Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Bob Barr on Bush's strategy to escape impeachment
Bob Barr should get on meds and become a Democrat.
This OpEd came to my attention via Johnny Wendell of KTLK.
Barr, of course, is the loony toon who started the impeachment campaign against Clinton before Grand Inquisitor Ken Starr even found a pretext for it. He runs through wives at the same clip as most of us run through automobiles. He is a total hypocrite who took his then-wife to get an abortion and paid for it even as he was ranting against Democrats for wanting to keep his behavior legal. A friend of the White Citizens... er, Conservative Citizens Council, he never should have made it to the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, he's also bright and politically- and legally-ept. So, when he describes the Bushco strategy for staving off impeachment, we should probably listen.
First, he gets the point that most liberal commentators have missed. Bush's statements on the NSA espionage scandal dance around the definitions of "monitor" and "detect." And then he lays out the strategy.
By using the White House counsel's office to bury investigators in a sea of motions, pleadings and memoranda, an administration can drag out an investigation to the point of exhaustion....
A critical component of White House Scandal Defense 101 is rallying the partisan base. This keeps approval ratings in territory where the wheels don't start falling off. The way to achieve this goal is you go negative and you don't let up....
Yet another tactic is to shore up your congressional base in order to avoid or at least control pesky oversight investigations.
Of course, he's part of that strategy, using the "they all do it" defense to support Bush. He knows that Clinton resisted the Congress not because he had broken the law but because people like Barr were engaged in a coup. He knows that it the grassroots, not the Democratic regulars, who defended Clinton. They didn't do it because they loved Clinton but because they hate totalitarians who use the courts to grab power. But aside from being a world class hypocrite and crackpot, there's much in what Barr says.
Comments:
<< Home
Just wondering what the impeachable offense is.
If it is the alleged spy scandal, I'd like you to provide a point-by-point legal rebuttal of the White House claims and then lay out a plan for how this president - or any president - can do his number one job of protecting the American people using the guidelines you set forth in your rebuttal to the White House claim that they have authority to do this.
Thanks! Can't wait!
If it is the alleged spy scandal, I'd like you to provide a point-by-point legal rebuttal of the White House claims and then lay out a plan for how this president - or any president - can do his number one job of protecting the American people using the guidelines you set forth in your rebuttal to the White House claim that they have authority to do this.
Thanks! Can't wait!
# posted by 
: 12/28/2005 01:42:00 PM
: 12/28/2005 01:42:00 PM
I have a counter-offer for you, Anonymous: explain to me how the illegal surveillance is "protecting the American people". What evidence do you have that it really has made us safer?
Anonymous, I'll try to make it easy for you to explain how the illegal surveillance keeps us safe. Here are a couple of points for you to refute.
Wiretaps fail to make dent in terror war: "The Bush administration's surveillance policy has failed to make a dent in the war against al Qaeda. U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers. ... 'The problem is not the legislation but lack of intelligence and analysis,' another source said. 'We have a huge pile of intercepts that never get translated, analyzed and thus remain of no use to us. If it [surveillance] was effective, that's one thing. But it hasn't been effective.' "
Experts warn disputed wiretaps could taint terror court cases: "The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned. These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by President Bush."
Wiretaps fail to make dent in terror war: "The Bush administration's surveillance policy has failed to make a dent in the war against al Qaeda. U.S. law enforcement sources said that more than four years of surveillance by the National Security Agency has failed to capture any high-level al Qaeda operative in the United States. They said al Qaeda insurgents have long stopped using the phones and even computers to relay messages. Instead, they employ couriers. ... 'The problem is not the legislation but lack of intelligence and analysis,' another source said. 'We have a huge pile of intercepts that never get translated, analyzed and thus remain of no use to us. If it [surveillance] was effective, that's one thing. But it hasn't been effective.' "
Experts warn disputed wiretaps could taint terror court cases: "The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping, some legal experts cautioned. These experts pointed to this week's unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program authorized by President Bush."
