<p>You’re sounding CGMish again, Dig. Give some specific examples, with cites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dig, you might be interested in this article:
<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/061300-01.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/061300-01.htm</a>
Is this what you are talking about? Well, first note the date of the article. Notice anything? Like, perhaps this was the position of the US even BEFORE GWB came into office?<br>
Just like the issue of the Kyoto accords - it was always the position of the US to not sign on to them.</p>
<p>Yet, the mis-information campaign would have you believe that the dirty rotten, polluting, war criminal Bush was the person who initiated these US positions. Not true - just as is most of the slime that is thrown his way.</p>
<p>CGM, I’m afraid that “Bush lied” is indeed an imperfect formulation. Other languages (Hopi, for one?) are very good with verb forms that describe an action begun in the past that is still continuing. English lacks that particular bit of versatility.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the 2004 results were within the margn of error of virtually all the polls, including Zogby. Depending on how paranoid you are, the Reps either hacked the voting machines or had a ground game that was slightly more efficient than predicted. I wouldn’t pay any particular attention to any one poll. I would look at the direction of all the polls and central mean tendency of the most recent 10-15 polls. Bush is almost certainly under the 35 percent support level. He’s hanging reasonably tough with white male Southern Protestants who attend church once a week or more. For every one of those factors you peel away, his support drops noticeably.</p>
<p>TheDad, I do appreciate your statement/correction. I do, however, believe that the polls during 2004 favored Kerry to win. For many people, the question was only about the margin of victory. You probably remember the evolution of the polls much better that I do, as I did not track them with great attention. My point -then and now- is that nobody has ever won an election in the summer or 30 months before the chads start to appear.</p>
<p>Only four of the last 47 or so polls taken after October 10, 2004 showed Kerry with as much as a two-point lead. In fact, once the statistical noise after the convention died down, the polls were pretty stable after Labor Day. See <a href=“http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm[/url]”>http://pollingreport2.com/wh2004a.htm</a></p>
<p>2008 is an eternity away. 2006 is a much shorter eternity away. The GOP has much to be worried about and if they keep the House, it will be because of the extraordinary intra-census reapportionment of Congressional delegations that Tom Delay engineered in Texas. I don’t put a lot of weight on the so-called generic Congressional ballot. But “voter intensity” measurements, party I.D. shifts, and the sharp tilt of Independents towards Democratic issues and candidates are giving the sachems of the GOP some Rolaids moments right now. </p>
<p>Of course, it’s still fluid and there’s time. But as time moves forward, the cone describing the range of possible results narrows.</p>
<p>As for 2008, I’m not particularly a Hillary fan but the GOP has true and fully earned a Hillary presidency from the Wardens of Karma.</p>
<p>Bush had a chance to build a consensus-driven administration that could have served as a Republican lock, governing as a thoughtful uniter in fact as opposed to propaganda. He screwed the pooch on that one and it’s now pretty well an irrevocable war to the knife, which Brownie may laughing about now but for which kindred spirits I would direct towards a volume of Aesop.</p>
<p>If my kid or yours told the “truth” as well and often as GWB; Would you continue to care what is the reply? </p>
<p>Couple of weeks ago finished, Pat Buchanan’s most recent book. No wonder Reagan had such great speeches. And Pat’s on right now on McCloughlin Report. Bye Bye.</p>
<p>“…but the scary part is some Republicans are blinded by their fanaticism to the point where they ignore plain facts. Now thats just scary.”</p>
<p>This is what drives me nuts. It seems to be mainly liberals who determine what “facts” are and seem to have appointed themselves arbiters of what is appropriate to believe. Speaking for myself and only myself, I find the tracking of those phone calls not only appropriate, but critical. I would find the government (of whatever persuasion) to be negligent in its basic duty if not tracking those calls. Because we have no idea who is in the country in the first place. But you know what? No one has to agree with me, this is my opinion, and I won’t call names or become terrified/hysterical/dramatic if others don’t share my view.</p>
<p>“The current polls are obviously important, but when it comes to a decision between two choices, the results can be quite different. As much as people might crow about the current polls, isn’t it sad that the “other side” would still not be picked as a … better choice to lead our country.”</p>
<p>What I find fascinating about these polls (particularly Zogby) is the sampling numbers. They tend to skew very, very democratic. Which is not to say that Bush isn’t losing the base, of course he is, but that the stampede started long after the media started reporting it and, I believe, helped create a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p>
<p>“Perhaps it has to do with human nature which finds it difficult to acknowledge that one has made a mistake.”</p>
<p>In this instance it doesn’t follow that to be disenchanted is to believe that one made a mistake. The alternative being what it was and all.</p>
