Friday, January 19, 2007

Remember Dubai

Remember when the Bush administration was going to let Dubai Ports take over operations at some American ports and Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer went in front of the cameras and accused George Bush of selling ports to terrorists? Remember how the right went ape and fell for the scam and made complete asses of themselves by behaving as if the President of the United States would actually hand ports over to AlQaida?

Well I think some righties are doing the same kind of crazy stuff in response to the news that the Bush administration has cut a deal with FISA to take over the Terrorist Surveillence Program. Just because lefties like Glenn Greenwald and the media like to do their thing about Bush backing down or whatever is no reason the rest of us have to let the spin doctors run our lives. Sometimes I feel the extremes are just running amuck in this country. One side wants us to lose and the other side refuses to compromise, even for the good of the country. Very tiresome.

Personally I am glad they found a way to make this important program permanent because I am not sure that President Kuccinich would have signed that Executive Order every 45 days. And before the righties get too pissy with the President for doing this they should remember if not for Bush there would not have been such a program in the first place. The idea that he would wake up one morning and decide it is no longer important is assanine.

The best roundup I have seen on this complete with a transcript of the Q&A session with the Justice Department comes from Protein Wisdom. Go check it out if you are interested.

UPDATE: From AJ

The notorious Glenn Greenwald, who will jump to a misconclusion like a penguin takes to cold water, is finally realizing that all his celebrations regarding the NSA terrorist surveillance program were all for naught:

Maybe Bush didn’t back down on wiretaps

Stop celebrating — it’s not yet clear whether the administration really intends to start obeying the law.

By Glenn Greenwald



But why might the president have agreed to cease violating the law? Last fall, a federal judge ruled that he had violated both the Constitution and criminal law, and an appellate court was about to hold arguments about that decision. And his loyal servants no longer control Congress. Clearly, a desire to avert a now inevitable confrontation with the courts and Congress over the lawless eavesdropping motivated the decision to abide by the law. Other than a rank fear of consequences, there is simply is no coherent explanation for the Bush administration’s sudden abandonment of an illegal program that it had emphatically insisted was central to the “war on terror.”


It’s like a baby when they first actually become concious of their surroundings. Too funny. But there is more reality that is slapping Glenn upside the head which he cannot ignore:

Has a general warrant been issued approving of the program itself? Have so-called anticipatory warrants been issued by the court to allow the administration in advance to eavesdrop whenever specifically defined circumstances arise?

Glenn has always struggled to understand the simplest aspects of the NSA-FISA issue. It is surprising he has started see a glimmer of reality. He is a product of media-fed knowledge. He knows nothing outside what the NY Times tells him. His is an intellect under the total control of others. Sort of sad really.

Curses! Foiled again!

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

jb:

Well they got to blame someone I guess.

Anonymous said...

knuck:

Well it is not just the old press. Ed Morrisey had a fit himself because Bush supposedly reveresed himself. And people could learn more details if they wanted to. They are lazy.

But in this case I just do not understand what people are complaining about. It sounds as if a problem has been solved and that should be a positive thing not a bad thing.

Syl said...

Greenwald also doesn't understand that there is no such thing as a blanket warrant--that's totally unconstitutional.

LOL There's no way to get a general warrant beforehand that says NSA has it covered.

ISTM that the NSA doesn't require a warrant at all--it is not a law enforcement body. If the NSA passes 'something suspicious' to the FBI to check out, then it's the FBI's responsibility to get a warrant for further surveillance.

That's how I understand it.

I think the area that needs oversight is being sure that the convos not destroyed do indeed involve those connected to terrorist groups in some way.

Simply recording the conversations is not a problem, I don't think, because no human listens.

As for what Bush did and what it means and how people interpret it, it's the same ol' same ol'. Politics. The Right seems to be blaming Bush instead of themselves for the election and to the Left it doesn't matter WHAT is done, it only matters WHO is doing it. And that WHO is Bush.

chuck said...

I think you nailed it, Syl, politics. There is an ongoing political war and in some ways I think it is more about who shall rule than about the issues; the issues are in service to the personalities and the quest for power. Indeed, I am somewhat unclear as to what the real issues are.

richard mcenroe said...

Overlooked is the fact that Bush just took FISA out of the hands of Hillary, Barack the Secret Mullah or whatever other homunculus the Democrats might get into office in '08...

They'll have to get by with the FBI or IRS to harass their opponents as in the olden times.

Anonymous said...

richard:

Yes, I think that the right should think about that. On one hand they complain about Bush, on the other they act as if he will be there forever. No, the next guy might make a point of killing the whole program if it were left to him or her or it to decide.