The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

The dangerous concept that George Bush is the only enemy

I did not see the entire speech from beginning to end. I heard the beginning on the radio as I drove to the airport to pick up my son. I saw the tail end, and later saw some of the middle when Fox replayed it. On its face it did not appear to be a great speech and so far I have not seen anyone claim it to be great. I have seen claims that it was good, and I would buy that. I would also claim that during the speech Bush landed some body blows on the Dems that were not particularly obvious. One of the subtle body blows is making statements that the Dems would either be slow to stand or not stand at all, while the GOP stands with thunderous applause. Several times I thought the average person would be inwardly cheering and probably scratch their heads wondering why the Dems are not also cheering.

The problem with the Democrats and the kook fringe they are enslaved to is that in their mind, there is only one enemy: George W. Bush. This is dangerous as it completely undermines efforts to deal with real world dangers. One critical part of the speech dealt with Iran:
The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon — and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions — and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.
The same liberals who critized Bush for "going it alone" are those who will undermine his efforts to call on the world body to bring the necessary pressure to bear on Iran, to spite him. It is not Bush's sole responsibility to deal with Iran. The responsibility is on all nations to deal with, and if we are to have a United Nations the greatest share of the reponsibility falls on Annan and the Security Council. The constant and insatiable desire to bash Bush will surely undermine the necessary steps to actually deal with the problem.

Actually, the anti-Americanism around the globe fueled by the anti-Bush liberals in the US and abroad is likely the culprit for the situation in Iran. I am sure this former hostage taker, now Iranian leader was emboldened by the corruption driven resistance by the world to deal with Iraq and the political games that have followed by France, Germany, China and Russia to look for every opportunity to tweak Bush. A signal was given through those actions that the world would not act to stop him and the US would be too busy in Iraq and mending fences to take action. There lies the danger of thinking we only have one enemy. Sure, liberals pay lip service to dealing with the other enemies; but it is not sincere and is never separated from bashing Bush. That is a dangerous game that will likely cost lives.

24 Comments:

  • At 4:06 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    "That is a dangerous game that will likely cost lives."

    It already has.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    You are right. The world body and Bush bashing Americans are responsible for encouraging the insurgency to continue. Zarqawi could have been taken down a long time ago if the they had set aside their hatred of Bush and joined the process.

     
  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger LogicalOne said…

    You said "Actually, the anti-Americanism around the globe fueled by the anti-Bush liberals in the US...". Read some of the foreign press. I can assure you that President Bush is capable of generating more than enough anti-Americanism around the globe all by himself. It is one of those things he does well.

    iasunsett, I never realized that liberals have that much power! You really believe that their cooperation is all that is needed to defeat the insurgency in Iraq? Should I assume you voted for Kerry in the last election or at least will vote for Democrats this November?

     
  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Logicalone,

    Your question:

    "I never realized that liberals have that much power! You really believe that their cooperation is all that is needed to defeat the insurgency in Iraq? "

    If liberals were not screeching that this war is a dismal failure, if Howard Dean was not saying that we cannot win in Iraq, and all of the other Democratic hacks weren't painting a picture of miserable failure, all on a daily basis, the enemy would not be nearly as emboldened as it is. And things would be a hell of a lot easier. Not perfect, but easier.

    Your next question:

    "Should I assume you voted for Kerry in the last election or at least will vote for Democrats this November?"

    You should never assume.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "Read some of the foreign press. I can assure you that President Bush is capable of generating more than enough anti-Americanism around the globe all by himself."

    Welcome logicalone and thanks for posting. I must say that the point you are trying to make here is somewhat of a straw man. You are assuming the members of the foreign press will be objective and infallible in their opinions they write about the actions of George Bush. As most foreign countries in the world are either heavily socialist or totalitarian, I would not expect their press to interpret Bush's actions in a positive way.

    Logically, if Bush's actions do not align with their ideology, they will certainly cast his actions in a negative light. If their ideology causes them to write negative things about Bush and America then they would be incorrectly producing a negative anti-American atmosphere if, as I would claim, their ideology is wrong.

