Dick Cheney spoke with Chris Wallace and, among other things, was emphatic that Congressional leaders had been briefed on the warrantless eavesdropping program:
CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. And we brought in...
WALLACE: Well, you briefed a few members.
CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late '01 up until '04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.
At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.
I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we'd achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.
I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we're doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don't do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we're reading their mail."
That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.
But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.
That is hardly news, by the way, as the Times noted three years go almost to the day.
However, Glenn Greenwald is amusing on the likelihood of a criminal impeachment of Dick Cheney for this program:
Unsurprisingly, Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller all voted last July to legalize warrantless eavesdropping and to immunize telecoms from liability, thereby ensuring an end to the ongoing investigations into these programs. And though he ultimately cast a meaningless vote against final passage, it was Reid's decisions as Majority Leader which played an instrumental role in ensuring passage of that bill.
One would think that these Democratic leaders would, on their own, want to respond to Cheney's claims about them and deny the truth of those claims. After all, Cheney's statement is nothing less than an accusation that they not only enthusiastically approved, but actively insisted upon the continuation and ongoing secrecy, of a blatantly illegal domestic spying program (one that several of them would, once it was made public, pretend to protest). As Armando says, "The Democratic members who participated in this meeting have two choices in my mind - refute Cheney's statements or admit their complicity in the illegal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration."
I'm going to spend the day calling these members and trying to get some response to Cheney's claim. If I'm unable to obtain any responses, I'll post their numbers and encourage everyone to make similar calls. As I wrote on Saturday -- and documented before: "As a practical reality, the largest barrier to any route to prosecution -- including this one -- is that the Congressional Democratic leadership was complicit, to varying degrees, in the illegal programs." That's true not only of the NSA program, but also the Bush/Cheney torture program.
Keep those calls coming, Nutroots. But don't omit Holiday greetings to the harassed Congressional staffers lucky eough to have their day brightened by your call.
plausible deniability, once again....what they do and what they say are consistently at odds. Politics is what it is, and I don't fault the dems necessarily, but leave it to the Times to screw up a vital program....
Posted by: matt | December 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM
NSA became a problem when Plame complained about her domestic political surveillance at NSA.
Plame wasn't involved with domestic torture?
Black beans and fresh onions.
Posted by: 2hipe | December 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Apparently Gleen can't imagine the possibility that Cheney's telling the truth.
Surely Cheney's aware that were he to fib about Congressional leaders' role in these programs, they'd be jumping up and down to denounce him as a liar.
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 12:32 PM
The NSA has nothing to do with Plame, zip zero, nada. Although her complaints were not unlike Tamm's in the TSP with the Justice Department; asking cluelessquestions
to matters they had no clue about. Hence the Wilson teatime to OuagoOuago. Much like a generation ago, Senator Symington was
'shocked, shocked' that there were CIA bases in Laos, when they had been giving
up those funds for a decade,
Posted by: narciso | December 22, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Ready? 1. . .2. . . .3. . . .Bwaaaaa-haa-haaa.
Posted by: Vinman | December 22, 2008 at 12:45 PM
everyone knows that the congressional dems are a bunch of pussies. bush has royally fucked up this country, and the majority of dems sat like a bunch of pussies and did nothing.
the highlight of the cheney interview is how he has absolutely no remorse. he definitely is the dark lord. still loves rummy. still happy about 'bleeping senators'. conservative principles at work. Cheney seriously strikes me as having severe psychiatric pathology -- the nut doesn't even realize he's considered pure evil by the majority of the country. bush is incompetent -- but I would bet money if someone polled it, over 50% would say cheney is *EVIL*.
i mean even die-hard bush haters see his mostly as an incomptent baffoon with an even stupider cheerleading squad (aka wingnuttia and bill kristol). but cheney, oh my.
Posted by: jor | December 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM
the highlight of the cheney interview is how he has absolutely no remorse.
Why on earth would he have remorse? He's been a fabulous VP.
Posted by: Jane | December 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I dunno Jor, I watched that interview and thought to myself, "Thank goodness we've had Bush and Cheney in the White House the last 8 years."
Both men are principled (e.g., wouldn't care beans about that fantasy poll you're trying to float as fact) and took seriously their duty to keep the country safe.
