As a conservative, I’m used to the left mis-representing and even being deliberately misleading about the principals and beliefs most of us on the right hold. Hence, we’re tarred with the epithet “racist” because we disagree with the special pleaders in the civil rights lobby who advocate quotas and other “remedies” that are at odds with the very idea of equality. For the sin of disagreeing with the racialists on public policy matters, we’re called Kluxers and worse.
And let’s not forget the casual use of the terms “Nazi” and “fascist” to describe any number of imagined transgressions by conservatives against the liberal credo, despite the fact it is laughingly apparent that those who use those pejoratives wouldn’t know a Nazi if Hitler himself came up and kissed them full on the mouth. (I suppose now I will be branded a homophobe because I wouldn’t relish the idea).
That said, I was interested to read Glenn Greenwald’s latest effort to “explain” conservatism to the rest of us. Not that Mr. Greenwald ever has much original thinking in his diatribes. As Alexandra von Maltzan pointed out yesterday, Greenwald’s writing is little more than a tired echo of what conservatives can read on a daily basis at Kos or any other lock-step lefty blog where Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns supreme and, if you can believe their breathless rhetoric, the republic itself will fall by sometime tomorrow. Or is it next Thursday? Hard to keep track…
But what made this overly long and repetitive piece by Greenwald so fascinating was an almost slavish devotion to superficiality. Now, in defense of Greenwald, he makes an excellent point about blogging that should be a lesson to us all:
One of the principal benefits of the blogosphere—with its daily posting and unedited expressions of thought—is that it reveals one’s genuine underlying views in a much more honest and unadorned fashion than other venues of expression. For that reason, the true sentiments of bloggers often stand revealed for all to see.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wanted to take back things I wrote in the heat of passion or that didn’t quite come out the way I intended. But blogging means feeding the beast. And the monster that resides on this website rarely allows for the kind of reflection that I give articles that appear at The American Thinker or other places.
But Greenwald’s piece would not, could not benefit from any kind of reflection or self-criticism due to it shallowness of thought and lazy logic. Perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Greenwald had consigned this piece to the dustbin of blog history and not hit the “publish” button at all.
There is so much jaw-dropping idiocy in this screed that while I was reading it my mandible hit the floor and began to dig. There is no way I could cover all of it so allow me to take some “highlights” and illustrate my thesis: that Greenwald’s critique of Bush supporters is so depthless, it’s in danger of sliding off the monitor and disappearing into the ether:
Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal”—or, for that matter, a “conservative”—is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.
Greenwald then goes on to cite the cases of Andrew Sullivan, Bob Barr, and Senator Voinovich who have come under heavy fire from conservatives for “straying.” The only trouble is, the people who want to kick these folks out of the Conservative Book Club and take away their memberships to Augusta National have about as much sway in the movement as Greenwald himself.
Brent Bozell (who fills the same role for conservatives that David Brock’s Media Matters does for liberals) comes in for special criticism for coming down on Andrew Sullivan’s supposed lack of conservatism. Andrew may be an hysteric about some things, but he’s certainly an independent cuss and is no one’s lap dog. Bozell’s criticism of Sullivan had much to do with Andrew’s apostasy in supporting John Kerry in “04 – something many conservatives who are as angry at George Bush as Andrew is will not forgive him for.
It is very hard for Mr. Sullivan to claim common cause with conservatives when he proclaims his support for someone who by any yardstick was considered one of the top three liberals in the United States Senate. Nevertheless, most criticism of Andrew that I’ve seen has been his comparing the stress techniques used against terrorists with the worst kinds of torture used by Hitler and Stalin. Andrew has been brave and correct in taking the US military and the Bush Administration to task for any number of transgressions against human rights committed against the detainees in our custody. But his hysterical denunciations of the mildest kinds of interrogation techniques were over the top and uncalled for.
Is Andrew Sullivan a conservative? As far as I’m concerned, he can define himself any way he chooses and we are free to agree or disagree. I look upon Andrew as our crazy conservative uncle whose rants show an independence of thought that is vital to any ideological movement. He will continue to be flayed by those whose shallowness matches Mr. Greenwald’s in seeing his disagreements with the Administration as something akin to treason. But for Greenwald to posit the notion that Sullivan is no longer considered a conservative because of gadflies like Bozell is loony.
Barr and Voinovich? To equate criticism for some positions taken by either of those two worthies with the desire to drum them out of the conservative ranks reveals more about liberals than it does conservatives. As “proof” that Barr is about to lose his Haliburton board membership. Greenwald links to a story where one man – ONE MAN - criticizes Barr for his damning the Bush Administration over the NSA intercept program.
But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. “I can’t believe I’m in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States,” Sorcinelli fumed.
Bob Barr is about to handed his walking papers by…by…Richard Sorcinelli?
This isn’t shallow nor is it even disingenuous. It is a lie. Or out and out stupidity. Not even a high school essayist would dare take one example of something and then make a sweeping statement of fact using that example as its sole means of support.