    Also, LASunsett was quoting me, albeit agreeing. The point here was not liberals having the power. It had more to do with the countries.

    The point is that either a world body concensus applying pressure on countries like Iran and the insurgency in Iraq works, or it does not work at all and the concept of a United Nations is worthless and should be disbanded.

    As for the power to defeat the insurgency itself in Iraq. The power will only come from the US military. Under normal conditions in the face of such devastation the insurgency would realize it is futile and give up. When encouraged daily by world criticism of the US by governments and press they continue to fight and lose. Such small minds are buoyed losing 100 people for every 1 of ours if only they can every now and then put a stick in the eye of the US and have press around the world portray it as such.

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    logicalone treads into the maze of delusions, fallacy and parroted RNC talking points that is "the Logic Lifeline." A more ill-suited name could not be found as there is no logic to be found in these posts. Let's single out one point and have a look:

    "Logically, if Bush's actions do not align with their ideology, they will certainly cast his actions in a negative light. If their ideology causes them to write negative things about Bush and America then they would be incorrectly producing a negative anti-American atmosphere if, as I would claim, their ideology is wrong."

    Notice that the underlying presumption is that Bush's actions are inherently correct. No reason is given for this; you are just expected to accept it. This alone is enough to ignore this site. But let's soldier on.

    Sadly the last sentence devolves into something that would get a failing grade from an 8th grade grammar class, so getting a handle on this "logic" is almost impossible. Perhaps this is an intentional ploy. Throw enough dust in the air and by the time it settles, the topic has moved on to how it's all the liberal media's fault. Such is the way of things when facts don't matter.

    The logic supposedly at play here is supposed to get us to nod our heads in agreement that the ideology of other nations is wrong. We are told that their ideology will cause them to "incorrectly produce a negative anti-American atmosphere." There is no analysis of Bush foreign policy offered, let alone having it put in context of the rest of the planet. We are expected to buy every premise and then agree that the conclusions drawn are based on any recognizable form of logic.

    I'd love to see this one get tossed out into the middle of a basic 101 level Logic course at a university. But wait, the author will object to that too, since to him every university is just a haven for marxist liberalism.

    You'll notice that global sentiment against Bush was turned into "anti-Americanism around the globe" (most people around the world still love America, but cannot abide by Bush) and your question of how "anti-Bush liberals in the US" was to blame was summarily ignored. You got some RNC backwash about emboldening the enemy and a scolding about how the rest of the world is socialist or totalitarian. You're supposed to ignore that the current Bush administration is utilizing techniques of surveillance and propaganda often criticized when employed by the USSR and other "totalitarian" regimes.

     
  • At 11:48 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Bill of Wrongs, welcome. I see you tried really hard to think through your post. As is usually the lot of liberals you turn to criticizing spelling and grammar in lieu of logical points.

    The first thing you do is to willfully avoid the point I was making and twist it into something I did not say. I guess that is your only hope to make a point.

    The underlying point was not whether Bush was right or wrong. The point was that if they disagree with his ideology it is only natural they would have a negative view when he exercises it.

    "(most people around the world still love America, but cannot abide by Bush)"

    You will need to argue that point with logicalone. He is the one who made the claim about anti-Americanism around the globe.

    I tried to find other points to address in the last 3 paragraphs and could not find any. Typical liberal Bush-bashing. While I am falsely accused of loving each and every thing Bush does, that is not the case. I will point out that the kook left fringe which you seem to be a part of hates each and every thing about Bush. Hardly rational. I even found things to like about Clinton.

     
  • At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Just couldn't bring yourself to actually writing Bill of Rights? You got a problem with our founding documents? Like holy water to a vampire, Bush apologists recoil when faced with those words and uncritically embrace his sentiment that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper. It's tragic. But onward.

    This evasion was expected:
    "The underlying point was not whether Bush was right or wrong. The point was that if they disagree with his ideology it is only natural they would have a negative view when he exercises it."

