Right Wing Nut House

If I could sputter on line, I would do so…

This piece of rancid apologia that appeared in today’s New York Times is one of the most extraordinary examples of smug, self righteous, self-pitying, and self-aggrandizing editorializing I can ever remember reading.

No, I mean it. I’ve racked my brains for a couple of hours trying to think of something even remotely similar in brazenness, in the the twisting of facts, in outright lies, and in sheer, breathtaking arrogance toward its readers but cannot for the life of me come up with anything that approaches the intellectual corruption and demonstrable immorality represented in this cynical 300 word essay defending its outing of the top secret NSA intercept program.

If ever one needed proof that the liberal worldview (if ever its adherents were voted back into power) would be dangerous to the safety and security of the United States then this editorial should put all doubts to rest. Simply put, this editorial proves once and for all that liberals would prefer that terrorists succeed in attacking us rather than do what is necessary to protect us. The key word here is “necessary,” of course. And the fact is that the Times definition of “necessary” seems to be so limited and constricting that, if left up to them, the terrorists would have a gigantic head start and a leg up in trying to kill as many of us as they can. Any possible defense that they are serious about national security can therefore be ignored.

Either you believe there is a grave threat to the Republic and will do everything in your power to support the government’s legitimate efforts to protect us or you believe that abstract notions and ivory tower formulations of Constitutional limits on the exercise of executive power should outweigh the judgment of people who we elected to protect us from harm. The debate over executive authority itself is not the issue. Responsible opposition to any expansion of executive power is a necessary element in a democracy such as ours. But to willfully blind oneself to the consequences of one’s position - or in the Time’s case, to cynically exploit the debate for partisan political purposes - is to walk down a road I daresay most Americans would be unwilling to travel.

There are so many lies, exaggerations, and calumnious thinking in this editorial that analyzing all of it would be a tiresome job, something fit for a janitor tasked with cleaning up an overflowing toilet. I will instead take some of the more egregious violations of logic and the truth in order to try and set the record straight:

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don’t want the public to know - especially if it’s unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials.

This would be true if we were talking about bribe taking at the Department of Health and Human Services or contract shenanigans at the Department of Defense. But we are talking about the most closely guarded secrets in government - signals intelligence. And if, as the Times so cavalierly assumes, their sources for the story are “whistle blowers” why did these sources break the law? If they are in the intelligence community, they must take their concerns to the Inspector General. That is how they receive protection as whistle blowers not running to the New York Times. The last I looked, the Times was not even a part of the United States government, although I’m sure they think of themselves in some way as more important.

And of course the government doesn’t want us to know about the NSA program, but why? The Times automatically assumes it is because the program is “unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional.” I guess we must take our pick because the editorial is silent about what part of the program is unethical. And unless the Times is holding back information that would buttress their case for illegality or unconstitutional actions by the executive, they are talking through their hat. No one knows if this program constituted a crime. No one knows if the President exceeded his authority in authorizing the intercept program. This would all depend on technical aspects of the program that the Times is either hiding from its readers - the same readers who have a “right to know” about the program in the first place - or is ignorant of and can therefore be accused of rank partisanship in stirring up a pot; the contents of which they know little or nothing about.

Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

Leaving aside the potshot at an Administration dedicated to secrecy (someone should write a letter to the editor informing the Times that we are at war) I agree that whatever the motivation, reporters should be able to protect their sources. But wouldn’t it behoove the Times to inform its readers - you remember…the readers that have a “right to know” - what the motivation of the leaker might be? If the motivation is, in fact partisanship or a dispute over policy, I don’t know about you but I’d sure like to know that. Instead, the Times assumes that we should simply take their word as gospel and that everything the leaker has related to Mr. Risen, the Times reporter, is completely truthful and not colored in any way that would cast aspersions on any individuals. In fact, the Times assumes that everything on its pages should be taken as the truth, as something handed down from above and placed on the pages of that august and honorable institution by the finger of God; sort of like the Ten Commandments but without the burning bush or thunder and lightening.

The Times then tries to slough off its law breaking by bringing up the Plame case and with chutzpah worthy of a daylight cat burglar, they contrast the “good leak” that has probably severely damaged a program vital to our national security with the “bad leak” of outing a CIA desk jockey who a Special Prosecutor determined was not a covert agent at the time her name appeared in the press and who was part of a partisan group at the CIA seeking to undermine a policy they opposed - the Iraq War:

There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have. The Valerie Wilson case began with a cynical effort by the administration to deflect public attention from hyped prewar intelligence on Iraq. The leak inquiry in that case ended up targeting the press, and led to the jailing of a Times reporter.

First of all, I agree that there is a “world of difference” between the two cases for reasons I stated above. But did President Bush “secretly authorize” the intercept program? Considering that the program’s legality was vetted through the Department of Justice on a monthly basis as well as being examined by White House lawyers and attorneys at the NSA itself not to mention several Congressional briefings, it would seem that the Time’s definition of “secret” needs an overhaul. If the Times means that the President didn’t inform their reporters of the program then they have a case. But if the Times means that no one else knew about the intercept program, they are lying. This was not John Mitchell authorizing the Watergate Plumbers to break into Democratic headquarters to place wiretaps or even other Nixon era abuses that were not authorized and where Congress was not briefed. The program has at least the veneer of legality in how it was vetted. Any judgment that it was unconstitutional or even illegal can only be made by an examination of the program in its totality - not by reading some slap-dash summary put out by a blatantly partisan newspaper.