More surface critiquing by Greenwald:
People who self-identify as “conservatives” and have always been considered to be conservatives become liberal heathens the moment they dissent, even on the most non-ideological grounds, from a Bush decree. That’s because “conservatism” is now a term used to describe personal loyalty to the leader (just as “liberal” is used to describe disloyalty to that leader), and no longer refers to a set of beliefs about government
Greenwald offers nothing except the cage rattling of Bozell and that well known and influential conservative leader….(um, whassis name? Oh! Yeah…Richard Sorcinelli) as proof for the entire thesis of his article.
His critique of Bush’s conservatism is a little better. He correctly points out that Bush is a big spender (Welcome to the club, Glenn. Conservatives too numerous to mention have been saying that for 4 years). Beyond that, he seems to think that conservatives are not questioning Bush on his use of the power of the federal government.
I realize that when writing such long, interesting (?) pieces it is difficult to read much of anything else. But the fascinating thing about conservatism these days is in the vigorous debate that has gone on between Constitutional absolutists and war mongers; between those who advocate the forging of a true conservative governing class and those who want conservatism to remain at arms length from government. And the reason these and other vital debates are taking place between conservatives is because liberals refuse to engage at any level on any serious issues. It’s hate Bush all day, all the time, and may the devil take the rest.
Greenwald’s transference of his Bush hatred to Bush supporters is par for the course. Here’s another head shaker:
The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary “conservative” is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.
What planet is this guy from? Without one iota of proof, Greenwald tars Bush supporters with the blanket statement that there are “no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us…” So silly. So shallow. Unsupported by any facts or even a whiff of fact. But it does seem to prove Alexandra’s main point against Greenwald; that there is no difference between Mr. Greenwald and the Koskids, DU’ers or any other lefty site where Bush is blamed for everything from Tsunamis to mine disasters.
But then, Greenwald always has hyperbole and contradiction to fall back on:
And as excessive as the Bush Administration’s measures have been thus far—they overtly advocate the right to use war powers against American citizens on American soil even if Congress bans such measures by law—I am quite certain that people like John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Jeff Goldstein, to name just a few, are prepared to support far, far more extreme measures than the ones which have been revealed thus far. And while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah (ed: didn’t you just now say it?), I believe quite firmly that there are no limits – none – that Hinderaker (or Malkin or Hewitt) would have in enthusiastically supporting George Bush no matter how extreme were the measures which he pursued.
Um…’kay. In the world that sane, rational people inhabit, one would expect just one, tiny shred of proof that the statement above is anything but the wild eyed rant of a maniacal Bush hater. And to say in one sentence that people like Hinderaker, Goldberg, and Goldstein are “prepared to support far, far more extreme measures” than any we’ve seen only to say in the very next sentence “while I would not say this for Jeff or perhaps of Jonah…” is a laughable example of the one side of Greenwald’s brain not knowing what the other is saying. At the very least, it shows slopping thinking.
Greenwald goes on to say that because Michelle Malkin wrote a book in defense of the internment of Japanese during World War II that she (and Hinderaker and Hewitt) would gladly start the round up of Muslims and march them off to camps today if given half a chance. Perhaps if Greenwald had offered one – just one example where any of those bloggers had advocated such a position, his rant would at least start a discussion. But he doesn’t so it’s impossible. It’s just more red meat for the denizens of the fever swamps who keep predicting the end of the republic but are continuously frustrated by the resilience of the old girl to the machinations of both liberal loonies like Greenwald as well as cuckoo conservatives.
I apologize for the length of this post. I could go on but I’m sure I’ve already lost most of you. The point of this is to show that liberals like Greenwald will always refuse to engage conservatives on any meaningful level because in the end, their arguments are so shallow that to get beyond the Bush Derangement Syndrome is impossible. I can’t think of a serious conservative who has not had major disagreements with Bush about a host of issues. Yes there are fawning acolytes. But there are far more serious conservatives who support the President generally but oppose him vehemently on issues ranging from the way the war has been prosecuted, to our policy on detainees, to our on again-off again liberation policy in the Middle East, to the power wielded by some social conservatives, to even some aspects of domestic security. If Greenwald would read something besides the “me too” screeds on Kos and Atrios, he might even educate himself about why conservatives keep winning elections.
UPDATE 2/13
Greenwald responds to his critics here. He takes me to task specifically for pooh-poohing the idea that Andrew Sullivan has had his Conservative Mastercard yanked by his many and vociferous critics.
With a perfect sense of timing (akin to my bitching about the boss as he walks into the room behind me), Sullivan makes Greenwald’s quote about him his “Quote of the Day” saying that the piece is “diagnosing the current situation accurately.”
No one likes to be criticized. And both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Greenwald should know by now that the majority of people who read what we write are fierce partisans who see the political internet as a battlefield – take no prisoners and attack relentlessly. But I think Mr. Sullivan is being overly sensitive for this reason: The overwhelming number of conservative bloggers who read what he writes still consider him a man of the right. One would hardly call Gregory Djerejian, someone who has absolutely skewered the Administration over prosecution of the Iraq War, a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor would too many people call John Cole a liberal for his sharp attacks on the Administration over torture.
I believe the point I made is valid; that conservative “apostates” may be criticized and called all sorts of names. But no one is seriously suggesting that they’ve changed their stripes and defected to the left. Those that do – a very small subset of loudmouthed yawpers – cannot and should not be confused with the vast majority of conservatives whose minds function above a 5th grade level.