    If you had not used the qualifier of correctness in your original screed, then your rebuttal would be valid. Being that you did use that qualifier, your rebuttal fails because you assigned a value judgment, making the whole point a matter of right and wrong. And yes, if you are trying to claim the high mantle that logic implies, then you should be held to standards of grammar, as without succinct grammar, logic fails. Whining about being called on spelling errors is juvenile here since I did no such thing. Thankfully in this regard you are atypical of the usual web urchins who obviously don't know that the differences between your, you're, there, their, they're etc. Typos are irrelevant.

    Sorry to hear you couldn't find a point to address. Not even this pink elephant?

    "You're supposed to ignore that the current Bush administration is utilizing techniques of surveillance and propaganda often criticized when employed by the USSR and other "totalitarian" regimes."

    Should the point to address not be obvious to you, it is that the Bush adminisrtation has been steadily moving in the direction of totalitarianism to the point of even now brazenly using taxpayer dollars to ship himself, Gonzales, Hayden, Cheney and others around the country in a blatant propoganda effort to convince Americans that warrantless surveillance and data mining of our citizenry is a good thing.

    I anticipate a response that would make J. Edgar Hoover proud.

    I don't hate everything about Bush. I'm sure that he would make an entertaining and charming guest at a backyard BBQ. He's got a quick wit and an easy smile. But he is not a compassionate conservative, his policy decisions are destroying America, and he is just not a statesman, which America deserves. He is an embarassment. The man is so dishonest that he can't even be himself, playing and fooling people into believing he is "regular guy cowpoke" when he is New England blue blood elite from generations of privelege and has never had to work hard for anything in his life.

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Furthermore, from your original screed:

    "Actually, the anti-Americanism around the globe fueled by the anti-Bush liberals in the US and abroad is likely the culprit for the situation in Iran."

    And then from your response to me:

    "You will need to argue that point with logicalone. He is the one who made the claim about anti-Americanism around the globe."

    In baseball that's called three strikes, you're out.
    1. the conflicting points of logic and value judgment of correctness sinking your rebuttal
    2. missing the obvious charge of totalitarianism under Bush as a point to address
    3. not even remembering your own major talking points

    Better luck next time.

    But I do have to give kudos where appropriate. That's a wickedly smooth sleight of hand saying that the situation in Iran is likely caused by "anti-Bush liberals in the US." Wow! Read that again. That's a ripper! You should submit your resume to GWB for Chief of Staff since Rove will likely be joining Libby in the doghouse within the next year.

     
  • At 10:18 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    ok, I'll give you a partial strike, but not three. Yes, I did make a statement about anti-Americanism around the globe. The other half I am not giving you is for the fact that logicalone did state it as well and you did not criticize him for it.

    you did not make a case for conflicting logic. no strike. you equate agreeing with me and logical. since you disagree with me, you then claim I am illogical. as with your points about spelling and run-on sentences, will you claim faulty logic for not using caps? :)

    your strike for not thinking your comment of Bush and totalitarionism is a point to address. Sorry, it was a baseless rant. While I am no lawyer, all I have read and heard on the subject tells me there is both historical and legal precedent for the eavesdropping that Bush authorized.

    Libby will never see jail. The big losers of that trial will be Fitzgerald and the media. I am looking forward to it.

    As for the Bill of Wrongs, I am sure I am more fond of the Constitution than you. I did have a hard time equating you with something as sacred as the Bill of Rights; hence the misnomer.

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Back to kindergarten, having to hold the child's hand all through their daily lesson......

    "ok, I'll give you a partial strike, but not three. Yes, I did make a statement about anti-Americanism around the globe. The other half I am not giving you is for the fact that logicalone did state it as well and you did not criticize him for it."

    Weak weak weak. You made the assertion about anti-Americanism in your original post. logicalone quoted you, and foolishly thought dealing with you in your own language was the best approach. Now you use that to hide behind. Feeble. My grandma could knock you over. It's your blog, not logicalone's. Be accountable. Don't cower behing someone else. Strike four, though counting is pointless.

