Powered by TypePad

« Timing Is Everything | Main | The LA Times Sidles Up To The Plame Drama »

September 05, 2006

Comments

sad

What do you expect from Booman? They actually publish Scary Larry.

Martin

Why do you mess with Greenwald since he's so much smarter than you. You raise controversies, but then they fade and you never revisit them, e.g.

Did that clown from TNR ever come up with a source? No? Seems like Greenwald was right in that little spat.

And while we're at it-how's the investigation into the Lieberman website hacking coming? is that just unsupported bs that will just fade into oblivion as well?

ed

Hmmm.

Glen Greenwald.

"The New Andrew Sullivan."

Or.

"Wanna see just how crazy I can act on the internet?"

Or.

"My sock puppets don't smell."

Your choice.

ed

Hmmm.

And while we're at it-how's the investigation into the Lieberman website hacking coming?

*shrug* Why not ask the FBI? Last I heard the campaign requested the FBI to investigate.

Why you'd think anybody here would know?

Bob

A http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/05/hezbollah-in-venezuela-part-i/#comments>HOT ONE over on Malkin's HotAir

Jane

Okay, am I losing my mind? Was there just a post up about the LA Times that has now disappeared?

Foo Bar

TM,

How about wasting a little time skimming your comments section to make sure you haven't made some sort of basic error in a previous post?

That $723K figure for the cost of the first 15 months of the Fitz investigation is confirmed virtually perfectly, if you use the appropriate set of GAO reports.

Dalie

Boo Man. Scary Larry. Ghosts are scary and say boo. He is a retired CIA operations officer, like Plame. They went to 'the farm' together and so did the Jim guy running for Congress.

The NSA has always done 'wiretapping' without warrants in the drug war. Alot of them are in jail. Most americans support the program because its always been in existence. The DIA/NSA need no warrants. It's DOD. CIA analysts are now being transferred to DIA/NSA as a by Plame's old boss who will not be working with the operations officers anymore. All the CIA analysts will work out of DIA/NSA.


The timing is strange because we have to wonder who took exception to a program that has been there since the beginning of the NSA. It could have been Plame using NSA/DIA assets in her investigation of domestic political groups. The timing of the complaint was arranged. Maybe she found her old friends were under NSA 'wiretapping' or someone on the intelligence committee was working with a CIA operations officer who Plame knew; which is not allowed. The operations officers tend to run the politician. Yup, there might be money involved being sent from the intelligence committee to the poiliticians CIA operations officer 'friend' working under cover for a non profit. This would have been approved by a political appointee and sent through a cover agency to the non profit. Anyway, good book.

'The spies are at CIA.' This is an old joke meaning the 'enemy' spies are working there so that they can keep tabs on them. So, imagine all those moving to DIA/NSA..............anyway, maybe a book.

sad

TM

Your LA Times post has disappeared. I can still access using the "back button" but can't post any comments.

Ken

"Gee, 76% support attempts to monitor terrorists phone calls; I suppose that could support Jonathan Weisman's claim that "a majority of Americans... back the effort" and would like to see some sort of compromise worked out."

Seems like Greenwald's point was lost on you.

The GOP tactic is to cloud the issue by conflating "wiretaps to find terrorists" (a tactic supported by the American majority) with "warrantless wiretaps..." (which most Americans oppose).

The two positions are not inconsistent. I, like most Americans, think we should be engaging in wiretaps to ferret out potentional terrorists, BUT I think we should obtain court orders before we engage in such eavesdropping.

But Weisman's article falls right into the GOP playbook -- it conflates the two positions from the Quinnepeac study, which is precisely why Greenwald cited it.

Keep repeating this to yourself until it sinks in: the debate isn't about "wiretaps" per se; it's about the "warrantless" part.

Socky Sockpuppet

Glenn Greenwald is the author of a New York Times bestseller,and he has been quoted by Moonbat Senators.

You should be content he condescends to enlighten you unwashed Plame-Addicted-Proles.

In a just society, Glenn Greenwald would be worshipped as a god.

SPQR

Amusingly, Ken, that isn't what the polling shows.

But keep telling yourself that.

Thomas Morrissey

Kenglenn,

Keep repeating this to yourself until it sinks in: the debate isn't about "wiretaps" per se; it's about the "warrantless" part.

Keep reading until it sinks in.

Cecil Turner

The two positions are not inconsistent. I, like most Americans, think we should be engaging in wiretaps to ferret out potentional terrorists, BUT I think we should obtain court orders before we engage in such eavesdropping.

Great. Explain how you can get a FISA court order when a known terrorist calls an unknown number in the US. The FISA requirement for a court order is:

    probable cause to believe that—
  • (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
Keep repeating this to yourself until it sinks in: the debate isn't about "wiretaps" per se; it's about the "warrantless" part.

Tell yourself that all you like. But unless you can figure out a way to make the program work with warrants, it looks to me like placing an unworkable restriction on a valuable program. And even without the war vs. law enforcement debate, that one is a loser. Worse, it's a loser that reinforces an already negative perception of Dems' fecklessness on national defense. To quote a famous presidential hopeful: "Bring it on!"

noah

Cecil, good point. There is no surer sign of incorrigible moonbattiness than the "should have gotten warrants" trope.