Read the rest of Mr. Greenwald’s reply where he fleshes out a few of his thoughts from his original post that I still believe was an exercise in superficial and shallow thinking.
.
6:07 pm
You know Rick, I often had the same problem as you. Which is why I must warn you of the consequences if the Left should ever win. Look what they did to MY reputation!
6:09 pm
Oh Adolf, don’t you know it. The Liberals hung me by my feet in the town square and left me to hang there for hours. Not the kind of photo-op I was looking for, that’s for sure!
6:41 pm
“But the fascinating thing about conservatism these days is in the vigorous debate that has gone on between Constitutional absolutists and war mongers; between those who advocate the forging of a true conservative governing class and those who want conservatism to remain at arms length from government.”
Ironic, that with just this one sentence, rather than discrediting the substance of glenn’s argument, you prove his point entirely. As he said earlier, regarding the notion of this ‘debate’ between different ‘types’ of conservatives:
“What does it even mean to say that Bush is ‘transforming the conservative movement from its small-government orientation to a more activist approach.’ What is left of ‘the conservative movement’ if one guts from it its ‘small-government orientation’? Isn’t that somewhat like transforming the peace movement away from its opposition to war or the environmental movement away from its opposition to pollution?”
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html
Also, your discussion of Sullivan (again) proves glenn’s point for him—yeah, obviously people are free to self-identify themselves as ‘conservative’; but despite the fact that by any objective measure, sully is a conservative through and through, almost every other ‘conservative’ (you know, those new ‘save us big daddy government, costs be dammned!’ conservatives that have arisen from the oh so important ‘debate’ that is going on these days) that is ‘free to agree or disagree’ is shouting him out of the movement, simply because he actually adheres to conservative ideology rooted in something other than ‘dubya told us it was for national security, what more do you need!?’.
You tell me, which is more superficial: assuming that limited government authority and fiscal responsibility are ideological souls of conservatism? Or, responding to page upon page of reasoned, nuanced analysis by ignoring the actual argumentation, instead choosing to highlight a couple of tertiary extrapolations from said analysis? Just wondering.
6:42 pm
#s 1 and 2, very cute, and in fact spot on in proving Rick’s very point.
As for Greenwald, yet another shining example of left wing projection … lock stepping, indeed.
6:52 pm
I love how you criticize the post for being too long and then criticize it for not including enough examples.
I also love how you criticize it for not having enough examples and then ignore most of the examples Greenwald gives.
The article about Barr makes clear that the whole room hated Barr for criticizing Bush, not just one imbecile.
And if you’re not familiar with the way in which even life-long conservative Senators are no longer conservative when they jump out of line, it’s only because you don’t read the papers. Should he have included every instance of that in his single post?
And Michelle Malkin already advocates internment camps. It’s hardly “baseless” to think she would advocate new ones.
And you need to learn to read. Greenwald said that Goldstein and Goldberg would likely support far more extreme measures than the ones already revealed, but that they would likely NOT be without limits at all as to the powers they’d be willing to give Bush (unlike Malkina and Hinderaker). You mock that statement as some sort of contradiction. Do you really not understand the difference between advocating further powers but not advocating absolute powers? Apparently not.
And they just had a conservative event and the whole place erupted in cheers when Ann Coulter urged violence on ragheads and called for the deaths of liberal supreme court justices and bill clinton. Is that conservative to you or a cult?
And he said it’s not just the excess spending but the total lack of distrust in the federal government, as shown by the huge powers they want to put in Bush – FISA, torture, renderings, Guantanomo, etc. Where is the distrust of Government?
And Bush wants gov’t in every aspect of our lives – Schiavo, gay marriage. Everything is federalized, nothing left to the states. This is all in his post; you ignored it.
Ultimately, you’re just oversensitive. He didn’t say all people who support Bush are slaves and cult members. Many are. You acknowledge that yourself in your own post.
7:03 pm
And one other thing – in his update, he provides an example of conservatives who HATED FISA under Clinton and thought that eavesdropping on Americans, even with judicial oversight, was a dangerous threat to freedom.
Now, under Bush, conservatives not only love eavesdropping, but think that it’s fine that Bush is eavesdropping with no judicial oversight.
To recap:
Conservatives under Clinton – “eavesdropping with judicial oversight = fascism”
Conservatives under Bush – “eavesdropping with no judicial oversight = OK”
if you’re going to argue Greenwald’s point, you should argue the points, instead if pretending he had none.
7:12 pm
Even funnier – looks like Andrew Sullivan agrees with Greenwald, since he took the paragraphs you quoted and called it the “Quote of the Day,” saying Greenwald “diagnosed the situation accurately”:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/quote_for_the_d_20.html
This is pretty good evidence that more than just Brent Bozell has called Sullivan a “liberal” for failing to lick George Bush’s ass enough.
8:55 pm
Greenwald had a point on the Sullivan thing, I thought. But his comments about Mrs M were hilarious. When he claimed that he figured she’d support concentration camps for Arabs; and wondered had anybody ever asked her, I just about fell out of my chair laughing. Considering that Mohammed Atta was on the cover of the freaking book, it’s a rather obvious question (and the answer was that no, she didn’t support rounding up the Arabs in America). And in fact her book was not a defense of internment per se, so much as it was a defense of internment against the charge that it was solely based on racism against Japanese-Americans.
