that.

scsiwuzzy -

Is this one of those times? I hope not...but I worry.

Big Mo! Enjoyed chatting with you! I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong because your guy is in charge right now!

I must go now. Regards to all!

Publicus

Folks are ticked off at the behaivor of Times because they feel it hurts the country and the safety of its citizens.

Maybe you're right SCSI - but my guess is that the only people pissed off are the people who know this will hurt the Repuiblicans in the coming elections.

What's developing is a clear picture of an administration that has taken an (admittedly horrendous) act of a handful of terrorists on 9/11, and used it to launch a Republican conservative agenda that has effected our courts, our privacies, and our freedoms.

That isn't the platform they ran on - and people who voted Republican are coming to realize the mistake they made in trusting these guys to operate in the best interests of the American People, and not just operate in the best interests of the Republican Party, or to operate to the benefit of the $100,000 check writers.

The flip-flop on the withdrawl of troops from Iraq is another, perfect example. Last week withdrawing troops was a "cut and run" policy -- that is, until our military leaders agreed with the Democrats and the majority of Americans who demanded that it was the right time....

Flip- flop - flip - flop.

Lee - give it up - You're not fooling anyone. I don't even read your comments any more. I already know what you're going to say.

You can only twist reality so much before it snaps you back.

I'll say this --- if Keller REALLY thinks he's protected legally from prosecution, he has not read any history on this issue.

Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun BOTH stated that the Espionage Act does NOT rule out prosecution of journalists. Oliver Wendell Holmes stated: "It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

The NY Times is violating the law. Has done so repeatedly. Makes you wonder how the SAME paper that DEFENDED Clinton using a spying program, noting that "nobody questions its necessity" is now attacking Bush for a significantly LESS invasive program with significantly MORE oversight of it.
-=Mike

Big Mo said:

I don't even read your comments any more. I already know what you're going to say.

Sorry to hear that Big MO - but I suspect you will be flip-flopping before long, and responding to my comments.

Just my guess.. we'll see.

"Maybe you're right SCSI - but my guess is that the only people pissed off are the people who know this will hurt the Repuiblicans in the coming elections."

No Lee. It has nothing to do with elections. We're pissed off because this is going to directly lead to letting a terrorist either get away to kill agin or hamper the countrys ability to defend itself against further attack. Period. No Dem or Repub. Just common sense. I don't think about the next election--I think about the next terrorist attack.

That is the difference between the Left and the Right. You are willing to sacrifice your country in order to win an election. The Right is willing to lose a election in order to save the country.

As for the Left being shocked to think that many on the right feel they are on the terrorist side--well, when Left talking points stop being indistinguishable from the terrorists talking points I'll worry what the Left thinks.

Do I think the Left actively wants the terrorists to win? No, I think the Left doesn't care what happens as long as the Right loses--including the deaths of more American citizens from terrorists actions.

I would not be shocked in the least if another building was felled by an aircraft to see Liberals dancing in the street celebrating the fact the terrorist action might lower Bush's poll numbers 5 points.

Yes, I do find the Left that shallow, power hungry, callous and intellectually dishonest.

I was for flip-flopping before I was against flip-flopping.

Lee,
Good to see you admit that all you can perceive is how a situation can hurt Bush or elect democrats.

and used it to launch a Republican conservative agenda that has effected our courts, our privacies, and our freedoms.

Please list all the freedoms and privacies that have been effected by this administration Lee. I know mine are still the same since Clinton left office.

The flip-flop on the withdrawl of troops from Iraq is another, perfect example. Last week withdrawing troops was a "cut and run" policy -- that is, until our military leaders agreed with the Democrats and the majority of Americans who demanded that it was the right time....

You can't be serious! Our military leaders agreed with the Democrats? Come on Lee, stop it, you're embarassing yourself.

You know, Barone used to be a Democrap. There is hope for some, but certainly not for most.

He is spot on. Poetic justice if the Times suffers a terrorist attack at the hands of jihadis who use SWIFT.

I just would like to ask the people on the left a question: do they wish the US or the terrorists to succeed in Iraq?

Hope they can honestly answer that question.

I love it: "the fear of abuse by unchecked power" of the Bush Admin. You Libs. are idiots.

Look at history, if you can put down your NY Times and cafe latte's for a moment.

We have never been freer. Never. Our Pres. constantly talks about tolerance for Muslims, gays, blacks, hispanics, Iraquis and Afghanis, to name a few of the groups. Adequate education for children who are the least powerful among us.

The right to abortion in 2006 has never been so fully exercised. The rates of abortion are sky high.

The rate of home ownership--and yes, minority home ownership--is higher now than during any previous presidency.

Latino students virtually shut down a school over immigration protests, and they are allowed back in without any "jack-booted Bush thugs" clearing them out. In fact, the Anglo kids who try to protest are the ones disciplined!

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusets and several other places. When did that happen? On Bush's watch!!

This administration has taken great pains, greater than previous ones--including Clinton's--to brief FISA and other federal courts, as well as congressional leaders, on the most sensitive intelligence programs. Programs which the great weight of legal opinion finds perfectly legal. Even at the cost of having the NY Times betray those secrets, the Administration has been careful, and has not hidden any abuse of any kind. None.

There is no white house travel office, no Monica, no white water, no Brodderick, no IRS audits of political adversaries, no bribes of admin. officials. No abuse of government power, unlike his predecessor.

And, no homes have been sacked, no offices searched, no hints of even one domestic call among our citizens intercepted or listened to. No public speech stopped. In fact, protesters are everywhere to be seen.

Where exactly are all the people who've lost their precious freedoms the past 6 years of Bush? Under a rock someplace? Deported? Where exactly--besides in in the fevered minds of the Liberal crowd?

So, I ask you, when have YOU been freer--in the entire history of this country, when have we been more prosperous and free?

MItchell,
Well said. The people who are worried about theoretical possibility of abuse by Bush don't seem to worry about the fact that the terrorists took advantage of the wall between FBI and the intelligence community (set by Gorelic, a Clinton appointee) to cause 9/11. They don't seem to worry about the real possibility of far worse damage caused by further terrorist attacks. THis reminds me of a common propaganda used by the left during the cold war: focus solely on the shortcomings of the US (perfection fallacy) to criticize and condemn this country. At the same time, they either ignored or excused the far worse "shortcomings" of the communists. There are murders in the US, you know. So it is not much different from Iran. Abhu Graib happened under Bush, so Bush is the greatest terrrorist in the world. The same moral equivalency argument cleverly disguised.

They also seemed to have forgotten that one of Clinton's bigger issues was an attempt to have all internet providers provide the government with keys to inscription software so they could read emails.

Surely I'm not the only one who remembers THAT proposal.
-=Mike

MikeSC
Good to see somebody else remembers Clipper

I notice you don't mention that those American citizens being held without "due process" were captured as terrorists under American laws that would permit the military to "due process" them with a quick bullet to the head.

And where exactly is this happening? Where are we mutilating bodies? Where do we drag insurgents behind vehicles? Where do we cut their genitals off and stick them in their mouths after we've gouged out their eyes?

You can take your torture allegations and shove them up your ass. Those miserable beings don't get from us half of what they deserve.

As to the last post, another false contention.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the Bush Admin's detention policies and for the most part has upheld them.

So, now you dems. need to find another thing to whine about, but not this.