Come on, if Spanky is a troll, I’d have to level up (omg hilarious) to slay him? Last time I did that, I got Player killed in World of Warcraft when the Horde raided the Human Alliance!

Never again, I am the Troll Now! I think Spank likes being absurd, because presumably he can’t do it in real life without being fired or put into jail. That’s always a party pooper, ya know?

1) Vanderleun is not a troll
2) YOU, on the other hand, ARE a troll.

Our society really isn’t run on trust of each other, as trust that enforcement shall be equally applied to each other in cases of violations.

The contract law is the foundation of this land’s transactions.

If you choose to live in a rule of law environment, then you must follow the dictates of the law, the contractual law you yourself agreed to of your own free will, or forfeit all benefits thereof.

He who suffers from the enforcement of law also benefits from the enforcement of law. He who does not suffer from the enforcement of law, should then not benefit from laws being enforced. Whether this is about secrecy or not. The agreement is pretty straightward and it precedes everything else.

Either something is important to break that fundamental legal contract made earlier, rendering you an outlaw and an outcast, or something is not important enough.

As the case may be, it isn’t binary. It could be important enough, but a person won’t or can’t leak. It may not be important, and the person still doesn’t leak. It may be important, and he leaks, or it may not be important, and he still leaks. 4 systemic branches.

2×2 matrix

The only moral solutions are the important so leak, not important don’t leak ones. That’s 1/2. The immoral solutions are important stuff that you didn’t leak, or unimportant stuff that you leaked.

“Important” shorthand definition for the phrase “it was important enough to discard the earlier legal binding contract that is the foundation of Western social interactions”.

If I don’t courageously stand up and state the obvious, who will?

I wasn’t saying I approve of people following their conscience to the exclusion of all else. Just observing the weakness of the human element in any secrecy system. You can certainly punish a leaker after the fact, and such people should be punished - especially if they work for the CIA. Unfortunately, if you’re punishing somebody it’s already too late.

My point was that there’s nothing you can do to *prevent* a person within an organization from going public if he or she really wants to. At least nothing we’d care to do to other Americans - like threatening their families, Soviet-style. Even if we did use such severe methods, it still wouldn’t stop some people.

I guess the real question is, how can you build a system of secret-keeping that takes into account the essential unreliability of its human components? Is it possible to eliminate honor, loyalty, and conscience from the equation? And would Americans want such a system in place in a powerful agency like the CIA?

I do wonder why McCarthy didn’t do what Ridenhour did - write letters to the appropriate people within the government and let them look into the issue before talking to the press. Or maybe she did write letters, go through channels, got nowhere, and decided to leak as a last resort. We need more info - and I hope it comes out at her trial.

Since McCarthy’s already been “outed,” as it were, can the reporters involved be called to testify for/against her?

Uh, I think the problem arises when ONE OF THE SECRET-KEEPERS LEAKS. (Then I suppose you could say they’re not doing they’re job very well…Thanks for stating the obvious sb.)

“Leaking of this kind is always a matter of individual conscience. At some level, you have to trust people to keep secrets. If they decide not to, there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s simply one of the risks of running a secret operation.”

I’m not prepared to leave things to the level of somones individual conscience. They’d better try to get some of their co-workers on board if they want to be convincing. Individual consciences may lack all the necessary information to be able to make an informed decision…

As for “If they decide not to, there’s nothing you can do about it.”, well, sure there is, you can hang them, or at least put them in prison for life. That’s something, isn’t it?

Official policy that was not as severe as My Lai. To fill in what was unsaid.

Someday we’ll all be dead and gobbled up by worms and nobody will even know those yucky old Republicans ever existed.

“I have considered sending this to newspapers, magazines and broadcasting companies, but I somehow feel that investigation and action by the Congress of the United States is the appropriate procedure, and as a conscientious citizen I have no desire to further besmirch the image of the American serviceman in the eyes of the world. I feel that this action, while probably it would promote attention, would not bring about the constructive actions that the direct actions of the Congress of the United States would.”

Sounds like a stand-up guy.

He was, however, reporting the behavior of a small group of men who clearly committed a crime - not the actions of an entire agency carrying out official policy.