And any “targeting of the press” in the Valerie Plame case was not the result of the Administration’s investigation but of an Independent Counsel’s probe that the Times itself had been screaming for. This kind of dripping hypocrisy is par for the course where the Times is concerned. They believe that their readers are idiots who can’t remember anything that happened more than 24 hours ago.

The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

The Times felt it necessary to inject a little humor into the editorial. The disingenuousness and irony here is so thick you can put it on a scoop of ice cream. In order for the White House to “prove” that national security was harmed by the outing of the program, they would have to compromise national security further - all to satisfy the New York Times! The Administration would have to publish more details of how we are keeping track of our enemies in order to satisfy the New York Times challenge - a challenge that the Times knows full well the Administration cannot answer.

Finally, the Times plays the martyr and takes a stand on the battlements, waving the bloody shirt:

Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America’s image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.

Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.

The fact that most leak investigations are not designed to “distract the public” but rather to punish people who break the law may be a matter of opinion. But when the “messenger” takes part in blatantly illegal actions that could endanger national security, the idea that the government shouldn’t be asking questions is ludicrous. The First Amendment protections for the press in this country as they relate to national security are among the broadest in the industrialized world, if not the most expansive. Mr. Risen would be in jail if he wrote for a British newspaper given their Official Secrets Act. But the idea that the Times and its employees should be exempt from what, in some quarters, could be considered traitorous activity goes beyond sophistry and enters the realm of cynicism. No one believes them when they claim to be serving “the public good.” Their self-interest and partisanship evidently knows no bounds.

It may prove out that this NSA intercept program is a clear cut case of abuse of executive power by President Bush but to date, there is no such evidence and in fact, what little we know would tend to point to the opposite case; that the program was necessary in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect us. But as long as the New York Times continues its assault on the Administration’s justifiable attempts to battle an enemy that has infiltrated this country with hundreds, perhaps thousands of agents, operatives, sympathizers, and financiers, then the country will be at risk not of dictatorship but of having its citizens incinerated just to satisfy the partisan blood lust of the New York Times and their ideological allies in the Democratic party.

UPDATE 1/5

Tom McGuire also has a jaw dropping post…As in “jaw dropping good:”

What if what “those in power” are concealing are important national security secrets in wartime? Who makes the call? And how long can we survive if every disputed wartime decision is debated on the nation’s front pages?

Read it all as Tom also presents some interesting corallaries with the Plame case.

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s guilty plea on conspiracy, tax evasion, and mail fraud charges have started the Capitol Hill sleaze train a-rollin’ down the track and before it stops, there’s a chance that Republicans could find themselves on the outs after next year’s elections.

Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon are accused of influence peddling on a truly herculean scale. In exchange for lavish trips, dinners, (I’m sure someone will find some floozies in there eventually), and gifts, Congressmen - almost assuredly mostly Republican - gave up their vote on Indian gaming legislation. The two men ended up defrauding the Indians out of millions dollars in a complex scheme that has yet to be fully revealed but probably involves grandiose promises made by Abramoff of massive lobbying on their behalf while doing precious little in the way of actual work as well as siphoning off some of the $20 million in campaign contributions made by the Indians to conservative PAC’s.

Also, in some truly imaginative sleaze, Abramoff and another partner Adam Kadan faked a $23 million wire transfer so that finance companies would pony up $60 million which would allow them to buy a fleet of off-shore gambling boats in Florida. The scheme involved Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) who actually went so far as to place comments in the Congressional Record that threatened the owner of the boats Gus Boulis.

What is it about politics that seems to attract these kinds of amoral people? Politics is a deathly competitive calling and the character of people who are more and more being attracted to the political culture in Washington (and to a lesser extent statehouses across the country) seem to reflect a kind of casual turpitude where venality and cynicism vie with high ideals and patriotism in a horrible mish mash of colliding special interests and grasping for power.

Are Congressmen made of the same moral fiber that their fathers and grandfathers were? Probably, but the opportunities for corruption have increased dramatically. There are many, many more lobbyists than there were even when I was in Washington 20 years ago. And every corporation worth its salt has a Washington office with a Director of Government Affairs who keeps an eagle eye on every law passed and every regulation proposed that would impact the company’s business in any way. And most of those companies (and unions of course) have Political Action Committees who are constantly evaluating and grading a Congressman’s performance, working hand in hand with the lobbyists to insure that on their issues, the Congressman is aware of who is buttering his bread come election time.

But what can you do? The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. And lobbying is also protected by the First Amendment’s “redress of grievances” clause. If you want to muck around with any of those two protections, you end up getting the kind of potential tyranny represented by McCain-Feingold and the FEC’s draconian measures against blogs. The law of unintended consequences is especially heavy in the area of First Amendment protections, something that so-called “reformers” never fail to miss. That’s why the more they reform, the more loopholes are created that the lobbyists and PAC’s are able to drive fully loaded semi’s through.

Whoever ends up being pulled down by Abramoff will represent the tip of the iceberg as far as corruption in politics is concerned. There has always been a fine line between influence peddling a campaign contributions and the fact that most of the rest of the sleaze that is a way of life on Capitol Hill and goes unrecorded - the cozy dinners, the exclusive golf games, the speeches in Aspen, Las Vegas, and other playgrounds - is a continuing blight on our system of government.

Abramoff isn’t exactly small potatoes but he does represent the tip of a very dirty iceberg. Maybe it will take a massive defeat by Republicans to get them to wake up and clean up their act. They can start by making sure that Tom DeLay doesn’t get anywhere near a leadership position even if he’s proved innocent of the trumped up charges by Texas Democratic partisan prosecutor Ronnie Earle. DeLay’s association with Abramoff stinks of the kind of fetid corruption reminiscent of 19th century cronyism and machine politics that Teddy Roosevelt fought the entire time he was President. Would that George Bush were half as brave in taking on the pleaders and hangers on who have corrupted Capitol Hill with the stench of money, greed, and power.

UPDATE

I’ll be updating this post for the rest of the day and probably into tomorrow as blogs weigh in.

Have to start with Michelle Malkin’s excellent round-up and her thoughts:

Maybe, just maybe, Beltway Republicans will finally be forced to get over their fear of challenging Abramoff pal and powerbroker Grover Norquist–not just on matters of political corruption, but on matters of national security.

Interesting take. Norquist has been too buddy-buddy with many Arab governments and individuals whose support of our War on Terror has been less than stellar. Might be time to clean the Republican party penthouse in addition to the cellar.

UPDATE 1/4

Captain Ed:

Regardless of which politicians get proven corrupt — and that means proven in court, not just allegations and indictments — both Republicans and Democrats will be well rid of them. Since the Republicans have controlled Congress for the past decade or more, we can fully expect this to ensnare more GOP politicians than Democrats. Money always finds its way to those whose power runs highest and whose ethics run lowest. And even if an honest and fair investigation and prosecution only convicts Republicans — I’m still looking forward to the housecleaning. Politicians enriching themselves on the public trust deserve to spend some quality time at Club Fed.

Well said. Dante reserved the 9th Circle of Hell for traitors to party and country. And by selling their votes for money and perks, any Congressmen caught up in the sleaze should suffer accordingly.

Betsy Newmark:

I guess that, like other scandals such as Enron, this new scandal will bring lots of calls to reform lobbying rules. Of course, they’ve tried to do this before, most notably in 1946 and then again in 1995, but such laws have been as ineffective in regulating lobbyists as campaign finance laws have been in regulating political contributions. There are already a ton of laws and regulations governing lobbyists. That is why Abramoff was investigated - because he broke laws.The tax code is full of regulations on interest groups.

Good point. What’s needed is a dose of morality not more laws and regulations..

Alright, I give in. The left has won.

Let’s impeach Bush for…well, whatever the left can dream up. Since they really don’t have anything specific to hang their hats on, let’s just say that Bush should be impeached for letting his nose hair grow too long or maybe for trimming his toenails in public. The reason doesn’t matter. It never did. With the left, it’s always been about grasping for the reins of power without much thought to who or what gets hurt - and that includes tens of thousands of citizens who could be killed in the next terrorist attack.

Every single effort of theirs over the last 5 years to find something specific to impeach the President with has been rudely shot down by one investigation or another. Bush didn’t lie to get us into war. He didn’t “twist” the intelligence to sell the war to the American people. He didn’t play a game of slap and tickle with Jeff Gannon/Guckert and give away national security secrets when engaged in sexual acts with the faux journalist. He didn’t “out” a covert agent of the CIA according to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Two Commissions have found he didn’t order American soldiers to torture prisoners (although not resolving their legal status is a disgrace). And the jury is still out - way, way out - on whether or not laws were broken in the execution of the NSA intercept program.

There have been other “scandals” during the last few years that the left eagerly embraced as THE scandal that will bring impeachment proceedings against the President. Each and every one of them as well as the citations above have resulted not in impeachment, but in people pointing at the left and laughing at them. Their rhetoric - so over the top, so out of touch with reality - have made them the laughingstock of the rest of America who they so arrogantly and despicably look down their noses at.

But let’s go ahead and grant them their wish. Let’s impeach the President. In fact, let’s fulfill their stated wish and put back up every wall between intelligence agencies that existed before 9/11. Let’s call off the FBI and prevent them from looking sideways at Muslims. Let’s stop profiling people based on the fact that 99% of terrorist attacks are carried out by one group and one group only. Instead, let’s start profiling 78 year old white women who wear pink polka dot dresses and cotton bloomers. Let us make absolutely sure that if al Qaeda wants to talk to someone in this country, that we scrupulously follow every law, every precedent before we intercept that communication. And let’s do as the left has been doing since 9/11 and stick our heads up our a**es as far as they can go.

In return however, the liberals must sign the following “Hold Harmless” agreement so that future occupants of the White House (no doubt all Republican unless the American people can stop laughing long enough at liberals to vote for them) will not have to put up with their unserious nonsense.
************************************************************************************

1. I, __________________________, the undersigned have read and understand, and freely and voluntarily enter into this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement with THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES understanding that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement is a waiver of any and all liability(ies).

2. I understand the potential dangers inherent in being at war with a group of merciless, bloodthirsty thugs who will stop at nothing to kill as many Americans as possible. Understanding those risks I hereby release the entire Executive Branch of government and anyone else directly or indirectly connected with the federal government from any liability whatsoever in the event of injury or damage of any nature (or perhaps even death) to me or anyone else caused by or incidental to my electing to stick my head in the sand about said terrorist threat.

3. I understand and recognize and warrant that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement, is being voluntarily and intentionally signed and agreed to, and that in signing this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement I know and understand that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement may further limit the liability of The Executive Branch to include any activity, whatsoever, involving a terrorist attack including death, personal injury and/or damage to property.

4. I further understand and recognize and warrant that this Release and Hold Harmless Agreement precludes any nonsensical criticisms of the Executive Branch if, in fact, a terrorist attack occurs on American soil. I will fully and completely recognize that it is my own damn fault for being such an idiot as to refuse to believe that some minor compromises of our liberty must be made in order to increase the odds that terrorists will be prevented from killing me. I further recognize and hold harmless the Executive Branch by not acting like a spoiled brat and screaming “Neener, Neener, Neener…” if, in fact, we are attacked.

5. I further voluntarily agree and warrant to Release and Hold Harmless the Executive Branch from any liability whatsoever, including, but not limited to, any incident caused by or related to said terrorist’s negligence, relating to injuries known, unknown, or otherwise not herein disclosed; including, but not limited to injuries, death, and property damage as a result of my myopic and childish worldview.

In the event of any terrorist attack, I promise to keep my big yap shut.

Date: ________________________________

Person voluntarily entering into this Release and Hold
Harmless Agreement: ______________________________

______________________________
Printed Name

It was a long year for the cluebats of the world.

As we have proven conclusively, stupidity and cluelessness know no limitations with respect to age, gender, sexual preference (or lack thereof), race, creed, political beliefs, or national boundaries. Face it. There is no hope that idiocy will suddenly disappear from the world so that the rest of us could live in peace, secure in the belief that the loons, goons, and dirty necked galoots would simply go away and leave us alone.

We’re stuck with the louts and there’s nothing we can do about it.

All that being said, our lives would certainly be less interesting without them. And the best way to combat the philistines is to laugh at them or better yet, shine the light of truth on their pomposity, their arrogance, and their sheer, breathtaking, jaw dropping pretentiousness. Pointing a finger and laughing at Iranian President Ahmadinehjad for his anti-semitic idiocy must be only a part of the battle; revealing him to be the dangerous thug that he truly is should be where the real war must be fought and won.

Who’s up for the coveted crown of “Cluebat of the Year?” In the end, I’m sure most of you would agree that there are two major candidates; that nutty professor Ward Churchill and Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan. Each have exhibited those special qualities of cluelessness that cause most of us to tear our hair out in frustration that someone just doesn’t grab them by the shoulders and shake them till their brains are jiggled into a more efficacious place - like a pickle jar in some out of the way curio shop. Failing that, someplace where their limited gray matter, generating as it does such strident lunacy, would garner little attention.

In the end, I had to pick Ward Churchill. Even many on the left have condemned this rogue’s insensitivity and dishonesty. It’s a depressing thought but it appears that Churchill will have more staying power with the press and the hard left than poor Mrs. Sheehan who already is suffering the indignity that all flash-in-the-pan lefty celebrities eventually come to; being ignored. When only 10 people showed up in Spain for her “protest” at the US embassy, the writing was on the wall for the “Madonna” of the peace movement. Like a dirty washrag, she has been tossed aside by her friends on the left once the kleig lights were turned off and the media - still looking for a “catalyst” for the anti-war movement - realized that she was a false prophet.

Don’t worry, they’ll find someone else soon enough.

But Churchill will soldier on. It appears that he will always have a ready made audience on college campuses. And as long as there are lickspittles like Bill Maher wanting to cash in on Churchill’s outrageous points of view and dishonest scholarship, we’ll be stuck with him. Not a pleasant thought, that. But then, as long as the loon is around, I guarantee he’s going to give us plenty to write about.

So for cluelessness above and beyond the ordinary, Ward Churchill has been named the Carnival of the Clueless “Cluebat of the Year.”

This week, several other bloggers have posted their own ideas on who should have finished on top. And we have the usual assortment of head shakers for your reading pleasure. Start clicking and enjoy!

“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
(Old Tibetan proverb)

I wonder if they get the New York Times in Lhasa?
(Me)
******************************************************************************
Mark Coffey has named his “Jackass of the Year.” As Mark correctly points out, “Indeed, it is more as a symbol than a person” that Cindy Sheehan makes his final cut.

From the other side of the political spectrum, Jack Cluth gives us his”Dumba** of the Year.” And I guarantee that both right and left will agree on his choice. Make sure you peruse all of his top ten - true battiness!

Meanwhile, Buckley F. Williams gives his “Person of the Year” to Cluebat Hall of Fame member Ted Kennedy. A good choice for any year.

Jay’s Stop the ACLU (now ranked a cool #14 in the ecosphere) has some good news about a defeat for the suicidal cluebats at the so-called rights group.

Orac has a neat new look to his blog. He still can take down the pseudo-science moonbats with the best of them.