Anonymous, although you should read the thoughtful comments by MEC and PhoenixWoman, this is my answer:
1. The topic of the post is not what crimes the White House has committed or what we should do to protect the American people. It is what Bob Barr claims the White House strategy to avoid impeachment will be. The fact that you haven't even bothered to read the post closely enough to understand it tells me that you are here to waste time, not to honestly debate the issue.
2. The White House has claimed that it has wiretapped American citizens in a manner that is plainly illegal. I believe them on that one point. Why would I try to refute it?
3. I have written two lengthy articles in large part on how the American government can best protect its people and preserve civil liberties; indeed, it must preserve civil liberties or it will have lost the so-called "war on terror".
To give you the Cliff's Notes version, since it's very obvious you're not interested in listening, it comes down to the observation that governments which behave like @$$holes tend to attract enemies, while governments that "love mercy and do justice" attract allies.
The same principle, by the way, applies to people who post anonymously on blogs.
Show me you're willing to listen and we'll play. But I'm not about to waste time on someone who seems to be suffering from verbal ejaculation premature to mental cogitation.
1. The topic of the post is not what crimes the White House has committed or what we should do to protect the American people. It is what Bob Barr claims the White House strategy to avoid impeachment will be. The fact that you haven't even bothered to read the post closely enough to understand it tells me that you are here to waste time, not to honestly debate the issue.
2. The White House has claimed that it has wiretapped American citizens in a manner that is plainly illegal. I believe them on that one point. Why would I try to refute it?
3. I have written two lengthy articles in large part on how the American government can best protect its people and preserve civil liberties; indeed, it must preserve civil liberties or it will have lost the so-called "war on terror".
To give you the Cliff's Notes version, since it's very obvious you're not interested in listening, it comes down to the observation that governments which behave like @$$holes tend to attract enemies, while governments that "love mercy and do justice" attract allies.
The same principle, by the way, applies to people who post anonymously on blogs.
Show me you're willing to listen and we'll play. But I'm not about to waste time on someone who seems to be suffering from verbal ejaculation premature to mental cogitation.
Oh, and I should have warned you, Anonymous.
Phoenix Woman is Mother Nature. If you're not already aware, don't mess with her.
Phoenix Woman is Mother Nature. If you're not already aware, don't mess with her.
There never was any reason to imagine that Snoop would bother to read anything before pouring out the painfully predictable partisan rant. I certainly wouldn't have expected him to read any part of the post (besides the eye candy) and comment on what it said rather than on what he wishes it said.
Having vanishingly low expectations, they are met.
Snoop, your facts are cockeyed.
1. Presidential spying goes back to the Zimmerman Telegram (at least). This spying was made illegal because a certain Republican President, Richard Nixon, was using it to spy on his political enemies. The keywords are Minaret and Shamrock. Since I know you have to get your opinions from the right-wing team to believe them, try WorldNet Daily.
Let's see if this helps it sink in: it used to be legal to own people as property. It was later made illegal. The fact that it was once legal does not justify the fact that the Pentagon is engaged (indirectly) in it today.
(continues)
Having vanishingly low expectations, they are met.
Snoop, your facts are cockeyed.
1. Presidential spying goes back to the Zimmerman Telegram (at least). This spying was made illegal because a certain Republican President, Richard Nixon, was using it to spy on his political enemies. The keywords are Minaret and Shamrock. Since I know you have to get your opinions from the right-wing team to believe them, try WorldNet Daily.
Let's see if this helps it sink in: it used to be legal to own people as property. It was later made illegal. The fact that it was once legal does not justify the fact that the Pentagon is engaged (indirectly) in it today.
(continues)
(continues from above)
2. Since you don't provide a URL, it's left to the reader to speculate on what source you are embarrassed to link when you speak of Clinton "illegally" wiretapping a housing project. Do the quote marks mean that it was actually legal wiretapping, as is routinely done under court order in conformance with the Fourth Amendment?