Acts of “conscience” based on partisanship have no place in a democracy, and serve only to undermine what the leakers profess to revere. Those who work in classified environments have the means at their disposal to report criminal activities of the organization. If, as a commenter above has said, the internal mechanisms are compromised or ultimately ineffective at stopping the abuse, then and only then is leaking justified. Otherwise, release of sensitive information is an exercise in the leaker’s narcissism.

The press, handmaidens to these self-important characters, have lost the ability to distinguish between informing the public and selling advertising. I love the “obnoxious little brother” analogy.

Suggestion:

Go back a couple of posts and re-read “Some comments on comments” before Neo decides to pull the plug on us…

I said “please”.

I may be delusional, but you’re still at troll.

I will now refrain from dealing with you (no doubt you and everyone else will be relieved).

“If you can’t answer the simple question above, please refrain from commenting.”

If you think you can boss people around on a blog comment thread, you’re delusional.

Marty,

Fair enough. We don’t know if Libby did it, or Rove, or McCarthy. If, as several people with good reason to know have said, Libby, Rove, and McCarthy leaked, do they all deserve to be punished, or just the Democrat?

Yep, Marty, that’s our Spanky.

And not to mention wrong.

Troll.

Your words:

“But, honestly, I really want to know (from everyone except Vander): does Libby deserve to be punished for leaking? If it turns out Rove did too, does he get the boot? At what point up the ladder does it stop being leaking and become the White House using intelligence to try and discredit its detractors? Naming in public a deep cover operative risks the life of that operative, the contacts that operative has made in the target country, and the entire project around that operative. Isn’t that pretty serious business, too? Or is it only evil bad leaking if the leaker belongs to the other party?”

There is nothing conditional above. No “if”. In fact, your “too” in the sentence about Rove proves that Libby is guilty in your mind.

Consistent? Maybe. Unbiased? Hardly.

Still waiting.

Troll.

So if someone is accused of leaking, they deserve a fair hearing, and if they really did leak, they deserve to be punished.

My head spins at the inconsistencies!

Spanky convicting someone of a crime they have not been charged with: “….does Libby deserve to be punished for leaking? If it turns out Rove did too, does he get the boot?”

Spanky, rushing to the defence of McCarthy (whom he righly says has denied leaking the prison story): “Normally we have things like investigations and trials to determine what actually happened.”

Trying to get back on topic:

The flip side of “Question Authority” is “Who has credibility?” The reason I read Neo daily is that she puts forth fact based, well reasoned, powerful essays. Reading her body of work over time has made her, if not an authority, someone I trust to approach issues honestly.

Thanks Neo!

Her politics dictate that the American people cannot like these secret installations. For the States to like it, she would have to be wrong in her politics. Might as well go Verona.

This is an insult to the thousands of Democrats who are serving in the armed forces against terrorists while you sit in your basement, eating cheetos and playing Quake.

You mean Battlefield 2.

It is an insult to the thousands of Democrats who don’t know what their duty is, whether military or not. But thousands aren’t “many” really. Thousands can be safely classified as a “few” when Democrats range in the 50 million voters range.

Oh, wait, I get it. We’re at war, right? So no matter what the president does, no matter what at all, it’s our “duty” to never question him, ever?

You read my post about death being lighter than a feather, duty heavier than mountains yet?

I always thought the sun rose from the West, personally.

What is East of the Moon and West of the Sun, eh?

Can you answer a simple question? Does the “secret prison” story bother you, and why?

Obviously, it bothered the NYT and McCarthy (or whoever YOU believe the leaker is) enough to believe that it damages the Administration, precisely BECAUSE it damages our ability to combat terrorism for the reasons I outlined before.

If you can’t answer the simple question above, please refrain from commenting.

No, that’s perfectly understandable, Richard, and supports my understanding of the Right as perpectually placing ideology before inconvenient facts and reality.

Can’t trust a liberal! Never know what crazy stuff we might say.

Read my post.

The reason these clowns knew their “concerns” did not meet any legitimate criteria for conscience-related objections is that they did not first go to the established procedures, and then, if they thought it still necessary, leak.

Those procedures are specifically for concerns such as these morons claim to have. That the morons in question avoided the procedures means they are lying about the basis for their concerns.

You are just good enough not to be invisible, while not being good enough to convince anybody that the sun rises in the east. If I heard that from you, I’d want to double check.

“They don’t know what their duty is. And their confusion spreads to outright anarchy in all of America.”

And you don’t know your ass from your face. The idea that anyone has a duty to refrain from criticizing their elected representatives and the servants of the public is about as anti-American as it gets.