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM
It is easy for the Greenwald contingent to second guess Bush's and Cheney's programs, because there have been no major terrorist attacks on the USA's soil since 9/11. They complain when the dots aren't connected, but they want to take away the lenses necessary to see the dots.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | December 22, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Bush and Cheney are both blunt talking guys who see the world clearly in black and white. They don't dwell in the mushy grey areas inhabited by most members of congress.
Posted by: LindaK | December 22, 2008 at 01:14 PM
I hope Bush and Cheney taped those meanings because with the possible exception of Harman they are liars enought to pretend they never happened when the time is right.(Oh, and I think Rockefeller also blsbbed to the press..The NYT was unlikely to run that story on the word of Tamm alone.)
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 01:28 PM
There will be no prosecution. Fun to watch these fantasists as they delude themselves.
Wait about eighteen months, when Obama's War in Afghanistan is dragging along with no end in sight, Islamic detainees are still detained, and O himself is of necessity behaving like a grownup. The children who elected him will have many a tantrum.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 22, 2008 at 01:31 PM
DoT
You're a lot more optimistic about Barack Husseins abilities than I am.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 22, 2008 at 01:42 PM
How ironic is it that Jork misspells buffoon?
Posted by: Captain Hate | December 22, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Why doesn't Greenwald look into the treasonous trip Rockefeller took to Syria
right before the Iraq war? He hummed a CMA tune all his life!
Is everyone ready for St.Nick?
Posted by: glenda waggoner | December 22, 2008 at 01:52 PM
jor -
Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Go bleep yourself.
In no particular order.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | December 22, 2008 at 01:54 PM
How ironic is it that Jork misspells buffoon?
I was amused by his pretending to be upset about Cheney "bleeping" Senators in the middle of his own profanity-laced rant.
Posted by: MayBee | December 22, 2008 at 01:59 PM
DiFi is taking over Intelligence. I believe her to be serious about such things.
Posted by: MayBee | December 22, 2008 at 02:02 PM
Wilson and Africa? All CIA back in the old days. Allot of them died. It just means Plame was shopping for one of her own, like Joe's dad and probably Joe and her dad, NSA.
Legacies. Obama, legacy of Harvard and dad, CIA informant. What is the perfect legacy for CIA?
Posted by: 2e | December 22, 2008 at 02:26 PM
I hope she'll consider a name change for the committee ASAP.
Posted by: Extraneus | December 22, 2008 at 02:27 PM
Jor is truly moronic.
Merry Christmas
Happy Chanukah
and Happy New Year to all.
Posted by: NK | December 22, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Cheney evil? If so, I'm in love with the devil. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | December 22, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Hooray for Cheney finally coming out and speaking his mind. We all would have been much further ahead if he and Bush had done a better job of communicating the facts years ago.
The fact is that the CIA should probably be dismantled at this point and reconstituted as something else. The politics and incompetence within are so transparent that it is obvious our country is being poorly served.
The rot began in Vietnam and accelerated under Carter. Since then, who can name a major intelligence success? In the past few years, the results have been a disgrace, and yet the CIA continues to play political games in order to protect their parochial interests.
The whole Plame/Wilson case was a joke. They repeatedly missed clear signals, and even the chance to apprehend Bin Laden.
At one time, being both idealistic, I thought perhaps the major successes were being kept quiet, but 9-11 and the repeated incompetence in dealing with so many issues; Darfur, the Pakistani tribal areas, Russia's rearmament and intentions, the list just goes on. And we still have few human assets in so many of these places....what a bunch of fools.
Posted by: matt | December 22, 2008 at 02:50 PM
interesting that we hear so little about the Puzzle Palace.....let's hope they keep it that way.
Posted by: matt | December 22, 2008 at 02:52 PM
And just to really piss off our visiting liberals, Ollie North is filling in for Sean Hannity and I'm in heaven!
Posted by: Sue | December 22, 2008 at 03:12 PM
So the Democrats whole "we were lied to" was conversely a lie? Color me not even the least bit surprised.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | December 22, 2008 at 03:18 PM
O himself is of necessity behaving like a grownup.
See, it's catching...
Only four more weeks of being able to say such things with a straight face.
I note that yesterday Obama put paid to the notion that his administration would be anything other than a cheerleader for abortions (no comment yet from Kmiec).
Ms. Solis has been a personal bete noir (are we still allowed to say that?) since her days in the Assembly.
I am not having fun anymore.
Posted by: Walter | December 22, 2008 at 03:50 PM
Barone has a great analysis in NRO making the point that much of the extreme hostility in party politics today is caused by the polarization between the two main factions of the boomer generation. One of those factions (the anti VN war faction) was in charge during the Clinton years. The other (the win the VN war faction) was in charge during the Bush 43 years. Cheney and Rumsfeld epitomized the latter faction, and are particularly loathed by the former.
Barone provides some reasons for possible amelioration of this phenomenon with the changing of the generational guard. We'll see if he proves prescient.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 03:53 PM
I remember when Rumsfeld was voted one of the sexiest men alive. How quickly times change.
Posted by: Sue | December 22, 2008 at 03:57 PM
Here's my idea to end all this political nonsense:Take away the boomers' right to vote.Seriously. Worst damned generation in American history.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Certainly one of the most self-absorbed.
All of this analysis of Cheney's record brings up another issue: where is Joe Biden? I heard a clip of him mumbling about scaling down the vice presidency to its proper size and influence. He's just trying to make it look like being a cipher is his idea.
Posted by: LindaK | December 22, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Amelioration of political polarization won't happen until the mainstream media starts fairly reporting both sides of stories, i.e., not any time soon.
Posted by: peter | December 22, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Wasn't that clever of Caroline and the rest of the search committee to find someone who wanted to make the job even more inconsequential?
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 04:24 PM
I have always contended that the whole Boomer generation drank from the pond of Narcissus.
They were the ones that said you couldn't trust anyone over thirty. That was when they were twenty-five. When they turned thirty, they said you couldn't trust anyone younger than thirty and older than thirty-five. Now they say you can't trust anyone under 60 or over 70. They are also the generation of moving targets.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 04:29 PM
HEH!--I think you've captured them..
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 04:31 PM
I think you've captured them.
But why would you want them?
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 04:34 PM
(says me as a B.B.-er)
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 04:35 PM
By vnjagvet's calculation I am, too, but barely.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 04:45 PM
As a Charter Boomer, I take exception to the trashing of Boomers. Of course, I was also that part that was angrily anti-anti-war. As far as I'm concerned that group ruined America for the rest of us.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Our incoming president wouldn’t even take a few minutes away from his workout time to visit with our wounded when he was in Germany. I doubt he cares a whit about our troops and I don’t think he has it in him to get emotional about anything that doesn’t have to do with him. And duty, a concept that he has shown no inclination to understand.
Whereas:
EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately
Met with thousands of war injured, kin out of spotlight
I will miss our President.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Clarice: Worst damned generation in American history.
I was just writing about that.
Posted by: sbwaters | December 22, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Not everyone turned out bad, Sara. You sure didn't;>).
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Barone provides some reasons for possible amelioration of this phenomenon with the changing of the generational guard.
In the piece entitled "Expectations of Hope and Change"? I didn't see any of that at all.
Posted by: bgates | December 22, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Just think, sbw, instead of copying my thoughts you could've been buying your unknown muse a present on Amazon Prime, for goodness sake..
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Thanks Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet. :: Blush ::
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Heh!
Well. I've been writing for a while... 45 pages to date.
Posted by: sbwaters | December 22, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Best quote today, maybe the year or the decade.
C.Edmund Wright at American Thinker:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 05:26 PM
I do remember it was rather obvious that by the time my brother(born 1948) went to school, the public school system was already strained and missing a beat.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 05:29 PM
OT, but has anyone else noticed Barack's rapidly falling IQ?
In the ad at the upper right hand corner where it asks if you're smarter than-fill in the blank-his IQ started out at 140, right after the election.
A week or two ago it was 135, and now the poor goof's down to 125.
At this rate Justice Roberts will have to ask him to remove his propeller beanie to take the oath.
Posted by: Barney Frank | December 22, 2008 at 05:30 PM
That is the article bg. Maybe I drew too broad an inference from the article. I am prone to do that at times. These are the paragraphs to which I was referring:
The constituency Obama assembled during his campaign has a decided new-generational tilt. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll tells us that Obama carried voters under age 30 by a margin of 66 percent to 32 percent. On the flip side, by my calculation, he won voters 30 and over by just 50 percent to 49 percent. That means that he won by a larger percentage among young voters than any president, and that among voters older than that, he may or may not have carried states with a majority of electoral votes. In retrospect, the only winning Republican strategy would have been to pass a constitutional amendment raising the voting age to 35.
