The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   JUDGE: PRES. BUSH'S WIRETAP PROGRAM VIOLATES CONSTITUTION & MUST STOP (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11500)

Spexxvet 08-21-2006 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad
Spex, a special prosecutor was appointed to specifically to look into your theory, and it didn't even turn up any blowjobs.

Isn't Scooter Libby facing charges? He probably worked alone in the same way Liddy and North did.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad
Never mind that Amb. Wilson is still with us, and untortured (he looked really good in that Armani at the Correspondents Dinner).

I said as much. He wasn't disappeared, but he certainly was punished.

Happy Monkey 08-21-2006 10:02 AM

The FISA court was created because these powers were being misused. And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power, compared to Bush.

Undertoad 08-21-2006 10:05 AM

Yeah, but Libby's charge is like Clinton's: perjury in a trial with a not-guilty verdict. Of course, in Clinton's case, it was more like let's ask him questions until we find something he lies about and then charge him w/ perjury. But anyway, it's a smaller deal than the original charge.

MaggieL 08-21-2006 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power, compared to Bush.

That statement is another one of those "beleving your own hyperbole" deals. I don't recall any particular sqeamishness on Nixon's part. And there was only one "Woodstein" in those days, rather than the vast legions of wannabees we have today...

Happy Monkey 08-21-2006 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
I don't recall any particular sqeamishness on Nixon's part.

I didn't say there was.

MaggieL 08-21-2006 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
I didn't say there was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
And Nixon was positively squeamish about using presidential power...

Hypnotized by one's own hyperbole, as I said.

Happy Monkey 08-21-2006 01:46 PM

Creative editing, there.

MaggieL 08-21-2006 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Creative editing, there.

You're just so freaking anxious to get your jollies and confirm your Good Liberal cred by slamming Bush that truth and perspective have become unimportant.

The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to. Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.

I remeber the Nixon administration quite well, and nobody cheered louder than I did when he went down. But your comparison is either hysterical or woefully uninformed.

xoxoxoBruce 08-22-2006 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
Today every journo student learns about Woodstein at his prof's knee, and throughoiut his career longs to earn his Pulitzer breaking the Big Story that topples the Evil and Mighty.

I'd call that a good thing. :D

MaggieL 08-22-2006 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'd call that a good thing.

It is, as long as they're not so hypnotized by it that it leads them away from the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theodore Roosevelt
In Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.

In "Pilgrim's Progress" the Man with the Muckrake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.

There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful... The men with the muck-rakes are often indispensable to the well-being of society; but only if they know when to stop raking the muck, and to look upward to the celestial crown above them, to the crown of worthy endeavor.


Happy Monkey 08-22-2006 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment:

A lapdog Congress.
Quote:

everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny,
Not from anyone who can do anything about it. Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got. Or if they'd reluctantly made the committee, but refused to allow it to interview administration officials. Or if they were allowed to interview officials, but not alone and not under oath. Or if official government investigators were denied security clearances, and were therefore forced to terminate the investigation.

MaggieL 08-22-2006 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't have gotten anywhere if Congress had steadfastly refused to set up the Watergate Committee, no matter how much press they got.

It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's quality rather than quantity, and the quality has been garbage.

You can play crappy music though a huge amplifier (The Internet, anyone?) but it's still crappy music.

It's just louder.

Spexxvet 08-22-2006 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
... everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with ...

Ken Starr is investigating? :stickpoke

Happy Monkey 08-22-2006 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
It's not a matter of "how much press they got". It's quality rather than quantity, and the quality has been garbage.

OK. Replace "how much" with "what" in my post above, if you like.

MaggieL 08-23-2006 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
OK. Replace "how much" with "what" in my post above, if you like.

I'll replace it in your post if you replace it in your thinking.

headsplice 08-23-2006 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
The fact is that three decades later, Bush is operating in a completely different environment: everything he does is under an intense level of hostile scrutiny, and it stands up extremely well compared to what Tricky Dick got away with without even thinking about it much (up to the point he was impeached, anyway) mostly because nobody was looking, or knew how to.

Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny? Maybe because he's burned his bridges with just about everyone imaginable (the press, the left, the ENTIRE WORLD, the general populace)? Do you think, just possibly, there's a reason why his poll numbers are in the toilet?
And frankly, you're criticism of his being under the microscope doesn't hold up for most of his tenure as president. How else was he able to get us into Iraq on extraordinarily feeble evidence? Or, for a more recent example, find a comparison on major news outlets on the time spent on JonBenet last week vs. Diggs-Taylor's ruling. I already have one, but you will probably dismiss it as biased, since TP is a lefty site.