This is an insult to the thousands of Democrats who are serving in the armed forces against terrorists while you sit in your basement, eating cheetos and playing Quake.

“Is their duty to separate Church and State?”

If they feel strongly about it, then they should do something about it. But this is relevant…how?

“Is their duty to protect America by authorizing through fake liberal SC judges to take personal property from Americans?”

Again, this is relevant how, other than in a general “liberals are evil” sort of way? Isn’t it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret laws according to the Constitution? If this is how the laws and court precedents work, then isn’t it your duty to lobby your representatives to change the laws?

“Is their duty to attack terroists first, then Bush, or attack Bush first to get the terroists afterwards?”

If they think that Bush’s policies are ineffective or worse at fighting terrorism, then yes, it is their duty to either try and convince him to change policies, or to convince Americans not to support his policies.

Oh, wait, I get it. We’re at war, right? So no matter what the president does, no matter what at all, it’s our “duty” to never question him, ever?

You little fascist freak.

They don’t know what their duty is. And their confusion spreads to outright anarchy in all of America.

This is the logical conclusion from your argument. If all a leaker wanted to do was win political points, she would have had to believe that the American people wouldn’t like the prisons.

If all the leaker cared about was politics, and she thought people would love the prisons, wouldn’t the leaker keep quiet about them?

PS - I love that we’re still talking about McCarthy as the leaker. So far as I know, she has been accused and has denied it. Normally we have things like investigations and trials to determine what actually happened. Are you privy to information that we don’t have? Or does being a Democrat make you guilty regardless? Should we even bother with trials when you obviously don’t need them to know what happened?

They don’t know what their duty is. And their confusion spreads to outright anarchy in all of America.

“Because, as far as I can tell, the only way you could argue that their motivations are partisan is that they hurt the Republicans.”

Well, let’s see…Mary McCarthy contributed $7,500 of her own money to the Kerry campaign. She was placed in the CIA IG department by a Clinton appointee, she’s being defended by Rand Beers, a prominent Democrat attorney with ties to the Kerry campaign, the “leaks” all occurred at times that could be maximally damaging to Republican interests…there are connections between McCarthy and Sandy Berger and the Clintons ad nauseam. Have I left anything out?

And again, I challenge you to state WHY you think the “secret prisons” story is something that the American people (not just you) find deplorable. Just what is it that rankles you about that particular policy?

I wonder, are you proficient in telepathy?

Because, as far as I can tell, the only way you could argue that their motivations are partisan is that they hurt the Republicans.

It’s always possible that the leakers think that the Republicans are doing something legitimately wrong, and that they have a duty to do something about it.

Or, it’s possible that the leakers are out for partisan gain.

Again, considering how little any of us actually know about the leakers, the fact that you assume the latter says more about you than it does about the leakers.

But you’re operating under the assumption that the administration hasn’t, and probably can’t, do anything wrong, so of course any leak that hurts them is partisan, right? It’s not even possible that the Republicans are hurt by the leaks because people don’t like what they’re doing, is it?

After all, how could these partisans gain politically if the people didn’t object to what was being exposed?

You’re right about Nelson.

However, the point remains that most of his life he followed orders. He was willing, we presume, to suffer the consequences of failure when he disobeyed them. He wouldn’t have expected a book deal.

My point is that there are few, very few, cases where leaking is justified. Most of the cases we see so far don’t fit what most folks would consider justified circumstances.
They’re partisan, ego-tripping, turf-warring crap.
The complete avoidance of the procedures in place for dealing with differences of opinion means quite clearly that the leakers knew their desires did not fit any of the guidelines for legitimate complaint. Otherwise, they’d have tried first, and, if necessary leaked afterwards.

Leaking of this kind is always a matter of individual conscience. At some level, you have to trust people to keep secrets. If they decide not to, there’s nothing you can do about it. It’s simply one of the risks of running a secret operation.

The press is the obnoxious little brother who gleefully repeats to your parents or your girlfriend with glee everything you say to him - the more embarrassing to you the better. Nobody with the slightest handle on reality would trust the press to keep a secret - national security or otherwise.

I agree with previous posters that your attitude about government accountability to its citizens (presumably via the press) depends on how much you fear the government. And, of course, which government you fear most - the Republican one or the Democrat one.