The projection was too hilarious; suddenly we’re the people with irrational hatred? Back during the Clinton years, maybe, but nowadays it’s the wackadoodle left who’s foaming at the mouth.
You’re right, Greenwald is superficial in the extreme here. It’s a shame because I thought he had some game to him.
9:05 pm
And the reason these and other vital debates are taking place between conservatives is because liberals refuse to engage at any level on any serious issues. It’s hate Bush all day, all the time, and may the devil take the rest.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And this in a post that goes on and on about superficiality? Geez.
9:16 pm
First – I consulted Sigmund and he diagnosed Greenwald with an acute case of John Hinderaker envy. He suspects it may have something to do with being on the losing side of all those “major constitutional cases he worked on.â€
Second—Ann Coulter, while smart, is not someone I think 99.9999% of conservatives would choose as their lodestar – as I am sure reasonable democrats would not choose to lionize Ted Kennedy (at least I am hoping).
Third—As for your fallacious FISA complaint/argument, one small difference: war. While you were buying your overpriced yahoo during the new economy stupid and gutting the intelligence community, the evildoers (I want to make sure you know I am a Bush drone) metastasized. Then comes 9/11: it changed things you know? Well for most of us at least. You’ll recall that it was the Democratic leadership in bygone days that managed those roundups and for that matter, heaven forbid – we are all Semites correct – censorship.
Fourth – Considering your obvious devotion to free speech and cataclysmic fear of censorship, why not spew some of your venom at the liberal O&O (owned and operated) CNN for lacking the gravitas to exercise the hard earned, but inalienable, right.
Fifth – As for gay marriage and schiavo, you obviously missed the whole Supreme Court debate about legislating from the bench (you were probably posting some worthless BDS tripe on Kos). You are not for States rights, you are for imposing your warped moral compass on the rest of us as surreptitiously as possible. You got away with it for more than 25 years using the courts – but frustrated by the revolt of common sense, you pine for a third way. Horse is out of the barn, though.
Sixth – To point out just one of the many vigorous conversations/debates playing out this side of the aisle check out the WSJ article detailing the foreign policy schism ongoing.
Seventh – [exhale!] I am at ease knowing that Glenn, along with the NYT, has decided that there has been no harm to national security by the NSA leaks. Hmm? Unless he is a secret agent masquerading as a leftist shill the I trust Porter Goss. Tough one!
“These demands are made despite the lack of any harm to our national security. They are motivated by one fact and one fact only – whoever disclosed the illegal NSA program harmed George Bush. And for that crime, no punishment is excessiveâ€
After reading his post, I am inclined to agree with his assertion that conservatism (republican is a better tent) has changed. I suspect an ulterior motive: ideological mugging. Not only is Glenn at a loss to define his own movement, but he is also an expert on what we are not. So if by deduction they are for big spending and big brother, he muses, they are for our script right. Yes, Glenn, that’s it. You just need better salespeople. Yes, that’s it. Sad bunch.
What if I am not a republican/conservative in your definitional sense of the word. So what? Despite the no ideological lane changing creed on the left, it is ok over here.
If it is spirited debate you want, arm yourself with an idea. Otherwise, take your rants elsewhere.
10:01 pm
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
10:12 pm
Rick,
Great post. Guys like Greenwald are definitely suffering from BDS coupled with a bit of blogger envy. “Who are these upstart (spit) bloggers (spit) and why does anybody pay attention to them?”
Republican=Conservative=Lockstep. Most definitely. Just look at the Harriett Miers example, or better yet the debate on immigration. No dissent is brooked, don’cha know?
10:14 pm
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Ann Coulter, who regularly calls for the deaths of people – including public officials that would get the rest of us a visit from the FBI - is compared with Ted Kennedy. This is what the right calls balance?
And S, what exactly has been your stance concerning the outing of Valerie Plame? Did that harm national security?
11:38 pm
Yes, the lefties should look at some conservative blogs and see the depth of oppositon to Harriet Meiers and the continued open borders/mass amnesty policy of the President. This doesn’t mean we don’t support the president on his Supreme Court appointments of Roberts and Alito, the war on terror, and taxes among other things.
Now how about the lefties showing us some dissent from Kerry, et. al. and some deviations from the Democrat talking points on every issue.
1:20 am
I have to take issue with the characterization of those who have problems with Andrew Sullivan.
I think that many readers, like myself, just got tired of filtering out all the “gay-marriage” crap. When the crap-to-interesting ratio exceeded 50%, many fled as their time is much more valuable, and better spent elsewhere.
6:58 am
The thing is, even if those of us who consider ourselves modern conservatives disagree on specific policy decisions made by the Bush Administration, our general support for Bush’s leadership position negates our standing in the eyes of the “loud left.”
The thing you don’t see is anyone on the “loud left” who approach any of Bush’s policies with intellectual honesty in the sense that they might agree with the goal of an initiative but fairly debate its tactics. Thus, even self-described moderates who support Bush because they prioritize what they like about his foreign policy despite their hesitation on his social policies are attacked by the “loud left.” (See Vodkapundit as one example).