This is the third time in a century that we have seen such a generational change in the White House. From 1933 to 1961, we had presidents born between 1882 and 1890. From 1961 to 1993, we had presidents born between 1908 and 1924. John Kennedy’s inauguration marked the departure of the World War II commanders who occupied the White House for 28 years; Bill Clinton’s the moving on of the G.I. generation after 32 years. Obama’s will mark the passing of the boomers after only 16.
The advantage of a new generation is that it brings fresh ideas and perspectives, a greater sense of possibility and none of the weariness of fighting the same old battles over and over. The disadvantage is that it lacks experience and doesn’t know the lessons of the past.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Øbama was born in '61.
Boomers were the ones born between '46-'64.Posted by: Dave | December 22, 2008 at 05:39 PM
The advantage of a new generation is that it brings fresh ideas and perspectives
Uh, huh. This generation's fresh ideas brought us the housing bubble, wall street meltdown, etc, etc. Expect more of the same, only bigger.
Posted by: Pofarmer | December 22, 2008 at 05:41 PM
I'm not sure a Gen-Xer is any improvement. Aren't they known as the do nothing generation.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Zero's a boomer.
Cokie Roberts once said that baby boomers had the most prolonged adolescence in the history of mankind.
I've always rather felt that anyone on social security should not be able to vote:-)
Posted by: glasater | December 22, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Thanks, Jim. To the extent that younger voters are owned by Obama, and they believe the same leftist garbage that he does, I guess he'll move past the old divisions.
The advantage of a new generation is that it brings fresh ideas and perspectives, a greater sense of possibility and none of the weariness of fighting the same old battles over and over. The disadvantage is that it lacks experience and doesn’t know the lessons of the past.
That doesn't seem right either. The boomers don't seem weary of fighting the same old battles, except to the extent they prove untenable (thus everyone now was a Cold Warrior then). They also don't seem to know the lessons of the past. Maybe we should call them the Baby Bourbons - they forgot nothing and learned nothing.
Posted by: bgates | December 22, 2008 at 05:56 PM
"Øbama was born in '61."
Barry Barack Hussein Dunham Soetero Øbama sprang fully formed from the brow of Zeus and descended to earth mounted on a winged unicorn at a time and place uncertain. Everybody knows that.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | December 22, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Cokie Roberts once said that baby boomers had the most prolonged adolescence in the history of mankind.
It just seemed that way because there were so many of us.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 05:59 PM
That's true Sara. Eighty million strong. I wonder how Zero is going to get us?
Posted by: glasater | December 22, 2008 at 06:07 PM
You know I really do find bgates Baby Bourbons comment offensive. I guess the Space Shuttle, Hubble, the Internet, Email, artificial heart, etc. are worthless.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Expect more of the same, only bigger.
If you want a look into the future, look at Wired magazine and the senseless pop-techno-multiculti crap on which the <30ers obsess. That's who's going to be in charge.
These are the same people who Twitter and put drunken pictures of themselves on Facebook and can't go 30 seconds without text messaging someone.
Posted by: Soylent Red | December 22, 2008 at 06:12 PM
My Mother told me that nothing in the '60s/early '70s rivaled the Roaring Twenties.
Every generation contributes to the culture. Boomers more so because of sheer numbers and the fact that we didn't like the words "we've always done it like that."
I see it now more than ever as I reach seasoned citizen status. Boomers aren't going to settle for being warehoused away in some stinky nursing home. They are opting for "communities" that provide full services and they have been growing fast in the last few years. Forget the rocking chairs, we've got Hoverounds.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 06:15 PM
X is experimental. For example, in a war nothing can fly. The Boomers are experimental mistakes. Affecting humans is wrong, unless your right,so what is right? 'We've always done it like that.' What is right?
Posted by: 2elae | December 22, 2008 at 06:23 PM
"How ironic is it that Jork misspells buffoon?"
Even more ironic than you thought. The phrase he used was: "incomptent Baffoon".
And like MayBee, I am amused by his use of profanity -- to, supposedly, protest profanity.
Posted by: Jim Miller | December 22, 2008 at 06:26 PM
These are the same people who Twitter and put drunken pictures of themselves on Facebook
But those speeches he writes are so dreamy.