    "you did not make a case for conflicting logic. no strike. you equate agreeing with me and logical. since you disagree with me, you then claim I am illogical. as with your points about spelling and run-on sentences, will you claim faulty logic for not using caps? :)"

    Oh hee hee, such a cute smiley face. And ooh look! Look at that shiny object over there! Pathetic. I never claimed you were illogical, as anyone who can read will plainly see, just that what you're engaged in here cannot properly be called logic. Contrary to what you want to pin on me, I obviously would not equate agreeing with you and logic, because my main argument here is that logic and the concept of right and wrong are antithetical to one another. How many times are you going to make me reiterate that? I see you're also still stuck on the spelling error thing too. Did your boss yell at you today and you think everyone is picking on you for everything? Grow up. If you bother to read your own posts or the comments you respond to, you will see quite clearly that you were making a value judgment of correctness of the Bush ideology as compared to other ideologies. Uselessly quoting you again: "If their ideology causes them to write negative things about Bush and America then they would be incorrectly producing a negative anti-American atmosphere." It is not a statement of LOGIC to assign values of right or wrong, as you did in saying these others would be "incorrectly producing a negative anti-American atmosphere." You would fail Logic 101 at a community college if you presented that. But then again, I'm sure you've never taken a logic or statistics class, and are only trying to make yourself sound big and official-like to your fellow Reds.

    "your strike for not thinking your comment of Bush and totalitarionism is a point to address. Sorry, it was a baseless rant. While I am no lawyer, all I have read and heard on the subject tells me there is both historical and legal precedent for the eavesdropping that Bush authorized."

    Go tell Arlen Specter (R-PA and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) about this baseless rant which he is currently presiding over in session in Washington DC today. Too bad he didn't get Gonzales to testify under oath, right? Then again, you probably have no idea about any of this, do you? If all you have read and heard on this subject says that there is legal and historical precedent, then you obviously haven't read anything other than RNC memos.

    "Federal law has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order." Arlen Specter, at today's Senate Panel hearing.

    "As for the Bill of Wrongs, I am sure I am more fond of the Constitution than you. I did have a hard time equating you with something as sacred as the Bill of Rights; hence the misnomer."

    Your ideology, quite nakedly on display even in this one thread, insults the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Taxpayer dollars are being used to mount a government propoganda mission worthy of Kruschiev's Kremlin to directly subvert the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. What happened to all the Reaganesque bravado and outrage about the bad bad USSR and its propoganda and spying on its citizens? You people waffle more than John Kerry.

    Article IV of the Bill of Rights:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    That is meaningless to you in your support of warrantless surveillance of American citizens, so don't try to play patriot.

    Go read the Bill of Rights. It's linked in my name. You're obviously long overdue in a refresher course.

     
  • At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    Sorry to overtax your reading capabilities with another homework assignment, but I thought this article detailing the concerns and quotes of some prominent conservatives about the NSA surveillance would help you realize just how deeply wrong you are about this being just a "baseless rant."

    Then again, you may think the Cato Institute, Gun Owners of America, Americans for Tax Reform and Reagan Justice Department officials are just terrorist-loving liberal windbags too, as compared to Constitution-loving patriots like yourself.

    "It's Bush's defenders who are embracing the most liberal and utopian view of human nature with their 'trust me' argument, a view that would cause the Founding Fathers to weep," [former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce] Fein said. "The real conservatives are the ones who treasure the original understanding of the Constitution, and clearly this is inconsistent with the separation of powers."

     
  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    bill (a compromise on the name)

    On the one hand you are awfully childish. Can't quite post a comment without a full dose of name calling. Can't keep the discussion at a mature level. Can't deal with smiley faces or any errors whatsoever. I can deal with that, and it is your right to be that way.

    On the other hand, unlike most liberals you actually add some intelligent points to your name calling. I feel I would short-change you by giving a quick response like I have been in the past. Mondays are bad for me and this is a busy week period. Give me some time and I will come up with something more developed on this thread. To fully answer you on this will take quite a lot of work. When I do that, I usually create a new post so all that time is not wasted on just one reader.