In order for the Democratic Party to regain majority leadership, their primary skill must be the ability express their vision convincingly, the power to persuade others to accept their vision. I would like to know who is going to be designated leader for the Democrats as their head persuader. Currently they have lots of persuaders, but the problem is they are persuading everyone to leave the Party.
8:54 am
Dull Blade
The mere fact that you equate VP with the NSA outing shows your ignorance.
10:37 am
[...] According to Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse, for instance, my “writing is little more than a tired echo of what conservatives can read on a daily basis at Kos or any other lock-step lefty blog where Bush Derangement Syndrome reigns supreme.” And at Little Green Footballs (more on it below), my post won the award for “Leftist Lie of the Day” and was held up as an example of “dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist ‘debate’ in this modern age.” [...]
1:16 pm
“And the reason these and other vital debates are taking place between conservatives is because liberals refuse to engage at any level on any serious issues. It’s hate Bush all day, all the time, and may the devil take the rest.”
Really? I had not noticed any debate on the conservative side – I do, however hear an awful lot of name-calling and accusation of treason should liberals even have the audacity to give their opinions.
And, honestly, I would like to take a day off from Bush-hating. I really would. But damned if every day he and his adminstration don’t give me yet another reason. Today’s?
Tom Delay being given a seat on Appropriations Commitee that will be investigating the Jack Abramoff “scandal”
Now, really, how can you stomach that? Not as a republican or democrat, but as an American? As a critically thinking human being? Can you see justice being done?
1:29 pm
Thanks, S. You’ve answered my question perfectly. Translation: Outing covert counter-proliferatin agents for political purposes is nowhere near as bad as outing presidential outlawry that undermines the very civil liberties that the terrorists supposedly hate us for.
Pathetic.
2:02 pm
Razor blade
Nobody disputes VP past contribution to our national defense – it is honorable. And I am in no way defending outing CIA agents. Remember though, VP was outed long ago (rumored by AA; note her stateside post) and she encouraged the demasking with her sloppy and partison behavior concerning her truly pathetic husband (if you need to jog your memory I suggest a read of the Senate Report). So I presume you are not opposed to forcing reporters to testify in the SL trial about their knowledge of VP profession predating SL? It is the truth you are after correct?
Neither of us have the facts about the front company in question or improtance of her work to national security and we can rest assured the CIA leak campaign chiefs will keep it classified to keep things delibritly opaque. I am all for getting to the bottom of the who knew what and when questions. If the law was violated put them in jail – Sl will have his day in court. Let’s do the same in the NSA case. No partison justice here.
As for NSA - only a fierce partison could concieve that outing VP is the equivilant of outing the NSA program. NSA is akin to revealing that we were tsapping the Russian cables in thre Barents sea during the cold war.
2:28 pm
S,
Your thinking in your last line is a particularly good example of Glenn’s original point in the blog post that started this conversation.
“As for NSA - only a fierce partison could concieve that outing VP is the equivilant of outing the NSA program. NSA is akin to revealing that we were tsapping the Russian cables in thre Barents sea during the cold war.”
Care to back this up.
To me it looks like slavish devotion to the party line and demonization of dissent. Because, when I think of the Barents sea situation, I think that we were competing against a foreign intellegence agency funded by billions of dollars and armed with thousands of nuclear missiles, one that had already penetrated our intelligence services. I think that our tapping of the cables was something that could never have been found out by any other method- something truly unknown, a penetration of a high-technology defense presumed perfect. Most of all, it was a completely legal surveillance act against an unquestionably and uniquely foreign agent.
Whereas, in this example, we were already wiretapping phones without Bush’s program. That’s what FISA was for. And Al-Quieda already knew we were wiretapping them. Al-Quieda has been avoiding electronic communications to the greatest extent possible since the late 1990’s, and this is also commonly known. Al-Quieda training manuals from the late 90’s teach Al-Quieda members to assume that their phone lines are being tapped. The only thing that the NYTimes outing revealed was that GWB was using a publicly known technique in an illegal manner.
New information revealed to Al-Quieda: virtually 0.
And yet, the conservative armada gladly glosses completely over this elementary, obvious logical assessment and screams for prosecution. It’s completely political. It’s completely revenge for exposing Bush’s illegal behavior. Honest natural security never enters the picture.
Come on, S, or anyone else. Man up to this fight. Why don’t you detail exactly what new information Al-Quieda gained from this that they didn’t already know. Why don’t you back up your comparison to the Barents tapping, even for a moment.
Bring it on.
6:34 pm
“The only thing that the NYTimes outing revealed was that GWB was using a publicly known technique in an illegal manner.”
You (or I) are in no position to make a judgement about how valuable the NSA wiretapping information was to AQ - we have no official standing in this matter, and opinions of those who break security about its consequences are no more relevant than the opinion of a bank robber on whether the bank can cover the losses.
The point about AQ being a non-professional adversary could be just as well argue that they would be less careful, and in addition, that exposure of the danger of being overheard made in the western media could have a far wider and more compelling impact than any manual.
As to the “lockstep” nature of Conservatism, my personal experience is that my relatively Liberal attitudes on social issues are much more tolerated by Conservatives than my relatively Conservative attitudes on National Security are tolerated by Liberals. Can you seriously compare the tenor of the major blogs of the Left and Right, and not conclude that there is much more diversity (not to mention respect for it) on the Right side. People who say that abject deference to Bush is required are misinformed – I would not be here were it so.