It’s probably useful to be reminded that, ultimately, it’s all the same government. The more power you give it (either to protect you or to nurture you), the more dangerous it becomes.

If the CIA wants to bone up on their secret-keeping skillz, they should ask the guys at Area 51 for some pointers. As it is, they seem to be getting their methods from old Secret Squirrel cartoons. Pathetic.

“Question authority” has some of the same baggage. Makes you look smart and all, without actually requiring you to know anything.

Societies provide authority with greater or lesser legitimacy. Authority provides rules for ordering society, either as society’s agent (democracy) or ruler (not a democracy).
In a democracy, authority’s rules ought to be given a certain deference as reflecting the will of the people who have over the years put the authority into place and bound it with other rules.
Clearly, we do not run plebiscites on obscure regs about classified information. But the elected governments over the years have made the rules as our agents.

Screwing around with the rules as an ego-trip, or for partisan purposes, or for material gain is an offense against the citizenry’s work in building a society, not to mention the increased danger in war.

You need to think a hundred times before you do this kind of thing, and if you ignore previously-arranged methods of addressing your concerns, there is no reason to expect anybody to presume you had good motives.

And to do so supposedly based on conscience being informed by partisan falsehoods doesn’t make it all better.

I should say, since my back is giving me a bit of trouble today, that trolls do provide a benefit.
Trying to keep up with moving goalposts and point-dodging keeps me limber, or more so than I might otherwise be.

Plame wasn’t a secret agent, so there was nothing to reveal, but Plame’s status as a secret agent was already well known, and no one revealed that Plame was a secret agent, but Rove revealed Plame was a secret agent because he was a whistleblower.

Oh, I see.

When I went through Israeli basic training, we were all told specifically that it was up to us and our consciences to disobey a blatantly illegal or immoral order. More specifically, we were told that, if any of us were ever court-martialed for such actions, saying that we were “just obeying orders” would not help us.

We were not ordered to use judgement, in other words (which is an interesting sort of contradiction, when you think about it). We were told that we might need to use our judgement someday. The desired result, I imagine, was to avoid soldiers questioning every order — but still train soldiers to know, if they’re ever given a monstrous order, that they have legal justification for refusing it.

(It was also clearly explained that, if a judge disagrees with you over whether your order was in fact illegal or immoral, then you’re likely to do serious jail time. So this is not something done lightly.)

In my experience, this worked. I came across one or two examples, during my three years in uniform, of Israeli soldiers doing something that was morally questionable — and in all such cases, it was soldiers acting on their own initiative, not soldiers acting under orders. (The soldiers were heavily punished for their actions, as you’d expect… and investigations were launched, just as America did vis-a-vis Abu Ghraib, to see if there were any orders.)

It’s by no means an easy issue. Personally, I believe that leaking to the press is justified only in the rarest of circumstances — and then only after complaining through official channels, or after determining that official channels are not an option. I have no patience for the sensationalists, who will break their oaths or their conditions of employment, just to see their names in the paper.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

The thing is, the Bush that could destroy Plame by “outing” her is not the same Bush we see being buried by media propaganda and enemy casualty lists.

I glimpsed Valerie the other day at an intersection. She was all bedraggled and holding up a sign. Totally destroyed, poor thing. That’s what happens when you get outed. You got to hand it to Bush, give him grudging admiration, even though he’s a liar. Because, man oh man, don’t he know how to vindictively destroy a top secret agent in deep cover.

Spanky, the “neo-troll” (on the most appro po blog), fails to give a link to his first Bush quote.

Not long ago Bush said something I totally agree with:
“problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer — so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.”

These are “real” quotes, from the gov’t site. Most Lefties seem quite willing to “rewrite” what the President actually says, to be what they say he means. That’s BS; yet often done by the Leftist media.

One of the reasons for going into Iraq was the threat of WMDs — yet none were found. Bush has already noted he was upset about that.

Yet most Leftists, if pushed, will admit Saddam was evil. Bush had always claimed it would be good to boot Saddam (notice no quotes — I’m paraphrasing here, but not claiming these are an actual quote.)

Anybody, and everybody, who claims it was a mistake, implicitly are opposing the action of booting Saddam. I find this morally reprehensible, myself … and that I’m driftin towards more Euston Manifesto issues again…

I know Bush was right because of what happened — Saddam was booted; Iraq has had elections to choose Constitution writers; an Iraqi-written Constitution was written and approved; and a new gov’t was voted in.