Martin, you sure you want to bring up the TNR thingy? Isn't that where we found out about the Townhouse clearinghouse for lefty coordination...its the transparency thing you know. If a righty had postulated such a thing, you would be whining about wingnuttery! But now we know about the slimy things the people powered people are up to all the time.

jwest

Ken,

Who’s conflating issues?

As always, liberals use disingenuous poll questions in an attempt to show the public supports their opinion.

Phrasing a question “Do you support allowing warrantless wiretaps?” will of course bring a negative response. But when the question is based on the actual truth of the situation, as in “Do you support allowing monitoring of international calls and email to and from known terrorists?” the answer, even from the craziest of liberals, would be “of course”.

Is the basis of your beliefs so shallow that you must resort to semantic buggery in order to reinforce your worldview? Are all of Greenwald’s followers so devoid of analytical abilities that they accept this sort of drivel without question?

boris

we should obtain court orders before we engage in such eavesdropping

The reason that's an obvious red herring is that any court order system capable of providing warrants in a useful fashion would be nothing more than a rubber stamp.

When the choice is either/or (it is), national security vs warrants, security wins. The claim that national security is not inconsistent with warrants flies in the face of the 911 experience.

Wsa

No warrants were needed. NSA monitors it all. The only time a warrant is needed is when it is a land line. DOJ requests these when it is a land line and it needs to be 'tapped' by the phone company to monitor telephone calls from that land line.

DIA/NSA would not require a warrant for any of these. DOJ would require a warrant. Land lines are unique in that they have to be 'tapped.'

The internet and your cell phone can be monitored by breaking the GSM codes, etc.(something that is done immediately) and monitored. This is done every day.

maryrose

Sad:
I also had trouble posting on the LA thread. But what I wanted to say there is that all rats are leaving the sinking ship which is Plame/Wilson. MSM also wants to distance themselves from the activities of these two grifters. Can't come soon enough for me.

Gary Maxwell

Isn't Greenwald a foreign national? Or an expat who chooses to live outside of the country? So why should I give a rip what he thinks about domestic poitics anyway?

PeterUK

Slight correction,
"Boo Man. Scary Larry. Ghosts are scary and say boo. He is a retired CIA operations officer, like Plame. They went to 'the farm' together and so did the Jim guy running for Congress."

Analysts don't go to the "Farm",they don't get anything more dangerous than a pencil,no AK47,just a computer workstation.
How did Crazy Larry meet the Plame dame?

Gary,You mean the "Boys from Brazil"

cap

They're not analysts.

Larry's TPM Muckraker and his oerations officers(retired) are going after Novack again.

Robert Novak / Chicago Sun Times:

Tom Maguire

From Foo Bar:

That $723K figure for the cost of the first 15 months of the Fitz investigation is confirmed virtually perfectly, if you use the appropriate set of GAO reports.

Good point - I coudln't find the GAO for the first three months, but given all the other figures I *did* find, I would never have guessed that the first three months could be so cheap.

Having seen the figurs, I still don't understand them - during the period to March 2004, when he was taking testimony from everyone, Fitzgerald spent $27,000; over the next six months, he spent $585,000, then $112,000 over the next six months.

Well, I am not in a position to audit the GAO, but those numbers seem absurd - just for example, I can't believe his staffing was that variable.

Tom Maguire

From Ken:

The GOP tactic is to cloud the issue by conflating "wiretaps to find terrorists" (a tactic supported by the American majority) with "warrantless wiretaps..." (which most Americans oppose).

Uh huh. And when the patsies at the ACLU asked about "warrantless eavesdropping on overseas phone calls to catch terrorists", 57% supported it.

But Ken, don't fall for that GOP-ACLU tactic!

PeterUK

"They're not analysts."
Sorry Larry was an analyst before he got booted out of the CIA into State,thence to blogdom.

Foo Bar

I would never have guessed that the first three months could be so cheap

Well, we all know what u make out of u and me when u assume. That's why I prefer to presume.

Who knows- maybe there's a delay between when the hours are worked and when they're officially billed.

Thanks for fixing.

Rick

Good point - I coudln't find the GAO for the first three months, but given all the other figures I *did* find, I would never have guessed that the first three months could be so cheap.

You probably wouldn't have guessed it because of prior IC experiences. But Fitz manifestly found full cooperation from the exec branch, and so didn't have to burn up time & money in adjudication.

Cordially...

JM Hanes

Tom:


"Well, I am not in a position to audit the GAO, but those numbers seem absurd - just for example, I can't believe his staffing was that variable."

I took a quick look at those GAO reports in the earlier Whacked thread, and some of what they don't include is interesting -- like expenses incurred in the use of F.B.I. "detailees." One of the bits I found most interesting, however, is that Fitzgerald is not, in fact, actually required to report his expenses at all. So don't feel bad about not being in a position to audit the GAO; it turns out they're really in no position to audit Fitzgerald themselves.

Neo

I've always looked at this wiretap program as just another layer of privacy.

To that end, I've always thought that if you want to drop your pants in the privacy of your home, that's your business, but if you do it outside, there are laws against it.

The "grey area" here always seems to center around the notion of exactly how to handle it when you drop your pants while standing in front of a window.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame