March 08, 2006
GOP, White House Reach Agreement on Intercepts
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, March 7 — Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.This is the Times supposedly in "news" mode, but you'll notice that they refer to "domestic eavesdropping", even though that's not really the truth - all of these calls and emails have either a destination or an origin outside of the United States. The Gray Lady also insists on calling the intercepts "wiretapping", which is the equivalent of calling a Ferrari Testarossa a "horseless carriage".
Here's the reason this accord is big news [emphasis added]:
The agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.Of course there will be a thorough investigation into just who betrayed his or her country by leaking details of the intercept program to the New York Times.
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
12:57 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.
1
"Domestic eavesdropping" drives me nuts. I don't know what the heck they're talking about. It kind of reminds me of the old days when I would listen in on my big sisters's phone calls from the phone in the kitchen. I'd pick up the phone nice and slow, and then quickly put my hand over the mouthpiece. I'd hear two or three sentences before she'd start screaming.
That's domestic eavesdropping. I have no clue what the moonbats at the New York Times are "reporting" about.
That's domestic eavesdropping. I have no clue what the moonbats at the New York Times are "reporting" about.
Posted by: Asgerd at March 08, 2006 04:38 AM (E71Rz)
2
I can't help but think that the mindset of the Times, some in Congress and many in the public screech about this, calling it what it *isn't*, comes from a certain unadmitted guilt. Calling it domestic wiretapping (actually insisting that's what it is) makes them feel justified in the leak and justified in the demands of full disclosure. Playing with words. Damn common sense tells ALL of us that undermining the country in a time of war is inexcusable so change the words around and Voila! you can call yourself a "patriot".
I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things.
I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things.
Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 06:19 AM (YudAC)
3
Another attempt by the NYT to gin up and keep alive a story that fell flater than my daughter's pancakes.
Posted by: hondo at March 08, 2006 11:13 AM (fyKFC)
4
That's a really good point, Oyster. I guess I never considered the possibility that mainstream editors and reporters were capable of feeling guilt.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 08, 2006 11:28 AM (RHG+K)
5
I think they do feel guilt. They just reason it away. BSD is too pervasive in their minds. They HAVE to hate Bush. They can't help it. It supercedes everything else, so they convince themselves that what they're doing is exposing some perceived evil deed he has perpetrated and not an actual act of sedition. And they do it over and over.
And they call Bush "The boy who cried wolf?"
And they call Bush "The boy who cried wolf?"
Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 12:35 PM (rf0W8)
6
Oyster:
"I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things."
Great Gawd Almighty, this Psychosomatic-Bush-Hate stuff is like a sound bite from the Clinton days....just swap parties and "Bush" for "Clinton" and the rhetoric is virtually interchangeable. Of course you didn't hear a peep from these people ... they were DEMOCRATS. I heard plenty of peeps from the other people back then, I think they were REPUBLICANS! Now we've just got different loyal oppostion parties.
Intellectual honesty time Oyster...though it might be satisfying to draw these conclusions because it plays comfortably into your worldviews, what makes this line of bull any more legitimate now than then?
"I understand that for some it's simple distrust of the government, but for the majority it's plain old Bush hatred. I say this because I never heard a peep out of these same people when Clinton was doing some pretty outrageous things."
Great Gawd Almighty, this Psychosomatic-Bush-Hate stuff is like a sound bite from the Clinton days....just swap parties and "Bush" for "Clinton" and the rhetoric is virtually interchangeable. Of course you didn't hear a peep from these people ... they were DEMOCRATS. I heard plenty of peeps from the other people back then, I think they were REPUBLICANS! Now we've just got different loyal oppostion parties.
Intellectual honesty time Oyster...though it might be satisfying to draw these conclusions because it plays comfortably into your worldviews, what makes this line of bull any more legitimate now than then?
Posted by: Goliath at March 08, 2006 01:30 PM (UHKaK)
7
It's legitimate because for one thing, I'm not from that camp. You know ... the Clinton bashers. And there are a bunch of people who feel the same way. I'm not just speaking for my self. The only time I ever bring Clinton up is to highlight a point that counters another. And I'm also not speaking for those who argue simple party-line arguments. You're right in that there are those who divide the ideals along a definitive party-line. But not like we're seeing now.
I've never, in my many decades, seen anything like this. Now that the internet is open to everyone, EVERYBODY's a critic. And a significant number of them are hacks and newbies. Try asking any of these people what the Iraq war is really about and see what answers you get. Try asking any of them about social security and watch their eyes glaze over. Ask any of them what the difference is between progressive taxation and a flat tax and a fair tax. That's what I'm talking about. And the media is the worst of all. Their lazy. They've never really had to answer to anyone. And they perpetuate and cheer on this idiocy.
Just sayin'.
I've never, in my many decades, seen anything like this. Now that the internet is open to everyone, EVERYBODY's a critic. And a significant number of them are hacks and newbies. Try asking any of these people what the Iraq war is really about and see what answers you get. Try asking any of them about social security and watch their eyes glaze over. Ask any of them what the difference is between progressive taxation and a flat tax and a fair tax. That's what I'm talking about. And the media is the worst of all. Their lazy. They've never really had to answer to anyone. And they perpetuate and cheer on this idiocy.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Oyster at March 08, 2006 08:20 PM (YudAC)
8
Alright, that was last night and after a few beers. My point is that these are the people who during the last general election cycle could not for the life of them tell you why they voted for Kerry without giving an answer equivalent to "He's not Bush." I would ask how they felt about Kerry's plan for healthcare or social security and nearly every time they couldn't answer the question and would instead bash Bush's plans. Yet they couldn't tell me any particulars at all about Bush OR Kerry's plans. Every time I ever asked them about Kerry the answer started with, "Well, Bush ..."
Posted by: Oyster at March 09, 2006 06:44 AM (YudAC)
9
xgkpwfke gstcgjtroc soeyngvhng
Posted by: mfsfmzco at May 23, 2006 08:39 PM (xaET5)
10
‘and what makes it worse is that you stopped to think about it and have a look to see if anything was coming before you went through’
Posted by: inter-casino at May 24, 2006 03:29 AM (kZwHh)
11
I wish I had more to offer you than that.
Posted by: casino-chip at May 25, 2006 08:08 AM (q3Qdr)
12
My main areas within linguistics are semantics (about the general linguistic meanings of words and things) and pragmatics (about how we work out what people mean in a particular context).
Posted by: avfwxuim at May 28, 2006 06:16 AM (BoZyE)
36kb generated in CPU 0.0443, elapsed 0.0737 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0608 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0608 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