<p>Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You’re Calling</p>
<p>May 15, 2006 10:33 AM
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:</p>
<p>A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.</p>
<p>“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.</p>
<p>ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.</p>
<p>Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.</p>
<p>One former official was asked to sign a document stating he was not a confidential source for New York Times reporter James Risen.</p>
<p>Our reports on the CIA’s secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information following those reports.</p>
<p>People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.</p>
<p>Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.</p>
<p>The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.</p>
<p>A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.</p>
<p>…tip of the iceberg…</p>
<p>Driver stated several days ago,“Let’s see…the NSA has phone numbers with no names attached that it runs through computers to look for patterns, at which point, if alarming terrorist patterns are noted, it goes to the FISA court for warrants in order to obtain personal information. Compare that with the level of knowledge the IRS maintains about you and all of your connections, transactions, finances, etc., and the administrative law courts (read: star chambers) they can drag you through at will. You Chicken Littles are absolutely looney.”</p>
<p>Todays headline, “Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You’re Calling.”</p>
<p>OOPs!</p>
<p>I guess it wasn’t just paranoia after all.</p>
<p>…and why not? After all, leaking classified information is a crime, even if it uncovers criminal activity by the government. I personally am not leaking classified information, so why should I care? That information could give aid and comfort to the enemy: Iraq, the country that so blatently attacked us on Sept 11th, 2001. Why not put a device in every wireless cell phone that can keep track of our whereabouts? What do I have to fear? Let’s collect everything on everyone. And why not share that data with the local police, so that they can catch criminals also? If they can track my phone from minute to minute, they can also tell when I’m speeding and issue me a ticket by mail. What do I care? I’m not a speeder. I have nothing to fear. How about if we capture every website, IM, forum entry, and email message ever visited or sent or posted by every person. That would immediately catch every internet predator, as well as identify potential terrorists. The fact that someone leaves an anti-administration message MIGHT mean that they may harbor deeper secrets later. Better keep an eye on 'em. Oh, and I forgot the library. Let’s keep track of what people are reading. What do I have to fear?</p>
<p>First they took the gypsies, then the homosexuals, then the Catholics, and yet I did nothing…</p>
<p>who is there to save me</p>
<p>Big Brother controlling your thoughts…thought criminal…</p>
<p>Not there yet, but Orwell was definitely prescient in 1949.</p>
<p>First they took the gypsies, then the homosexuals, then the Catholics, and yet I did nothing…</p>
<p>who is there to save me</p>
<p>Well it won’t be the cartoonists, because they’re all running for their lives.</p>
<p>Constitutional issues (speech, association, unreasonable search, etc) aside, there is still the fact that there are laws in place that were violated (FISA, Telecommunications). “Defenderers” claim that the President has the right to declare himself and others immune to the laws of the United States. THIS IS MY ISSUE, not whether we catch terrorists or not with phone records. Aren’t the defenderers believers in the rule of law? To me, this is a Constitutional Crisis. What happened to my civics classes that taught me the system of checks and balances in our beloved (and I mean that) Constitution? Our President is a crook, and worse, a Constitutional Crook. High Crimes and Misdemeanors if you ask me.</p>
<p>But let’s all look the other way and shift the conversation to the specifics, not the broader implications of what’s happening. Better yet, let’s bring in Clinton, Roosevelt, and whoever else in the past did anything wrong.</p>
<p>Oog said:
It always helps to read beyond the Drudge headline. Read the article which you forgot [?] to link. A criminal investigation into top-secret security leaks to reporters is going to include reporters, by definition. It will also the “federal source” that leaked initially to ABC, and apparently leaked again, in panic. This will all come out in the wash, but don’t be a sap. It has nothing at all to do with the NSA program itself.</p>
<p><a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html[/url]”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html</a></p>
<p>dig said:
I’ve asked you before to name the the violations, but so far you’ve been unable. I’m not surprised. Wishing won’t make it so. Oh, and since you brought up Roosevelt again, what was it that he did that was illegal with regard to domestic surveillance? Please explain.</p>
<p>driver - I think your repeated question has been adequately answered several times over by kluge, CGM and others. I just gave you the two most obvious. But if you make the assumption that the President can declare himself immune from any law, then of course no law is broken. But THAT IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE. A President declaring himself above the law, non-investigable, and always right because God said so, is as scary a political picture as one can draw…</p>
<p>…and un-Constitutional as well.</p>