The Left is whining about WMDs, and leaking whatever they can to embarrass Bush, because they refuse to admit Iraq is looking like a pretty big success.

The Plame junk is complicated by Libby prolly making non-truthful statements in the investigation, about what he knew, when, and what he said. I think Mary M., in claiming she was not the secret prison leaker, is also making a non-truthful statement, and prolly even a knowingly false statement.

In the Plame case, there doesn’t seem to be a whistleblower issue — because the leaks were intelligence truths which countered media promoted lied: a) Plame DID recommend hubby Joe Wilson = Wilson was wrong/ lied in his op-ed, b) Iraq DID have reps in commercial talks with Niger, which basically only exports yellowcake = Wilson lied about Iraq not “trying” to buy uranium.

The final point should be that the Dems should be pushing to make sure that true whistleblowers have more protection, perhaps especially to protect females when their boss, or the President, is looking for special services. Which is why the Dems are NOT introducing more whistleblower protection.

I haven’t really seen many Dems say the current whistleblower protection is not enough. This leads me to think the Dems & MSM have a double standard — hurt Bush with a leak, it’s OK; help Bush, it’s terrible.

Um, sounds like Euston complaining about anti-Americanism, which in America is more like Bush Derangement Syndrome = Bush-hate.

Who says I should question authority, anyway? Why should I listen to some authority telling me to question authority?

unknown blogger — Because Spanks did make that tired, faulty point that Bush was either lying or incompetent about WMD, exactly as I quoted, and it does bear directly upon the rationale that those who question the authority of the Bush administration use to justify leaking.

Without that rationale, this topic becomes much more of a theoretical matter.

I’m not here to satisfy your agenda and I don’t need any help from you to notice things.

Underestimating the adm. is a foolish mistake, manifested on a prior thread by Spanky’s report of Zawahiri’s secret strategy to get the U.S. to do what it wanted us to do, which Spanky seemed to think we fell for. It never occurred to Spanky that Rumsfeld, enc., know a lot about military strategy.

In the case of the other leaks I thought the tell-tale feature was that the leakers did not use the whistleblower route. Why not?

The thing is, the Bush that could destroy Plame by “outing” her is not the same Bush we see being buried by media propaganda and enemy casualty lists. So there’s a basic inconsistency in the logical axioms, that make it mutually exclusive. But aside from that, the important piece I would want to bring to Neo’s attention is this snippet from a book I read.

It’s too bad I only just wrote about personal restraint and discipline a few minutes ago. Some people here might have benefited from reading it, before starting in. Oh well. Use steve as the model. By not responding to comments about this or the other, steve maintains his composure and can thus focus his time on talking about what he wants to talk about. Instead of people wasting their time talking about the other person, or this that and the other. Agreement, is not required.

But steve’s a conserative, even if of the Cold War school, so there you go.

“We are warriors, we three,” he told them, “yet I think there have been times in this endless war when we have . . . forgotten the reason that we are. I was thinking, as I stood here alone, of other warriors I have known. Of Eeevaan, of course, but also of others long dead. Some of the Zheeerlikou’valkhannaiee, but even more of those who were not. Of Annnngusss MaaacRorrrrry, who I met on your world of New Hebrrrrideeees during the war against the Thebans, Raaymmonnd. And, even more, perhaps, of Ahhdmiraaal Laaantu. Do you know his tale?”

“And when I realized what he was doing, and why, I could no longer hate him, mightily though I tried. Oh, how I cherished my hate! It had kept me warm, filled me with purpose and the passion of rage, and in the end, the killer of my khanhaku had taken even that from me, for he had reminded me that the true warrior fights not from hate, but from love. Not to destroy, but always and above all to preserve. Do you understand that, Raaymmonnd?”

The Shiva Option by David Weber and Steve White

The real life scenario is of course, Emperor Hirohito. I do believe Neo would see the connecting traits, because we’ve corresponded somewhat concerning this subject.

For those who are not conversant with the subject, you’ll just have to read MacArthur’s words here.

MacArthur

People who make promises and break them, dishonor themselves. In return for what?