    I missed your point on the "shiny object"???

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    The "shiny object" reference is to a tactic used primarily by parents to distract the attention of their young children away from one subject and onto another. I use it with you because you are either afraid of fully confronting or don't bother taking the time to thoroughly read and thoughtfully respond, and thus you veer off on distracting topics like spelling errors and other irrelevancies.

    As for name calling, I would refrain if only you would approach this maturely and thoughtfully. So far you have mostly been doing the "shiny object" routine and missing direct obvious points time and again so that I end up having to hold your hand and guide you step by step, again and again through every point I have tried to make with you. You just don't get it. Whether that is intentional on your part or not, I can only guess.

    The ony error I have pointed out to you here was regarding the necessary standards of using logic, in particular, using solid grammar. Saying that I "can't deal with smiley faces or any errors whatsoever" is just another "shiny object" tactic, designed to shift the discussion from its topic.

    Your entire last response has absolutely nothing to do with the points presented to you.

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    "Your entire last response has absolutely nothing to do with the points presented to you. "

    That was what my last response stated. That I would take the time to reply in a more thoughful manner, so it should not have been surprising that I did not actually respond to any points at that time.

    As for your reasons for using name calling: you started name-calling in your first post before I even presented one sentence to you. Perhaps the excuse you gave came later, but you started name calling in your first sentence to me. While I try to avoid such immature bantor, if a poster makes it clear that is what they want by giving it to me, then I oblige in return.

    If you want a straightforward reasoned dialogue, I can provide it. So I repeat that give me a little time and I will respond to your points. My discretionary time is very limited in the early parts of each week. Thanks for coming back.

     
  • At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Bill_of_Rights said…

    I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I re-read my first post and couldn't find anywhere that I called you a name. If you can find one, please tell me. Otherwise I'd say you were tossing a lie, hoping to divert the discussion or at least not get caught called on doing it. Is calling you a liar unjustified if you can't find that I called you a name even though you've insisted I have?

    My first sentence/paragraph challenged the authenticity of your claim to using logic and was supported by reasoned argument about assigning correctness and the need for correct grammar. I also charged that there are delusions and fallacies and parroted RNC talking points presented on this blog. To stay on point, I proceeded with the logic issue instead of listing examples of delusions, fallacies and RNC talking points. All three are handled quickly by pointing to this one comment of yours: "the world body and Bush bashing Americans are responsible for encouraging the insurgency to continue." I should add "irresponsible" to that list of descriptors for this statement. Ignoring the realities of the situation in Iraq - that of a native population fighting an invading/occupying army - is what is prolonging this costly misadventure. You continue: "Zarqawi could have been taken down a long time ago if the they had set aside their hatred of Bush and joined the process." Zarqawi wouldn't mean squat if we had maintained our focus on Bin Laden and gotten him. As it stands Bin Laden is still free 4 years later, and Turki al-Faisal gets a nice seat at the State of the Union address despite his numerous links to Bin Laden and the Taliban's Mullah Omar. Team Bush is doing a bang-up job of national security, yessiree.

    But through all this I didn't call you a nimrod or anything like that. I did finally call you a waffler, but that was because what once was a bastion of conservatism - open loathing and hostility toward the wicked USSR and totalitarian practices - has given way to pandering and support of the Bush administration as it pisses all over the Constitution.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    'logicalone treads into the maze of delusions, fallacy and parroted RNC talking points that is "the Logic Lifeline."'

    You would not admit that this is implied name-calling that I am:

    delusional
    liar
    RNC parrot

    Look, call me what you want. Insult me all you want. I was not whining about any of that. I was merely pointing out that my initial responses matched the tone of your comments. I then went on to pay you a compliment that your intellectual responses deserved a higher level of dialogue which I intend to deliver once I get the time to do it right.

     
  • At 6:07 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    Bill has no argument. His only resort is to call names to divert attention from the real issues, issues that you cleaned his clock on. That's always a dead giveaway, when you have won the argument.