Nice to see Giacomo back participating in the Carnival and he has the perfect clueless subject; Markos Moulitsas, AKA Kos whose interview in Newsweek raised a few eyebrows…as well as some hackles.

Jimmie K has the picture and story for the New Year. A British woman has married a dolphin. No, that is not a misprint. If it were a joke, I wouldn’t even bother but if you read the story, you find out she’s dead serious.

Miriam has a very interesting and thoughtful take on the NSA intercept program.

Soccer Dad goes for the gold and gives a good fisking to…Mr. Fisk!

Adam puts in his two cents on the “Kilt Controversy” that broke out when a student wanted to wear a kilt to “honor his heritage” and a the clueless principal told him he was causing a “disturbance.”

Ferdy the Cat doles out some feline common sense about the NSA website and the cookies it was using to track users. My guess would be that Ferdy prefers cheese to cookies but I may be mistaken.

Frugal Wisdom From Wenchypoo’s Warehouse - that’s the interesting name of the blog - has an old post on disaster preparedness and personal responsibility. Nice writing on an important subject.

Josh Cohen brings us a real jaw dropper on how the federal government is going to help us comply with new rules governing digital TV. Also check out Josh’s post on a kid who was suspended for speaking Spanish in school.

Don Surber has a new look to his site also gives NRO’s Jonah Goldberg a right smart fisking for some clueless commentary on the MSM. Also check out Don’s post on the latest idiocy from the ACLU.

Once More Into The Breach brings us news of Maryland Democrats clueless ideas on healthcare and taxes. Xyba has chosen well.

The lovely and talented Mensa Barbie shows us some media cluelessness that may have escaped your attention.

Matt Johnston slices and dices Kathleen Parker whose clueless rant against bloggers in Townhall generated not a little bit of anger.

Here are your belly laughs for today. Our growing cadre of excellent Carnival satirists will amuse, enlighten, and cause whatever you happen to be drinking to come up through the nose if you’re not careful.

Buckely F. Williams presents ” Farrakhan Garners “Cat Fancy” Honors, Among Others.”

Mr. Right returns to the Carnival with an informative post if you got one of these creatures for Christmas: “The Proper Care and Feeding of Moonbats.”

Conservathink has a match made in heaven: “Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax to wed in quiet civil ceremony.”

And finally, Peace Moonbeam Chronicles gives us a rundown on her Christmas holidays.

Great satire brought to you by The Carnival’s satirists in residence!

Those prescient pachyderms at Elephants in Academia grace us with this post that ended up being linked by James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” and details the cluelessness of the kid who lied about DHS paying him a visit for taking Mao’s Little Red Book out of the library.

The folks at Different River have two excellent articles. The first is a takedown of Carl Levin and his clueless take on the Constitution. Next, they give us a “pox on all your houses” rant against the law in California banning the sale of violent videos. Good thinking. Great writing.

Cao of Cao’s Blog continues her crusade to bring to light the story of Jack Idema and how he was railroaded into prison by both the US and Afghan governments. This post is the second part of an article about a writer who has been spreading some pretty vicious lies about Idema. The first part is here.

AJ at The Strata-Sphere has an update on the FISA war and the paranoid cluelessness of the left.

Mean ole Meany is at his curmudgeonly best in this post about Americans complaining about rebuilding efforts after Katrina. Meany says “Buy a backbone people.” which is good advice any time.

Kender has a new feature on his site: “Liberal Hypocrites and Idiots.” Sort of like a Carnival of the Clueless but with great big sharp teeth and a bigger brain.

The Maryhunter gives us an update on the cluelessness of the UN in dispensing aid to tsunami victims.

The Paperboy has some work-related cluelessness in his post on “New Year’s Anti-Resolutions.”

Finally, here’s my take on MSNBC’s Craig Crawford and his comparison of President Bush to Jack Bauer of 24 fame.

I still haven’t come down firmly on one side or the other with regard to the legality or the necessity of the NSA intercept program. Chalk it up to a longstanding belief that just because the government is capable of doing something, doesn’t make it right…or even legal.

We still know so little about the program’s nuts and bolts that trying to resolve any legal ramifications is, well, just plain batty. I have great respect for the legal minds at Powerline, but their defense of the President’s power in this matter rests, I believe, on too many assumptions that at this point, are impossible to prove or disprove. They have done a first rate job in framing the Constitutional issues involved but their ultimate defense of the program leaves me a little cold.

In short, I want to see as many of the particulars of how the program operated as possible without revealing methodology and technological secrets that would compromise our security. What criteria was used to target citizens (or non-citizens residing here)? What criteria was used to flag any communications that were intercepted for later examination? And most importantly (something we may never find out) what were the technological impediments to using FISA to get warrants, even retroactively.

Since most of these questions cannot entirely be answered - and others relating to the extent and necessity of the program are still a total mystery - I find it puzzling that so many on the right would simply take the President’s word on this and defend the efficacy of the program without vital information that would either exonerate or condemn the Administration’s actions.

As for the left, their “arguments” can safely be dismissed as the rantings of a bunch of loons. I have yet to see a single, coherent rationale from anyone to the left of Andrew Sullivan as to why this program on its face is illegal. Sullivan is an hysteric and civil libertarian absolutist - but at least he has a rational basis for opposing the very idea of warrantless surveillance.