Some guesswork later, I presume you are referring to Judge Wayne Anderson's ruling that Chicago Public Housing Authority sweeps (not anything ordered directly by Clinton) were a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, entering an apartment is not wiretapping, so you've already delivered yourself a TKO. To further weaken your case, we have this:
The decision sounds like the rare case of a judge protecting a vulnerable population from police coercion, but for one important detail: an overwhelming majority of the residents opposed the ACLU's effort to block the building searches. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) adopted its building-search policy as an emergency response to the deadly outbursts of gun fire associated with incessant gang warfare; in one four-day period near this time, the police recorded more than 300 gun-fire incidents in the Robert Taylor Homes and Stateway Gardens projects.
The point is that there's another side to this story. If you want to call yourself an honest man, you need to at least know what it is. I happen to side with Judge Anderson and against the author above. The Fourth Amendment takes predence even over risks to life. I would never, however, use someone's disagreement with that position to take cheap shots.
But let's also make the record clear about Clinton's actions. A court declared the actions of the Chicago Public Housing Authority illegal. What did Clinton do? According to Cato, he went to Congress-- controlled by Republicans-- to ask them to change the law. He also got the Public Housing Authority to write the leases to make it clear that they were given on condition that such sweeps were allowed.
This is what people who respect the law do.
(continues)
2. Since you don't provide a URL, it's left to the reader to speculate on what source you are embarrassed to link when you speak of Clinton "illegally" wiretapping a housing project. Do the quote marks mean that it was actually legal wiretapping, as is routinely done under court order in conformance with the Fourth Amendment?
Some guesswork later, I presume you are referring to Judge Wayne Anderson's ruling that Chicago Public Housing Authority sweeps (not anything ordered directly by Clinton) were a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, entering an apartment is not wiretapping, so you've already delivered yourself a TKO. To further weaken your case, we have this:
The decision sounds like the rare case of a judge protecting a vulnerable population from police coercion, but for one important detail: an overwhelming majority of the residents opposed the ACLU's effort to block the building searches. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) adopted its building-search policy as an emergency response to the deadly outbursts of gun fire associated with incessant gang warfare; in one four-day period near this time, the police recorded more than 300 gun-fire incidents in the Robert Taylor Homes and Stateway Gardens projects.
The point is that there's another side to this story. If you want to call yourself an honest man, you need to at least know what it is. I happen to side with Judge Anderson and against the author above. The Fourth Amendment takes predence even over risks to life. I would never, however, use someone's disagreement with that position to take cheap shots.
But let's also make the record clear about Clinton's actions. A court declared the actions of the Chicago Public Housing Authority illegal. What did Clinton do? According to Cato, he went to Congress-- controlled by Republicans-- to ask them to change the law. He also got the Public Housing Authority to write the leases to make it clear that they were given on condition that such sweeps were allowed.
This is what people who respect the law do.
(continues)
(continued from above)
The tales you tell about Bork and Thomas are equally cockeyed and are completely irrelevant to presidential wiretapping. I won't comment about your assertion about Steel because I can't find any website besides Limbaugh & OxyCo. that even discuss it.
That's usually a good sign it's rube bait.
Let's start from the fact that Bork and Thomas were applying for a very cushy job. The job pays extremely well and is one of the most powerful positions in the entire world. There is no shortage of applicants. It requires a security clearance. And the salary is paid by the taxpayer.
Thomas wouldn't have made it past a security check to be a telephone receptionist at the Salvation Army. And Bork wouldn't have passed the psychiatric.
That said, you get even the most basic facts wrong. The disclosures of the Bork videos had nothing to do with liberals, and in fact were completely unsensational. Liberals were involved in trying to protect Bork's privacy:
Liberals in fact defended Bork's right to privacy:
The infamous video rentals entered the public record not through a Democratic subpoena, but via an article in City Paper, a weekly newspaper in Washington D.C. (The New Republic admitted this in a correction to Rothstein's essay: 2/22/99). Almost immediately, the paper was denounced by liberal groups and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for invading Bork's privacy.