    But that's not the funny part. He sounds a lot like the commenter Paw; you know, the one that got mad and left. After reading and analyzing his style of confrontation and his reactions to your sensible arguments, it is apparent that only the name has been changed to protect the guilty.

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA, It is possible, but I think Paw was more civil. Bill has the intelligence of Paw, but the insulting tone of one of the anonymous posters. All that guy could do was throw me a list of links sandwiched in the middle of insults and expect that to be the end-all argument. No, I think Bill is new.

    What truly entertains me the most is the ones that do not have or declare a blog of their own, yet hold me to a standard of bullet-proof logic on all of my posts. They are quite lofty in their criticism of my writings, yet have nothing they write on a regular basis for the rest of us to scrutinize. Oh well, it comes with the territory and helps keep us sharp.

     
  • At 9:09 PM, Anonymous amused observer said…

    AICS,

    I agree with LASunsett. I wouldn't get too worked up over the attacks from the commenter referring to himself or herself as "Bill_of_Rights." Sadly, rather than participate in a respectful, civilized discourse, he or she resorts to attempting to berate and belittle you. In my experience, people who adopt this type of behavior do so out of fear and insecurity (sometimes conscious, sometimes not) that their arguments will not bear up under critical examination. So they attack others in the hope that their target will cower in the face of what the attacker assumes must come across as intellectual superiority rather than call the attacker on the obvious flaws in his or her arguments.

    I can only assume that these tirades make "Bill_of_Rights" feel better about himself or herself. For the rest of us, it just illustrates what he or she is: the north end of a south bound donkey.

    If you decide to address "Bill_of_Rights'" version of "logic", more power to you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. However, I must admit to being amused by his or her following comments:

    1. "[T]he current Bush administration is utilizing techniques of surveillance and propaganda often criticized when employed by the USSR and other 'totalitarian' regimes."

    2. "[T]he Bush adminisrtation has been steadily moving in the direction of totalitarianism to the point of even now brazenly using taxpayer dollars to ship himself, Gonzales, Hayden, Cheney and others around the country in a blatant propoganda effort to convince Americans that warrantless surveillance and data mining of our citizenry is a good thing."

    3. And my personal favorite: "If all you have read and heard on this subject says that there is legal and historical precedent, then you obviously haven't read anything other than RNC memos."

    Perhaps, Bill_of_Rights could explain a few things to us then:

    - Why did Clinton White House Associate Attorney General John Schmidt assert in the Chicago Tribune that "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"?

    - Why did Schmidt go on to summarize court decisions on the topic as follows: "In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.... Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.... In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ‘All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority'"?

    - Why did Schmidt conclude: "Every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act’s terms"?

    - Why did President Carter make changes to FISA under Executive Order 12139 on May 23, 1979 that stated: "...in order to provide as set forth in that Act for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: '1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section'"?

    - Why did President Clinton also make a change to FISA with Executive Order 12949, which stated: "...in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
    'Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.'”

    - Why did Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994 that, "[t]he Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes... and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.... It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

    - Why did Gorelick's testimony indicate that Clinton believed he had the power to order warrantless searches even without a reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime: "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise.... Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

    - Why did The Christian Science Monitor report the following on August 31, 1994: “Citing national security concerns, federal agents have continued a cold war policy of secretly searching the homes and offices of American citizens suspected of aiding foreign powers.... These ‘black-bag jobs,’ conducted without court orders, have gotten the go-ahead from President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, just as they did from two previous presidents."

    Perhaps because it is not AICS who does not have a grasp on the legal and historical precedents at issue here. Perhaps Bill_of_Rights can explain how Bush's actions move us toward a totalitarian regime in a way that Clinton's did not. I think he or she needs to re-read Ammendment IV which he or she quotes above ("The right of the people to be secure in their ... houses ... against unreasonable searches ... shall not be violated") and then tell us how Clinton's authorization of warrantless searches of homes was acceptable, while Bush is the second coming of Stalin. The hypocrisy is staggering.