“No,“ Antonov said flatly. “There is an answer. There is no such thing as a perfect defense - not when the attacker has data this complete and the services of the enemy’s best and most senior commander.“

“Thus Cranaa’tolnatha died, alone and despised, and his bones were gnawed and scattered by zhakleish. Yet all these centuries later, the Zheeerlikou’valkhannaieee honor his courage… and not even Clan Kirhaar recalls his khanhaku’s name, for they have stricken it in shame. He was a traitor, Admiral Laaantu - but our warriors pray to Hiranow’khanark that we, too, may find the courage to be such traitors if we must.“

From Crusade, by david weber and steve white

The only justification to break your sworn word, is duty. Duty to a higher cause, to the preservation of your people. It is the meaning behind, death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than mountains. Death is quick, sometimes painful sometimes not. Duty requires you to withstand much more agony, because it requires you to live, and living hurts. But it is the only game in town, if you seek to effect change.

If you ever watched Babylon 5 and saw the Civil War story arc with Sheridan vs President Clark. You would realize that the conflict of loyalties within a nation mirrors this choice of choices. Is your loyalty to the nation, or is your loyalty to your sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic? Robert E. Lee asked himself a similar question, and he said his loyalty was to his state. But regardless of what choice you make, one or another oath will be broken.

It is one reason why the military does not promise loyalty to the President, but to the Constitution. It is always a good idea to reduce the risk for a conflict of loyalties. Try to avoid conflicts of interests. It’s not a good idea to require people to betray their family to do the right thing, because there are not a lot of people who will betray their families to do the right thing. So it is best not to count on it as a societal model.

What about the CIA leaks? It’s hard for people to justify their breaking of their promises, when they don’t even understand the concepts of honor, duty, or loyalty. The military does understand, and that’s why the military can do its duty and still remain loyal, because the institution understands conflicts of loyalty and how to resolve them. Because they understand what their duty is, does the CIA?

Spies function on the basis of lies and disinformation, on the breaking of oaths and the betrayal of networks they seek to infiltrate. Soldiers operate on fullfilling their promises. You see the fundamental difference. There are spies with honor, of course, but not when they’re playing on different teams. As the military and the CIA are doing, they’re playing on different teams.

Anyway, doesnt the PATRIOT Act remove the Gorelick wall? I thought it had. If so, what’s all the fuss about?

You may have misunderstood. I was referring to the governments of our allies, which may or may not be “democratic polities”, whose citizens might not agree with interrogating terror suspects (think Middle Eastern allies, here). And just where is the population’s “need to know” in this respect? The interrogations aren’t necessarily against the law, are they? Or must we question, like Cardinal Fang, using the “comfy chair”?

And for someone who theoretically read the post upon which these comments were based, calling someone an “oddball” when responding to a reasonable argument, is, well, a little rude.

Again, most here are actually attempting to discuss the questions thoughtfully proposed by neo, not merely spouting talking points discredited months ago.

I will not let this FISA slander go by again. Bush did not break any FISA laws. Bush did not go around any FISA laws. No FISA judges are asserting that Bush either broke or went around FISA law. FISA judges are complaining that Bush turned over leads on the American parties on international calls to the FBI; and the FBI then went to FISA to request wiretaps on some (less than 12 per year) of these American parties to international calls. The FISA judges believe this is a breach of the Gorelick Wall, and that the FBI ought not request wiretaps on these individuals. Second, anonymous FBI agents complained to NYT that they were having to track too many unfruitful terror leads. That is your fake FISA scandal in a nutshell.

The real scandals are:
1) the way this has been played in the MSM and on Capitol Hill, and
2) that FISA judges are attempting to singlehandedly defend the Gorelick Wall(in defiance of higher court instruction not to do so).

The White House has stated, repeatedly, and officially on the record, they have not wiretapped American citizens without a warrant(except where Americans were caught up in an international call from a specifically targeted source - which is a wiretap of that international source - not the American citizen).

When someone says Bush broke FISA law, or evaded FISA law, they are disseminating false information. I know they don’t want to do that, and will stop doing so in the future.

The Dems would call an international conference, where they would speak sternly, but without arrogance. They would create a wider international coalition, except where they wisely acted unilaterally. These steps would resolve the jihadi problem.

“The fact that you see criticism of a crime as political says more about you than the Democrats.”

Impeach him then.. Don’t blog your opinion, go out and lead the impeachment effort. Are you trying to convince us?

The fact that you see criticism of a crime as political says more about you than the Democrats.

You said - “All cleared personnel have avenues to