The ACLU complained to the editor of City Paper, comparing the exposure to breaking and entering. People for the American Way, which led the fight against Bork's confirmation, urged the District of Columbia to pass a law to make sure it wouldn't happen again. "We believe the release of such information is a clear violation," a People for the American Way lobbyist told the Chicago Tribune (11/20/87).
(Of course, it was easy for liberals to denounce the intrusion, since the "exposé" managed to reveal some decidedly non-scandalous movie rentals: A Day At the Races, Ruthless People and The Man Who Knew Too Much were among them.)
The Bork video subpoena has become a kind of journalistic urban legend--an easily checkable assertion that "everybody knows," so no one bothers to check.
Ahem.
As for Clarence Thomas, his private life started to become public through an inappropriate and possibly even illegal leak. But the story took off only because Anita Hill, who I have never heard being accused of having been liberal, was willing to go on record under oath that Thomas had sexually harassed her. And in the end, Thomas got the job, despite abundant evidence that he was both incompetent to perform it and a perjurer to boot.
So, if rich, powerful men having to explain why they deserve a plush job is the sort of thing that incenses you, I have a mission for you that should really get the juices flowing: spread the word on what Bush & Co did to Bunnatine Greenhouse. Unlike Thomas, she was telling the truth and protecting the taxpayers. I don't think she even needed the crutch of pornography to hobble on in her pursuit of the thieves.
Please do feel free to drop back when you've managed to lose the attitude, Snoop. It's not your politics that I find distressing. It's not even your ignorance. It's your flagwaving, firecracker-popping, 1812 Overture cannon-firing, lampshade-wearing announcement of your God-given right to make an obnoxious fool of yourself in public.
A right that I will defend to my dying breath.
The tales you tell about Bork and Thomas are equally cockeyed and are completely irrelevant to presidential wiretapping. I won't comment about your assertion about Steel because I can't find any website besides Limbaugh & OxyCo. that even discuss it.
That's usually a good sign it's rube bait.
Let's start from the fact that Bork and Thomas were applying for a very cushy job. The job pays extremely well and is one of the most powerful positions in the entire world. There is no shortage of applicants. It requires a security clearance. And the salary is paid by the taxpayer.
Thomas wouldn't have made it past a security check to be a telephone receptionist at the Salvation Army. And Bork wouldn't have passed the psychiatric.
That said, you get even the most basic facts wrong. The disclosures of the Bork videos had nothing to do with liberals, and in fact were completely unsensational. Liberals were involved in trying to protect Bork's privacy:
Liberals in fact defended Bork's right to privacy:
The infamous video rentals entered the public record not through a Democratic subpoena, but via an article in City Paper, a weekly newspaper in Washington D.C. (The New Republic admitted this in a correction to Rothstein's essay: 2/22/99). Almost immediately, the paper was denounced by liberal groups and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for invading Bork's privacy.
The ACLU complained to the editor of City Paper, comparing the exposure to breaking and entering. People for the American Way, which led the fight against Bork's confirmation, urged the District of Columbia to pass a law to make sure it wouldn't happen again. "We believe the release of such information is a clear violation," a People for the American Way lobbyist told the Chicago Tribune (11/20/87).
(Of course, it was easy for liberals to denounce the intrusion, since the "exposé" managed to reveal some decidedly non-scandalous movie rentals: A Day At the Races, Ruthless People and The Man Who Knew Too Much were among them.)
The Bork video subpoena has become a kind of journalistic urban legend--an easily checkable assertion that "everybody knows," so no one bothers to check.
Ahem.
As for Clarence Thomas, his private life started to become public through an inappropriate and possibly even illegal leak. But the story took off only because Anita Hill, who I have never heard being accused of having been liberal, was willing to go on record under oath that Thomas had sexually harassed her. And in the end, Thomas got the job, despite abundant evidence that he was both incompetent to perform it and a perjurer to boot.