Others are simply mouthing nonsense. “King George” or “Bush the dictator” and even the ever-hopeful use of the word “impeachment” is, given all that his still hidden from us about the program, jaw-dropping idiocy and worse, partisan claptrap disguised as faux outrage over what may turn out to be something that is totally necessary to the safety and security of the United States.

The President himself sounds confident that he did the right thing - perhaps too confident:

“This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America, and I repeat limited,” Bush said before flying back to Washington after six days cloistered on his ranch in Crawford, Tex. “I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking.

“If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we’d like to know why.”

I’d also like to know why a known al Qaeda operative is calling someone here in the United States. What I question is does the surveillance program then sprout wings and fly to other domestic phone numbers of people who aren’t being called by al Qaeda but instead are simply caught up in the merciless technology used in intercepting terrorist communications? We already have indications that this has happened. And if the New York Times can be believed when innocents were caught up in the intercept program the safeguards put into place actually worked and little harm was done either to the victim’s privacy or the Constitution.

But again, so little is known about how the program worked that this is pure guesswork at this point. And the President has not been especially helpful in alleviating concerns about how extensive this program really is:

I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy’s thinking, and that’s what we’re doing,” Mr. Bush told reporters in San Antonio as he visited wounded soldiers at the Brooke Army Medical Center.

“They attacked us before, they’ll attack us again if they can,” he said. “And we’re going to do everything we can to stop them.”

The President must feel that the legal case made by his lawyers and lawyers at the NSA is either foolproof or ambiguous enough that he would be in no danger of being impeached for domestic spying. The question that will be answered over time will be is the President whistling past the graveyard in this belief or is it grounded in the law and precedent.

The fact that no one knows this makes both defenders and detractors of the President look a little silly. Even this story yesterday about a DOJ underling who balked at reauthorizing the intercept program (and was blogfodder for lefty sites) can easily be dismissed as a bureaucrat who realized that the program would someday be made public and wanted no part in getting involved in the messy details. This is a far cry from a principled stand against tyranny which was the meme coming from lefty sites but you have to admit, it doesn’t sound quite as good.

All in all, the Administration has some explaining to do. The fact that the President seems confident about both the necessity and legality of the program may give comfort to some. But for me, I remain something of a skeptic on the subject.

Notice anything new on this site?

Look to the left. Do you see that button? That is a magic button. If you press it, it will take you to a magic world. It will be a world populated by heroes and villains, damsels in distress and knights in shining armor, evil sorcerers and good wizards.

Well…not really. But it sure made you want to click that button, didn’t it?

In short, by clicking on that button and making a small contribution, you will make it possible to keep this website hosted as well as supplying me with enough coffee to stay awake while getting up at 2:30 AM so that you have something to read with your coffee in the morning.

I might add that it will also allow me to save up so that I can get a redesign of the site and fix the numerous problems with comments, trackbacks, borders, sidebars, color, and links that have cropped up in the less than one year this site has been hosted.

Thanking you in advance for your generosity and support, I remain:

Rick Moran
Proprietor

As we are constantly reminded by liberals themselves, the left in this country is made up of “reality based” citizens, people who are grounded not in faith but in reason and rationality. We are also told that liberals are the smartest, the most compassionate, the fairest, and the sharpest among all of us. In short, liberals are simply “Good” with a great big capital “G.”

Of course, if they are indeed “reality based” we never seem to get an explanation as to why belief in New Age nostrums like the magic properties of pyramids, or talking with animals, or belief in astrology all seem to be part of the cultural hooey propagated by the more enlightened leftists among us. I guess “reality” has its limits even for liberals.

That said, one thing the left has been very good at these past years is mind reading. Also, remote viewing. And have you ever met a liberal that doesn’t exhibit many of the same characteristics of a fortune teller? They themselves think that they have unquestioned psychic ability. But given their track record in political soothsaying as well as divining the future of Iraq, the best one could say is that the jury is still out on that one.

Take your average lefty. The soon-to-be-replaced Armando at Daily Kos will do. Here’s one liberal who has used his extraordinary second sight to condemn the NSA intercept program before any of the details regarding exactly how it works have been made public:

We are not debating “how much power we should cede the White House.” There is no debate. The Constitution provides for that. Last I looked, no one has proposed a constitutional amendment.

On Bush’s illegal domestic warrantless surveillance, no one is debating how to “strike a balance between civil liberties and national security.” That debate is the Patriot Act debates - the previous one in 2002 and the current one raging.

Indeed, there is no real debate about the Bush Administration’s illegal acts. No serious person is adopting or defending the nonsensical views of John Yoo and Dick Cheney that the War on Terror has made Bush King. The defenses are preposterous and everyone who knows a little bit about the subject knows there is no serious debate.

If my stockbroker had this kind of soothsaying ability, I would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

The phrase that really jumps out at those of us who are members of the non-reality based community here is “illegal domestic warrantless surveillance.” The fact that no determination has been made that it is “illegal” (in fact, the Justice Department, lawyers at NSA and the FBI, as well as White House lawyers all concluded the program was legal), or that it targeted solely “domestic” entities (in fact the program targets foreign subjects who communicate with people in this country), or that the entire intercept program was “warrantless” (in fact, no one knows jack crap about this aspect of the program), and that it was a “surveillance” program (no one knows jack crapola about the technical details so that saying it was a surveillance program is just plain guessing) - all this can mean only one thing; Armando should get in immediate contact with the James Randi Educational Foundation and agree to submit himself to scientific testing regarding his psychic abilities. The Foundation will give:

a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.