MaggieL 08-23-2006 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
Why is everything that he does under an intense level of scrutiny?

How about "because thirty years later the world is a very different place, and information moves thousands of times faster"? Occam's Razor...

I'm not *criticising* his being scruitnized; it's both necessary and an inevitable consequence of technological change. The same was true of Bill Clinton, to a somewhat lesser extent, and if his wife is elected in '08, it will be even more true for her. Or anybody else who might be elected then.

Do you *remeber* 1974? I sure do. Your profile says you weren't even born yet.

headsplice 08-23-2006 10:38 AM

I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong?
Hooray for being born before me.
My response to you, paraphrased, is:
-1)Hostlie scrutiny of GWB is justified.
-2)The scrutiny isn't all that intense in the mainstream.
How does my age enter into the equation here? I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

MaggieL 08-23-2006 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
I read implied criticism into your statement by your use of the word 'hostile.' Was I wrong? Hooray for being born before me...I'm pretty sure that you're implying a comparison to Nixon into my statement, but it isn't there.

Actually HappyMonkey invoked Nixon, and my parallel construction was "thirty years later".

I think there's more hostile scrutiny for two reasons:

1) there's more scrutiny, period, and

2) the "mainstream" media has moved considerably to the left since 1974, due not in small part to the events of 1974.

That said, I'd guess that reason 1 is a vastly bigger impact than reason 2.

Your age is relevant because it's much more difficult to appreciate the profound differences in culture and mediaspace between 1974 and 2006 if you weren't around then.

Only four TV networks, with a daily news cycle rather than an hourly one. PBS/CBS/ABC/NBC news for an hour (or two, if you stayed up late) per night, but no CNN, no CNBC, no FoxNews, no CSPAN. Access to being published only if the editor or publisher of a dead-tree newspaper/magazine deems you worthy, and even your audience is no bigger than the readership of the rag in question.

Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

headsplice 08-23-2006 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
Today's media environments create huge information spaces at the drop of a hat; the memetic equivalant of a flashmob. They're just not comparable playing fields.

Agreed.
However, I'm going to call shenanigans on saying the media has moved to the left since '74. There's always been folks willing to call the government on it's BS (Edward Murrow comes to my mind). What changed was the press's willingness to dig into what those in power were actually doing and exposing it. I'll also argue that the sunlight effect is fading with consolidation of major media (though that's another thread). Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

Happy Monkey 08-23-2006 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
I'll replace it in your post if you replace it in your thinking.

It's what I meant all along. No matter what the press said.

MaggieL 08-23-2006 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
Do you have some general trends (specific examples are not conclusive data) that you could point out that say the media is drifting left? I have some that say the mainstream press is moving rightish (though not through changes in demographics of reporting editorial or reporting staff), but I'd like to hear your theory.

I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

MaggieL 08-23-2006 09:29 PM

Speaking of scrutiny:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judicial Watch
According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”

“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”

(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)

OK, I take it back. Maybe she is Taliban.

Urbane Guerrilla 08-23-2006 11:25 PM

What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

Flint 08-24-2006 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
Maybe she is Taliban.

I had to go back to the first page (is Maggie referencing my comment?) ...and then I found this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet
Who wants to force their religious views on the entire nation, and make them law of the land, like the Taliban?
Who wants to force prayer in school, like the Taliban?
Who were against the ERA, wanting to keep women in their place as second-class citizens like the Taliban?
Who wants everybody in the country to tote around an AK47, like the Taliban?
Who would never stand for same-gender marriage, like the Taliban?
Who punishes you for opposing their agenda like the Taliban?
Who has a core following who are fundamentalist religious conservative extremists, like the Taliban?
Who doesn't care if their fellow countrymen live or die, like the Taliban?
Who bypasses diplmacy, in favor of violence, like the Taliban?

ha ha ha <smilie of approval>

Spexxvet 08-24-2006 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

Here's an easy way to win the GWOT: All American citizens must have an identification number tattooed on their forehead, and an identifying microchip implanted rectally. Anyone in America must submit to daily body cavity searches, and weekly home and business searches, as well as random automobile searches. Then, we should just use our nukuler weapons on the rest of the world. With this strategy in place, we'll win the GWOT in a heartbeat!

headsplice 08-24-2006 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL
I can't think of an objective measure that could be applied across the period 1974-2006...and if I could, I wouldn't think excluding demographics of the press would be appropriate...they are, after all, who they are; trying to tune out shifts in the population would distort the overall picure.

My subjective impression over that period is that the mainstream media have moved left over that time, but then I've moved away from the left over that time, so that's a moving frame of reference.