    I found the following information from The American Spectator quite enlightening: "Some critics, including some conservative pundits such as George Will, have condemned the president for failing to seek congressional action to expand or change FISA to allow it to be used more broadly. In 2004, the Bush administration considered asking for just such action. The reason it did not is a fact congressional leaders of both parties ignore at their peril, and ours.

    "As the Attorney General will testify today, and as he has already said in response to questions by Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), consideration of legislative action on FISA was put aside because 'members of Congress advised the Administration that more specific legislation could not be enacted without likely compromising the terrorist surveillance program by disclosing program details and operational limitations and capabilities to our enemies.'

    "LOOSE CANONS HAS SAID, over and over again, that Congress is the source of leaks of many if not most of the top-secret information about the war on terror that has reached the press. The leak of the CIA terrorist detention centers in Europe and Asia probably came from the CIA. But the list of congressional leaks is long. Too long.

    "In December 2004, Loose Canons reported that Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) -- vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- along with Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) were under criminal investigation for leaking a top-secret satellite program. Every indication is that the NSA program leak -- which CIA Director Goss said last week significantly damaged national security -- also came from the Hill. Leak after leak, as Loose Canons predicted more than a year ago, has reached a level that the executive branch cannot trust Congress to keep those secrets. And without that trust, Congress cannot be permitted to get the information that allows it to perform its constitutional oversight role. This is not, as Howard Dean insists, a rogue executive, out of control and violating the law. This is, as I will say again and again, a danger to our form of government that can only be met by the expulsion from Congress, and subsequent prosecution, of those members and staff who are responsible."

    Finally, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan), in a recent letter to Howard Dean, demonstrates that he understands that the wiretaps at issue are not like the domestic abuses of the past: "When Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson approved the electronic surveillance of Martin Luther King, those Presidents were targeting American citizens based on activities protected by the First Amendment. When President Richard Nixon used warrantless wiretaps, they were not directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans." In other words, Roberts understands there is a difference between searches that violate the 4th Amendment and wartime gathering of intelligence.

    Sorry for the lengthy post. I started out simply wanting to encourage you and ended up blathering on. Keep up the good work!

     
  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Amused, not sure if you have posted before but welcome. Your post is an excellent synopsis of the wiretapping topic in response to the ridiculous charge of a totalitarian government under Bush.

    There were two topics I intended to address in detail: this one and the global anti-Americanism issue. I truly could not top your comments on the wiretapping, so I will only address the other one in detail.

    Thanks for the encouragement and the great synopsis.

     
  • At 10:06 PM, Anonymous amused observer said…

    Thanks for your kind words, AICS, as well as the welcome to your blog. As you suspected, I'm a new reader/poster here, but will definitely try to get back from time to time. Thanks again.

     
  • At 4:19 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    AICS,

    Amused is 100% right. But I will go a bit further in this analysis of this kind of behavior.

    These people have no blogs, because MoveOn.Org (and other organizations of like mind) encourage people to troll the blogosphere seeking well written arguments, like yours, and show complete disdain in a disrespectful manner, because they have no ideas. They parrot the leadership of these outfits and get their talking points in mass e-mails sent out from the organizations. They sound like a cult in the manner of the Moonies and other mind control groups.

    The main thing to always note is they come in with a chip on their shoulders, almost immediately, and give no reasoning or evidence to back up their weak and faulty claims. They stand and accuse, but when you call them on anything, they call names and attempt to put you down. Then when that fails, they are the spelling, grammar, and typo police.

    I had a few trolls like this when I first started out. I ripped them up. They don't come very often anymore. I don't want to hear Moveon arguments, they are the same old tired accusations that are used over and over again. They didn't have a lick of merit when they were dreamed up, and they have even less now.

    I, like you, always welcome intelligent debate and will always welcome dissenting opinions. What I don't welcome is ad hominem attacks whether direct or implied.

    Like Amused said, it is just a front they put on because they have no support and no warrant for their weak and faulty claims. They are insecure and lack the intestinal fortitude to put their ideas out there on their own blog, because they know in their heart of hearts, they would have their posts dissected.

     
  • At 9:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    **financial freedom****Online Buisness****Legitamate home based buisness**

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home