By my own calculations, Armando has shown evidence of having psychic ability, remote viewing acumen, attributes of a soothsayer, and perhaps even a knack for palm reading. These powers may not be unusual among liberals which is why Armando isn’t bragging about them. But for the rest of us mere mortals, it’s like, you know, magic!

Maybe Armando will give me the name of a good liberal stockbroker. I could use some help after all that dough I invested in Air America….

With last week’s Division clinching victory against the hated Packers, the Bears will be forgiven if they slack off a bit this week in their game against the Vikings at the Humpdome. Relieved of the prospect of playing in the frigid confines of Soldiers Field, the Bears will be thinking they never had it so good and relax just enough to allow the Vikings to make a real game of it.

Of course, other factors come into play for this last regular season game for both clubs. The Vikings are out of the playoffs and the future of their quirky coach Mike Tice is up in the air. In fact, the Vikes could be looking at a wholesale changes next year as this group of miscreants and malcontents has worn very thin on the Viking faithful. From Tice’s Super Bowl ticket hawking to sex parties aboard a private yacht, the current group of players and coaches could find themselves enjoying much different climes come next year.

That doesn’t solve the Vikes problem of building a winning team. It’s generally believed that there are perhaps only two or three decent candidates for head coaching positions (the Bear’s defensive coordinator Ron Rivera being one of them) and given that there will be other, more glamorous venues looking for a new coach, it is doubtful that the Vikes will be able to lasso a good defensive or offensive coordinator or a “name” head coach in the off season.

As for the rest, they obviously have to build an offense around Daunte Culpepper who misses Randy Moss terribly but whose undeniable talent could be complimented by the right supporting cast. And while they have some holes on defense - a good cover corner and an impact player on the D-Line come to mind - their offense is still one of the best in the NFC. In fact, looking at the team at the start of the year, one wonders why they failed to make the playoffs. Distractions may have played a part in the early going which only goes to show the importance of having a head coach with the character to be able to bring the team together during adversity. Tice did that in the second half but one could question his overall leadership in contributing to the controversies in the first place.

As for my beloveds, they are a bruised and battered bunch. No less than 8 Bears are listed as “Questionable” for the game as of Friday with another 5 players “Probable.” Given that Chicago has a first round bye in the playoffs, it would not surprise anyone if coach Lovie Smith rested most of those injured including Pro-Bowl center Olin Kruetz (ankle), Pro-Bowl MLB Urlacher (the Flu), RB Thomas Jones (hip), and WR Mushin Muhommed (calf). The holding out of Kruetz would indicate that quarterback Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman would probably only play a few series, perhaps one half of the game only. No sense in exposing Wonder Dog to the ravages of the Minnesota pass rush and risk an injury.

That said, it would be nice if Rex could get a few reps with his starting receivers under game conditions so that the offense will have a chance to excel come playoff time. Since their first round opponent could very well be either the Redskins or Carolina, Grossman will need to be pinpoint in his accuracy against both of those opportunistic defensive backfields. In the playoffs, mistakes must be kept to an absolute minimum and having Wonder Dog throwing the ball to opposing D-Backs instead of his receivers who cut the wrong way or who stopped when they should have kept running would spell disaster.

I fully expect a Bear’s loss today although their defense is so deep and talented it should be a very low scoring affair. And perhaps the defense can score some points which would offset any offensive futility generated by rookie Orton who is expected to get most of the playing time. How the Vikings will play under the circumstances surrounding the team is open to question. They could come out and play for pride or they could fold up shop and head for the golf course.

Prediction: Vikes - 17 Bears - 13

In diplomacy, this is called “sending a message.” Or, if you are President of a country that is seeking to build nuclear weapons, it is called “The Voice of Doom:”

According to Ulfkotte’s report, “western security sources” claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss’ Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington’s military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a “possible option,” but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

(HT: Ed Morrissey)

Gee…I wonder how Der Spiegel got a hold of that little tidbit of information? So does Misha:

So it all comes down to a leak (intentional, no doubt) to Der Spiegel which is high on innuendo and low on actual useful facts. Yep, it’s a plant alright.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we aren’t planning an attack, since it should be pretty damn obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that negotiations aren’t working one little bit and time is running out — FAST. If we don’t, the Israelis will do it alone, because they have no choice.

In his book The White House Years, Henry Kissinger relates several anecdotes about how this leaking occurs. The subtlty varies from case to case, but it basically comes down to a little game that’s played by the US government and the media. The media knows the story is a plant but plays along because the news is just too juicy to pass up. It is also not uncommon to use foreign media to break the story. In Nixon’s case, I’m sure the enmity of the American press towards his administration had something to do with that. But it also reflects a need on the part of government to get the story maximum impact. If the Iran story had appeared first in the American press, it would have been interpreted through the prism of partisan politics and media bias. This way, the “first draft” of the story comes out raw so that the impact on the target nation - Iran - isn’t cushioned by the Washington Post or New York Times running stories with opposing viewpoints from Democratic party politicians.