And I've moved left :)
So, my general theory is that in the past few years (say, from the mid-90's, when media de-regulation really kicked into overdrive), fewer and fewer companies have controlled larger and larger percentages of the top-down, traditional media. And, though I may disagree with alot of the right's politics, they're generally better business people than the left. Therefore, the people that own top-down media have decreased in number, while simultaneously moving to the right politically, which has influenced the overall tone of media outlets.
So I wasn't trying to remove the demographic shift of the newsroom staff, I just didn't think it was relevant.
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends. ;)
Quote:

Originally Posted by UG
What makes us tired is that somehow all the findings of people like these are clearly aimed not at increasing, but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT. This "we must lose because we're, uh, America" attitude is nonsense, and must go if we really want a good world.

And how is the prosecution of the GWOT going at the moment? Hmmm...increased hostility towards Americans? Check. Increased incidences of acts of terrorism? Check. Decreased political stability in notoriously unstable regions of the world? Check.
And BTW, how exactly do you win a war on terror? Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.

Griff 08-24-2006 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
Increased incidences of acts of terrorism?

You got proof? The gubmint don't publish those no more, cuz it harms the GWOT.

MaggieL 08-24-2006 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
And I've moved left :)

Well, watch this space. The evening is young, and so are you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice
RE: Diggs-Taylor's potential links to the ACLU:
Probably not a big deal. After, Scalia didn't recuse himself from the SCOTUS case involving the VP, and they're friends. ;)

There's a whopping big difference between not recusing and not even disclosing...and this is a case of not disclosing. I don't think anyone was unaware of the Scalia-Cheney friendship.

headsplice 08-28-2006 11:31 AM

Actually, I don't think there is much of a difference, legally speaking. The judge in question is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not there's a conflict of interest (which I think is a bunch of horsecrap, but that's another thread). I'm pretty sure there's no legal requirement for a judge to even disclose if there's even of potential COI. The flip side of that is there's more than likely an ethical necessity, but since when do ethics and law coincide?

richlevy 08-28-2006 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
but reducing US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT.

Uh oh, we have an official acronym now. Ok folks, an acronym has been assigned and discussion is over, let's all pack up, ASAP.:rolleyes:

Kitsune 01-18-2007 08:22 AM

The President has decided to reduce US effectiveness in prosecuting the GWOT.

...wait, he what?

Flint 01-18-2007 08:34 AM

Oh boy, I'm glad that whole thing is finally over! I bet all you Bush-Haters feel pretty silly now. See, things worked out just fine, as usual (oh ye of little faith). Nothing more to see here, move along now. Hey! Move it along, we said. Now!

Central Control, we got us a Freedom-Hater in sector 7G.. Release the hounds!

Happy Monkey 01-18-2007 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune (Post 308318)

I'm gonna wait until the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have a look at exactly what he's doing before I believe it. I'm guessing this is pretty much lip service.

Urbane Guerrilla 01-18-2007 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice (Post 260165)
Simple answer: not by blowing shit up or undermining civil liberties (those pesky little things that make us BETTER than the rest of the world), but by NOT BEING TERRORIZED.

I include under "not being terrorized" embassies not blown up, the USS Cole not damaged with 17 dead, and the WTC not being attacked twice, nor the Pentagon once.

Seems this hasn't quite happened.

We've a problem: fanatical bigots attack us. Convert these to good bigots by killing them in ways that make other bigots know it's extremely unsafe, and makes for not only a solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish life to attack us, but a short one as well. Deprive the fanatical anti-Americans any advantage, of any sort.

Do these antis wish to scream at us about Israel? Advise them they are being immoral, and back it up by vaporizing the anti-Israelites. They really should have learned their lesson from 1948 and 1956, when Israel showed the whole planet God wanted Israel to be, twice over. All we're doing is helping God's manifest plan.

The eastern Mediterranean could be enriching itself in trade with a highly successful country, but it foolishly refuses to do this -- how moronic can you get? Nobody paid much attention to that stretch of the Mediterranean littoral until a bunch of Jews moved in and made a success of the place. If the Arabs would do as the Israelis do... "There'd be a lot less people to worry about, and a lot more people who care."

WabUfvot5 01-19-2007 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 308618)
We've a problem: fanatical bigots attack us. Convert these to good bigots by killing them in ways that make other bigots know it's extremely unsafe, and makes for not only a solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish life to attack us, but a short one as well. Deprive the fanatical anti-Americans any advantage, of any sort.

Uh, most the fanatical ones are willing to die for their cause. I don't think they fear dying...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.