7:19 pm
Glasnost
Not sure of your logic here. How you get from the said quote to supporting GG thesis about conservatives escapes me. The statement was a comparison between VP and NSA? Neither of us have all the facts so it is impossible to make explicit arguments. However, stitching together the mosaic surrounding VP including what we now know of her husband and how he came to be the “envoy” seems pale in comparison to the highly secret and complex programs operated at NSA (as it relates to outing). Nobody is demonizing dissent; you are entitled to your opinion. So support it. You offer nothing in the way of an argument as to why VP is more dire than the NSA leaks. From all we know, I can understand why.
I don’t disagree that since we tracked UBL with a sat phone, the network has gone to ground. Notwithstanding the tribal areas, the global transnational movement still has to communicate and in most instances mules will not due. I concede AQ is likley aware that we are watching in a nebulious sense, but announcing our methods is tantamount to aiding and abetting. People/terrorists in a global jihad movement are as careless as anybody and thanks to the NYT and the continuing fallout, they continue to get gentle reminders on how to evade our defense.
As for backing it up, I am only relying on the accounts of people in the know: Porter Goss and General Haden. I know, I know: they are partison hacks and lying. TBD, but until then, let’s deal in reality.
As for the twisted logic about symetrical foes per the barents sea, I am miffed? Our enemy doesn’t subscribe to MAD and they thrive on assymetry.
Now, you say…
“The only thing that the NYTimes outing revealed was that GWB was using a publicly known technique in an illegal manner.”
Read this following article by your Clinton era man:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
And you continue…
“New information revealed to Al-Quieda: virtually 0”
Are you one of the leakers or are you just channeling?
Lastly, on FISA, there are compleling arguments on both sides of the fence. I am not equipped to make constituional arguments about Presidential power; I’ll leave that to GW and JH. What I can deduce is that most in Congress don’t seem to be as hysterical about the methods as the left. In fact it looks like most see the programs as useful – so figure out middle ground and move on before real damage is done.
11:55 am
My point was that your analogy relating the NYT leak to revealing the tapping of russian fiber-optic cables underneath the Barents Sea at the height of the cold war was logically unsound. My further point was that your blind acceptance of Porter Goss’ opinion on this matter is an example of conservative lockstep.
I don’t believe anything Porter Goss says. I’ve read any number of articles making it very obvious that he was a 70’s CIA renegade, then a partisan hack in the House of Representatives, then appointed to gut the CIA in favor of thinking in lockstep with anything Dick Cheney suggests. Quite frankly, I accuse him of being appointed to the position not to produce sound intelligence, but to enforce the White House’s political prefernces on intel analysis. Period.
I haven’t heard any credible independent intel who are not Bush-appointed agency heads claim that this leak has damaged national security in any way. If you came up with one, I would give him a fair hearing. But I’d still use my own brain to judge, “what, exactly, new information did I, a U.S. citizen, and therefore Al-Quieda, learn as a result of this leak? – and how important was it to intel methods?”
Finally,
“I concede AQ is likley aware that we are watching in a nebulious sense, but announcing our methods is tantamount to aiding and abetting.”
This is wrong. Logically fallacious. The methods are the exact same as the FISA methods. The only difference is the target sample, and the original target sample was known to no one but FISA and the intel agencies. The new target sample, aside from being illegal, was known only to the intel agencies. And the only thing that was revealed was that FISA was cut out of the loop. And Congress. So unless you think either FISA or Congress was passing intel along to Al-Quieda on the names of the individuals being secretly wiretapped, this is bullshit.
Gentle reminders that we wiretap phones were available in 1001 public news stories and information sources between 2001 and now. All you’re complaining about is the increased media attention given to a publicly known method – oh, and the fact that GWB was using that publicly known method in a non-publicly known, illegal manner. You know what? That may be in some nebulous manner unhelpful, but it sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me.
Lastly, I am not arguing that VP was more damaging than the NSA leaks. THAT would be a level of detail I don’t have. I would probably argue that neither one are more than minorly damaging to the US as a whole, although VP may be damaging to several patriotic individuals. If either one broke the law, let them go to jail. (After all, civil disobedience requires that). I doubt the NSA leakers broke the law. I don’t think you can break the law reporting an illegal act. And if you can, the law needs to be changed.
Lastly, Democratic politicians aren’t hysterical due to political cowardice. But I predict the middle ground will be that this is folded back into FISA, or to be less diplomatic about it, shut down after a legal ruling.
Is the NSA really full of screaming leftists? Why would they leak something if they thought it would jeopardize their fundamental mission in any way?
12:43 pm
Blog Fight About the Right
Blogger Glenn Greenwald has started an argument. “It used to be the case that in order to be considered a ‘liberal’ or someone ‘of the Left,’ one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of…
7:47 pm
“As for backing it up, I am only relying on the accounts of people in the know: Porter Goss and General Haden. I know, I know: they are partisan hacks and lying. TBD, but until then, let’s deal in reality.”