This leak is not very subtle in its implications. The reason for that is simple; the United States government feels it absolutely vital that Iran get the message clearly and unmistakably. Also, it is hard to match the subtley of Ahmadinejad whose diplomatic tip toeing resembles an elephant walking across a field of eggshells. Saying you will “wipe Israel off the map” is not very subtle and hence, the response “we will bomb the crap out of you” is entirely appropriate.

The question is, are we serious about attacking Iran? And what will be Iran’s response both to the threats and any actual attack?

The answer is we are dead serious about bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure even at the risk of starting a general war in the Middle East and an Arab oil boycott. Any sustained bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities - and estimates range from 10 days to 2 weeks with hundreds of sorties - will roil the “Arab street” and force even moderates like King Abdullah II of Jordan into opposition. Then there’s that other King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who would be committing suicide if he didn’t condemn any American military action against Iran. Where Saudi Arabia goes, so goes most of the other Gulf states. Even Kuwait would be hard pressed to say anything nice about us if we attacked Iran.

What all this adds up to is trouble in the form of a potential oil boycott by many producing states - not just in the Middle East - against the United States. I daresay that President Goatface (Hugo Chavez of Venezuala) would be in full throated anti-American howl and would join any effort by Arab states to choke off the flow of oil to the US. And has anyone been listening to what Mexico’s President Fox has been saying lately about the US government’s idea to build a fence along the border to try and control immigration? Mexico may exact a heavy price for continuing to supply us with oil in the event of a boycott by OPEC.

The short of it is that the countries that supply the United States with most of its imported (and refined) oil would probably participate in a boycott which would be absolutely catostrophic for the US economy. This is the reason for the leak at this time. While Ahmadinejad will bluster like a schooyard bully, he knows full well that while we probably wouldn’t be able to destroy his nuclear program completely, we could set it back several years. This is a prospect that Ahmadinejad and his master, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, would find worrying. They are counting on an atomic bomb the same way that President Musharraf counted on the Pakistani device; as a domestic political ploy to generate patriotic pride and boost the popularity of the government. In Musharraf’s case, it worked pretty well. What worked even better was American assistance following 9/11 in tamping down fanatical jihadists who seek to make Pakistan another Islamic “republic.”

Iran will have no such assistance in dealing with its restless minorites nor the growing opposition of secularlists who chafe at the restrictions imposed by the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard enforcers. For this reason, they see the bomb as a domestic unifying factor that would ease pressure on the government to reform. And of course, they see the bomb primarily as a guarantor of the Islamic state. The US will not invade if there is the prospect that their invasion force would be incinerated.

Could an attack on Iran by American forces precipitate a general Middle East war? During Gulf War I, Saddam launched missles at Israel to try and provoke the Jewish state into becoming involved in the fighting which would have destroyed the fragile coalition built by Bush #41 as Arab armies would melt away less they be tainted by being seen as fighting on Israel’s side against Saddam.

The problem with Israel sitting on the sidelines during an American attack would be different but could cause just as many headaches for Washington. Syria (or their proxies in Lebanon) could launch a massive series of attacks against the Jewish state that could provoke Tel Aviv into responding directly against Damascus. The resulting shockwave of Syrian and Israeli forces exchanging blows would be felt all the way to Bahgdad. Hatred of Israel would unite the Arab world and could precipitate a situation that would even cause Egypt’s Mubarak to re-evaluate his relationship with Israel.

In short, all bets would be off and things could get very bloody very quickly. And don’t expect Israel to wait around to see if any of their potential foes would attack. The IDF would strike first and strike very hard. All things considered, an American attack on Iran would create a tinderbox situation in the Middle East where one wrong move, one miscalculation by any of the major players would result in a million men going off to war.

Some analysts have put the likelihood of a general war in the Middle East as a result of an American attack as a 50-50 proposition.

And if, as some military strategests have speculated, Special Forces troops would be necessary to complete the destruction of some of these sites, the question would arise from where would they take off? It is generally assumed that the US would use long range bombers based in the states for most of the sorties against Iranian nuclear facilities (it is unlikely that the Navy would send a carrier battle group into the Gulf what with the Iranians armed with sophisticated anti-ship missiles supplied by France and China.) But Special Ops would need to be based closer to the target which would probably mean that they would take off from Iraq.

Would the newly minted Iraqi government defy the will of its own people not to mention risk the wrath of the Iranians by allowing the US military overflight permission or okay the basing of Special Forces on the Iranian border?

I hope you can see now why this leak of our military plans is so important. The Iranians are counting on their friends Russia and China in the United Nations to veto any sanctions regime the US and its European allies can come up with to force Ahmadinejad to give up his nuclear ambitions. Therefore, it becomes imperative for the Iranians to be assured that our military response will be initiated even without the consent of the United Nations Security Council. Despite all the terrible ramifications to the United States of an attack on Iran - ramifications the Iranians know as well as we do - the mad mullahs must be convinced that we will attack regardless of the consequences to our economy or our allies.

Will it work? It may buy us a little time. But the nuclear clock is ticking and unless the Iranians back down, it appears that the Middle East could endure a savage spring and summer that will test the resolve of the United States in the War on Terror as never before.