Posted by: bgates | December 22, 2008 at 06:27 PM
On that subject, Sara, I saw an article a while back saying that the largest percentage of folks with STDS in Florida come from the over 60 set residing at The Villages near Ocala. That is a community built specially for retirees.
Not like your grandfather's retirement community.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 06:32 PM
" where is Joe Biden?"
"In photo at top Vice President-Elect Biden can be seen taking to his new assignment with the energy and enthusiasm that so often marked his appearances during the long Fall campaign."
LUN
Posted by: pagar | December 22, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Well not so good they are getting STDs, but more power to them for still getting it on. Where is that community again? :: grin ::
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Just got this holiday greeting in an email:
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 06:42 PM
The is a "pick up" bar geared for people 55 plus in Palm Desert I could hook you into:-)
Posted by: glasater | December 22, 2008 at 06:43 PM
Palm Desert is just around the corner. Hmmmm.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 06:48 PM
A lot of smiles down there. Big call on Viagra and its clones.
The ad slogan for The Villages is "Florida's Friendliest Home Town."
There seems to be plenty of evidence for that. Maybe it would be a good idea for the town to give out free condoms and a mandatory brush up on Hygiene 101.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | December 22, 2008 at 06:50 PM
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
I loved that, Sara. Thanks!
Posted by: Porchlight | December 22, 2008 at 06:57 PM
I think I'm way too shy to go to a pickup bar, even one for 55 and older. Have a friend, however, who recently buried her 5th husband. 1 divorce, 1 killed in Vietnam, 1 died in an auto accident, and 1 who died while working out at the gym, and one who died on the operating table. She finds them at the VFW.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Years ago my mom who's lived in a Fla retirement community for decades sent me this book and swore it was true:
http://www.amazon.com/Never-Too-Late-Love-Fiction/dp/0943972450
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 07:15 PM
So the whole premise of the story was wrong; but they meant well, no they
didn't. He's a boomer but he has the insolence of my generation's cohort.
Posted by: narciso | December 22, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Biden was in the news earlier today warning our European friends not to have inflated expectations for the Obama presidency. Now where on earth could such expectations have come from?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 22, 2008 at 07:33 PM
I'm not sure a Gen-Xer is any improvement. Aren't they known as the do nothing generation.
Hey, they brought us the emo haircut. Surely that's worth something?
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 07:35 PM
Sara--just got a text response from my friend on the names of the places in Palm Desert. One is call The Nest and the other is Sullivans.
Sullivans has a Thursday night half priced drinks and food she reports. Grab a friend and go:-)
Posted by: glasater | December 22, 2008 at 07:50 PM
jim, I think they knew about the hygiense stuff but forgot.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 08:05 PM
**hygiene***
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 08:11 PM
... or go and grab a friend :-)
Posted by: sbw | December 22, 2008 at 08:20 PM
With music in the other thread and STDs and hooking up in this thread, I'm not sure where to put this.
OBAMA'S KENYAN FAMILY BARRED FROM TALKING
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 08:30 PM
we didn't like the words "we've always done it like that."
Well, yes, but that was part of the problem too. (And I am a boomer myself.) Read Tom Wolfe's "The Great Relearning," where he recounts the problems that result from wholesale rejection of values and practices from the past. To quote from a review:
Posted by: jimmyk | December 22, 2008 at 09:08 PM
Tom Wolfe is such an immaculate person, I cannot imagine him in such a setting.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 09:13 PM
She finds them at the VFW.
Golly, someone should put up a warning sign or something.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | December 22, 2008 at 09:13 PM
Frankly we need too know as little as possible as how the "Puzzle Palace" as Bamford named the No Such Agency. Still after all that, this friend of Robert Hanson, quasi-truther, friend of Iran. was invited back for two more books about the Agency. We don't really need to know
how the information is gathered, because frankly the enemy learns and acts accordingly; and then they'll wonder why
we didn't connect the dots. Didn't we learn anything from Stimson's false propriety and the publications of Herbert Yardley' Black Chamber'Apparently not.
Posted by: narciso | December 22, 2008 at 09:14 PM
I've never taken much stock in analyses of "generations." I think that stuff is pretty much artificial; there's actually no point at which any generation ends and some other one begins, except in the minds of journalists. Which pretty much guarantees that the thinking behind anything written on the subject will be sloppy, hackneyed and useless.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | December 22, 2008 at 09:17 PM
Boy, it's fun being brutalized here by the baby boomer critics. All I can say is, some of us served our country with honor, and some of us still give a damn about America even as we watch it slide down the tubes.