That was my post. Predictably, you followed lock step:
“I don’t believe anything Porter Goss says. I’ve read any number of articles making it very obvious that he was a 70’s CIA renegade, then a partisan hack in the House of Representatives, then appointed to gut the CIA in favor of thinking in lockstep with anything Dick Cheney suggests. Quite frankly, I accuse him of being appointed to the position not to produce sound intelligence, but to enforce the White House’s political preferences on Intel analysis. Period.”
Ok? We will let others decide on the blind partisanship accusation you raised in your initial post. I would only add that you missed a good opportunity to assassinate Hayden’s character too. As for influencing intelligence – again read the Senate report. Nothing there. One Paul R. Pillar has just confirmed that no undue influence was exerted. Since you bring it up, perhaps a maverick is exactly what the sedentary organization needed since it has a track record of missing practicily every big event includsing the end of the cold war.
you continue….
“I haven’t heard any credible independent Intel who are not Bush-appointed agency heads claim that this leak has damaged national security in any way. If you came up with one, I would give him a fair hearing. But I’d still use my own brain to judge, “what, exactly, new information did I, a U.S. citizen, and therefore Al-Qaeda, learn as a result of this leak? – and how important was it to Intel methods?â€
I assume that is because few knew about it until the NYT decided to release the information. And those that did are bound by secrecy agreements and thus I wouldn’t expect – nor would I want – any overt statements about the methodology. Again, I point you back ot the press conference given by Gen. Hayden for a statement on the effect of leaking the information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html).
you ….
“This is wrong. Logically fallacious. The methods are the exact same as the FISA methods. The only difference is the target sample, and the original target sample was known to no one but FISA and the intel agencies. The new target sample, aside from being illegal, was known only to the Intel agencies. And the only thing that was revealed was that FISA was cut out of the loop. And Congress. So unless you think either FISA or Congress was passing intel along to Al-Qaeda on the names of the individuals being secretly wiretapped, this is bullshit.”
As to my logic, consider this: We would both agree that nmost in the world know we (USA) use satellite surveillance? yes? Do you think it damages national security if the NYT were to publish a roadmap to those sensitive satellite orbital paths. Those we put under surveillance now have an even greater incentive (and more information from which to work) – not suggesting they by the way they didn’t have an incentive to begin with – to be clandestine. I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to sample size? Another thought, how do we approach IP telephony that transits the WWW? Not as cut and dry as tapping into copper line is it? What about internet communications?
Now, as far as I know, FISA is a statute not a method (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html). A good wrap up here – http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1329
. I am going to ignore your argument – which I can only assume is a rhetorical style meant to confuse and obfuscate. You obviously didn’t read the editorial by the former Clinton Justice official who claims this “power” is one Presidents have claimed for the past three decades. Excuse my remedial legal knowledge; from what I read much of the current debate here is over the 72 procedural requirements. We don’t know anything of the methods so can’t comment on sample size unless you know something the rest of the United States hasn’t been made privy too? As to Congress, Sr. leaders on both sides were briefed on the outlines of the program many times – you casually ignore that point, understandably. But you say not enough information right? But let’s be honest, Pelosi really isn’t equipped to add value anyway.
you go on..
“Gentle reminders that we wiretap phones were available in 1001 public news stories and information sources between 2001 and now. All you’re complaining about is the increased media attention given to a publicly known method – oh, and the fact that GWB was using that publicly known method in a non-publicly known, illegal manner. You know what? That may be in some nebulous manner unhelpful, but it sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me.
Your point here is? I think this is an opaque FISA argument about enumerated powers, which I just spoke to. As for the Google search on wiretaps, search spy satellites and see how many stories you get. Get it?
Finally you say!
“Lastly, I am not arguing that VP was more damaging than the NSA leaks. THAT would be a level of detail I don’t have. I would probably argue that neither one are more than minorly damaging to the US as a whole, although VP may be damaging to several patriotic individuals. If either one broke the law, let them go to jail. (After all, civil disobedience requires that). I doubt the NSA leakers broke the law. I don’t think you can break the law reporting an illegal act. And if you can, the law needs to be changed.â€
Again, I am at ease knowing you don’t think any harm was done. Exhale! This after you just get finished telling us that you don’t have all the facts. You do not of course have the first clue about the NSA program and the methods it employs. Nor do you have the constitutional expertise to speak to the FISA law. You make wild assertions and deliver not a shred of supporting fact. All make your conclusion as to the legality of the program unreliable at best if not an outright falsity. At least we can agree that those who leaked the information should go to jail. By the way, why not just follow the whistleblower protocol by going to Congress directly? That would be the course of a true patriot.
Not done yet…you say
“Is the NSA really full of screaming leftists? Why would they leak something if they thought it would jeopardize their fundamental mission in any way?”
What if a partisan FISA judge leaked it? Just a thought. Why was VP husband sent to Niger? Why did the CIA leak prison information and endanger its own personnel? I think we know why – it is called BDS.
The judge reference might explain why nobody at the NSA has come forward, other than your very reliable man who was fired and found wanting.
2:12 pm
S,
You’ve amazed me.
“One Paul R. Pillar has just confirmed that no undue influence was exerted.”
The exact opposite of both the specifics and message of his statements. Amazing.
You assume that no credible independent intel expert outside the Bush admin has come out saying this has damaged national security because they didn’t know until Dec. 15? It’s been !two months since then! You think they haven’t heard about this yet? Pathetic.