So, if rich, powerful men having to explain why they deserve a plush job is the sort of thing that incenses you, I have a mission for you that should really get the juices flowing: spread the word on what Bush & Co did to Bunnatine Greenhouse. Unlike Thomas, she was telling the truth and protecting the taxpayers. I don't think she even needed the crutch of pornography to hobble on in her pursuit of the thieves.
Please do feel free to drop back when you've managed to lose the attitude, Snoop. It's not your politics that I find distressing. It's not even your ignorance. It's your flagwaving, firecracker-popping, 1812 Overture cannon-firing, lampshade-wearing announcement of your God-given right to make an obnoxious fool of yourself in public.
A right that I will defend to my dying breath.
It always amuses me that for rightwingers, Bill Clinton is the embodiment of all evil and everything that is wrong with liberals, and everything he's ever done is wrong -- until they cite his actions as evidence that something Bush is doing really isn't wrong after all. I think this is what's known as "hypocrisy".
So what if Clinton did illegal wiretapping? Does that make it right? No. If he did it, it was wrong, and it's still wrong that Bush is doing it. An action is judged as right or wrong based on what that action is, and what its consequences are -- not on who performed the action. That's what's known as "morality".
Judging by their pronouncements, rightwingers are long on hypocrisy and sadly lacking in morality.
So what if Clinton did illegal wiretapping? Does that make it right? No. If he did it, it was wrong, and it's still wrong that Bush is doing it. An action is judged as right or wrong based on what that action is, and what its consequences are -- not on who performed the action. That's what's known as "morality".
Judging by their pronouncements, rightwingers are long on hypocrisy and sadly lacking in morality.
Snoop, if you knew all these things, why did you claim that Clinton wiretapped a housing project? That is factually false, as anyone can see. The Chicago case had to do with physical entry into apartments.
You could easily have redeemed yourself by saying, "Oh, gee, I guess I misremembered."
Instead, since you won't admit that you were wrong in a small matter, you were forced into telling a lie. Pride does that to people. It's why it's such a dangerous sin.
Yes, it probably will be necessary for there to be a huge disaster for the Republican Party to come to its senses. This is not something I look forward to. *I* won't end up in power. *I* will probably be scrambling along with everyone else.
But I call your attention to a passage from Isaiah 28:15:
You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place."
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
It is not a desire for power, but a knowledge that this nation can no longer live so twisted and disfigured by lies. WMD lies, lies about who the terrorists are, lies about tax cuts, lies about wiretapping, and all the lies that sustain the campaign of hatred against those people who have pledges their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to save the nation from the lies. If the nation is to live, the lies must be put to death.
I am not going to play the role of Snooper Scooper for someone who has proven he'd prefer to embrace a lie rather than face the mirror. There are, as the gospels say, 12 hours in the day, and already a quarter of them has been spent shaking dust off my feet.
Post a Comment
You could easily have redeemed yourself by saying, "Oh, gee, I guess I misremembered."
Instead, since you won't admit that you were wrong in a small matter, you were forced into telling a lie. Pride does that to people. It's why it's such a dangerous sin.
Yes, it probably will be necessary for there to be a huge disaster for the Republican Party to come to its senses. This is not something I look forward to. *I* won't end up in power. *I* will probably be scrambling along with everyone else.
But I call your attention to a passage from Isaiah 28:15:
You boast, "We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the grave we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place."
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts will never be dismayed.
I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the grave will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
It is not a desire for power, but a knowledge that this nation can no longer live so twisted and disfigured by lies. WMD lies, lies about who the terrorists are, lies about tax cuts, lies about wiretapping, and all the lies that sustain the campaign of hatred against those people who have pledges their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to save the nation from the lies. If the nation is to live, the lies must be put to death.
I am not going to play the role of Snooper Scooper for someone who has proven he'd prefer to embrace a lie rather than face the mirror. There are, as the gospels say, 12 hours in the day, and already a quarter of them has been spent shaking dust off my feet.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