The most galling thing about being a baby boomer is having watched the assholes of our generation destroy the country while we were away serving our country.
Posted by: Antimedia | December 22, 2008 at 09:19 PM
I'm a boomer. The generation that came of age in the 1960s missed it's opportunity to recapture a sense of purpose after our parents had all their principles ripped apart by WWII. They tried to protect us with puritan habits in the 1950s, but a media explosion undermined that.
When we said "Why?" our teachers' "Because I said so!" wasn't good enough. Our generation took moral relativism and lack of sound answers to be license to do anything. We were to lazy to find good answers ourselves. What a wasted generation.
Posted by: sbw | December 22, 2008 at 09:31 PM
Chaco, How are you? You've barely been around.
Posted by: clarice | December 22, 2008 at 09:39 PM
---caused by the polarization between the two main factions of the boomer generation. One of those factions (the anti VN war faction) was in charge during the Clinton years. The other (the win the VN war faction) was in charge during the Bush 43 years. Cheney and Rumsfeld epitomized the latter faction, and are particularly loathed by the former.--
Perhaps that is why I fantasize about a baseball bat makeover for Bill Ayers and Michael Moore.
Posted by: Red | December 22, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Boy, it's fun being brutalized here by the baby boomer critics. All I can say is, some of us served our country with honor, and some of us still give a damn about America even as we watch it slide down the tubes.
The most galling thing about being a baby boomer is having watched the assholes of our generation destroy the country while we were away serving our country.
Amen, amen, and amen.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Since Twitter has been mentioned: Twitter and terrorism; considers the recent situation in Mumbai as an example.
Posted by: PD | December 22, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I read somewhere recently that the Army (I think that's the right branch) put out a Twitter warning saying it was being used by terrorists/al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 22, 2008 at 11:10 PM
For the Baby Boomers from The Graduate Just One Word Plastics. We have become the disposable society too bad that we have lost most of our disposable income recently. We created an atmosphere of planned obsolescence except for our own frail existence
THe irony is that the last frontier in globaliztion of the world economies was to go from paper currencies to a plastic debit card platform.
Madoff in all likelihood started his Ponzi scheme when Nasdaq was being overtaken by CBOT and other electronic trading platforms. If all of these sophisticated investors would just have looked at the back of the US currency "In God we Trust."
In just over fifty years we have gone from placing under god into the pledge of allegence to having it being challenged as unconstitutional.
Posted by: rhymin' simon | December 23, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Hey folks...
I didn't know where else to post this but keep your eyes on the news on 26-28DEC08. I was just looking into the new air defense batteries the Russians are proposing to sell to the Iranians, and any airstrike has to come before those babies are installed.
You heard it here first.
Posted by: Soylent Red | December 23, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Oy vey, is there anything more pathetic than a grown man with no hair on his chest and the body of a 12 year old. If I didn't think he was gay before, I would after seeing this un-pec-tacular pic.
Posted by: Pal2Pal (Sara) | December 23, 2008 at 12:45 AM
So Sara, do you think that's the reason Michelle looks perpetually pissed?
Posted by: Antimedia | December 23, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Was waiting for the subway today and saw so many magazine covers of Obama that it got me thinking of Procol Harum's 'Whiter Shade of Pale.
Posted by: rhymin' simon | December 23, 2008 at 12:59 AM
soylent;
I said the same thing a month ago. The Israelis have a narrowing window of opportunity and have been pellucid about their intentions to not allow the Iranians to build nuclear weapons.
The only uncertainty is whether the US forces would stand in their way. Pretty much all of the airspace between Israel and Teheran/North central Iran is controlled by either the US military or hostiles.
If Iran deploys those missiles, it's probably a one way trip for the strike force pilots. Then again, the Israelis have always said "never again".
The other issue is the use of nukes. To punch down deep enough would take probably a "double tap"; one device to blow out the rocks and dirt, and the second to destroy the centrifuges, stored U-235, and the rest of the program. Of course, much of it could have already been moved.
It would be the first time since 1945, and the condemnation would be universal. It only remains to be seen what the USA would do in support of or against Israel. Any way you look at it, Israel is screwed.
Posted by: matt | December 23, 2008 at 01:00 AM