And I don’t know why you seem to have no idea what I’m talking about in the next two paragraphs. Let’s try this again, god help me:
Sure, if everyone knows we spy with satellites, and the NYT published a 100-page technical report on the exact locations of every reciever and transmitter, their areas and coverage times and locations, geosynchronous orbital latitudes, frequency details, and directions on how to commercially buy the jamming equipment, that could infringe on national security. But that is surreally different from what actually happened.
What happened is:
PreNYTimes: the whole world knew we can tap phone lines by getting secret permission from a secret court.
PostNYTIMES: the whole world knows we have been tapping them without talking to the secret court.
you get it yet? There were NO ‘methods’ leaked. There was NO technical data leaked. There was nothing leaked except the information the the Bush Admin was skipping a secret court. Which was, if I have to use this word again, SECRET. So unless someone in the secret court permitting the wiretaps was passing info to Al-Quieda, then, guess what, nothing has changed.
The NYTimes revealed
in terms of methods and practices. They simply reported that a publicly known tactic was being used illegally.
Your ludicrious argument that this ‘reminds’ terrorists not to talk on the phone – so what? Showing old mafia movies on Showtime reminds terrorists that we can tap phones, as well. Shall we throw the cable companies in jail? Is this the same as revealing truly new information?
Sure, FISA is a statute. I don’t need the link, thank you. Establishing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which is what I was talking about. I think that was contextually obvious. If I have that name wrong in some minor way, you still know exactly what I am talking about.
Lastly, How can I not have a shred of knowledge regarding the NSA’s methods, S? I read the NYTimes story. Oh, wait, I guess the NYTimes story must not have revealed a shred of the NSA’s methods. Thank you for confirming my point.
6:30 pm
Are you serious with this post?
We have a deal to on Capital Hill afterall. Then again we have an ACLU like filing with a district court to reveal NSA specifications you claim are already in the public domain (are you for releasing this information?). I submit it is hard to argue when you simply ignore the facts. Pocket your sarcasm for a moment and you’ll likely agree that this is a consitutional question? One by the way that seems to have resolved itself. Presto! I think I stated at the outset that i didn’t have the expertise to make adequate legal arguments so I defered to JH and GG.
We could go back and forth for days on what we think was and wasn’t disclosed by the story. The fact of the matter is, that mere fact that we are talking about it is the problem. All the more so given there are a rigid set of criteria for challenging legality questions within the system. So I ask again: why not go throught the appropriate channels? Why leak to a naked partison organization? Why not call on the leaders of your party to explain why they ignored the program having been briefed multiple times? Save your energy if we are going to get the not enough information routine. That was the same BS we heard after the WMD/IRaq decision.
Read the defbriefing of PP and return when you can shake off the haze. I didn’t say that he was for the war, I said that he confirms what the Senate report found. That is that no undue influence was exerted by the WH or others. The CIA got it wrong and this guy was at the helm in the ME policy div. Not someone I think you want to hinge your argument on – but you will of course (damn the torpedoes right). Also, he mentioned that he was repeatedly asked again and again similiar lines of question: da! That is what people are suppose to do when an Agency claims to be the final authority.
In deference to your underwhelming argument and incapacity for naunce (repeat like the very fact that we are discussing this SECRET program) I am abandoning ship. I will say the reasonable course I set out in previous posts seems to have come to fruition. Your shut down hypothesis is not only logically fallacious – I give you credit for consistency however – but it is now wrong. The program isn’t being shut down – but likely revised in a manner consistent with exactly what the Clinton era Justice offical articulated. Reason prevails
Next…
12:37 pm
Worth a read..another good discussion of the constituional
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602161544.asp
5:08 pm
We could go back and forth for days on what we think was and wasn’t disclosed by the story.
Hah.
No, we know what was disclosed by the story. What was disclosed was that the Bush admin was skipping a secret court while using a publicly disclosed program and legal right to wiretap, as long as requests came from a secret court. You’ve thrown up no end of examples of the disclosure of specific, technical, national-security damaging data and they’ve all been shot down. Because it didn’t happen.
Thanks for the legal arguments. We’ll see it in court… unless the Republicans explicitly retroactively legalize it. If that happens, that will be a de facto admission that it was illegal when it was done. And you’ll switch your argument from “this was perfectly legal” to, “screw legal, this was neccesary”.
You’re already preparing to do that now.
But I’ll settle for “it’s a constitutional question”. We’re a long way from “hang those treasonous NSA staffers from the nearest tree.”
They had a point.
8:01 pm
The Final Sock-Puppet: “Rick Ellensburg”
“Rick Ellensburg” posts here at Right Wing Nut House, once again, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear, defending Glenn Greenwald. Right Wing Nut House checked the IP: 201.8.3.146 OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry Org…
3:17 am
[...] I’ve since learned that 3 comments from a “Rick Ellensburg” at a February 2006 Right Wing Nuthouse post originate from the same service provider that Greenwald was using at the end of 2005 and in January 2006. [...]
1:55 pm
zmidmdkmpac
zpomykba xqtoqvtrk hcckqwxde
2:52 am
hot blonde lesbians
Z00lunation
4:58 pm
Brutal blow job.
Brutal blow job.