Giuliani Brings “Change” Down to Earth
January 11th, 2008 at 05:53am Mark Noonan
Giuliani said it’s no feat to make changes for the sake of change.
“Change is either good or bad. So I think people have to focus a little bit more carefully on, what is it that we’re promising, and what are we trying to do. Now, if the change is in the direction of lower taxes, less spending, giving parents choice over education, energy independence, these are things that are going to make a brighter future and a better America. But just the word ‘change’ doesn’t connote good or bad. You’ve got to get one step beyond that and start looking at the changes,” he said.
When the Democrats say they want “change”, it is very much like the “new direction” they campaigned on in 2006 - sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. For someone like Giuliani, the Democrats talking about “change” has to sound a bit ridiculous - none of the top three Democratic contenders has ever had to make a decision to change anything - Giuliani has, and knows its not a magic incantation which just makes everything all right.
Take, for instance, one of the major changes the Democrats all say they want - universal health care. Fine and dandy - lets have it; but lets also have the details. And lets not tax them too highly - certainly not as highly as they plan on taxing us. We’ll start small: Hillary, John, Barack - under your universal health care plan, if there are ten people who need a colonoscopy today, and only 5 colonscopies can be done today, who decides who goes first, and who has to wait for later? If they can’t answer a simple question like that - and they can’t - then all their talk of “change” is just so much poll-tested fluff designed to sucker the credulous (ie, liberals) into voting for them.
I still haven’t settled on a candiate for 2008 (though with the caucuses just 9 days away, crunch time is coming), but in Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, we have candidates who have far more experience in the practical difficulties of “change” than the three leading Democrats. In simple terms of knowledge and experience, the Republican field far outclasses the Democratic field - and I think that as November approaches, this will become decisive in voters’ minds.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans
65 Comments
1. Repulicans Presidential E&hellip | January 11th, 2008 at 6:02 am
[...] Mark Noonan added an interesting post today on Giuliani Brings âChangeâ Down to EarthHere’s a small reading [...]
2. oo | January 11th, 2008 at 6:14 am
What ever happened to “blogs for bush”?
Oh, you flip flopped because you are too ashamed to align yourself with such a buffoned idiot who couldn’t run a lemonade stand in the middle of a dessert let alone run a country.
3. Christian Wright | January 11th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Merrill Lynch is writing of 15b thanks to Bush’s economic policy. In addition, Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest home loan lender, reported yesterday that foreclosures and late payments on mortgages in December soared to their highest levels in five years.
The large number of the bad loans alarmed mortgage analysts who follow the company. Several said the Countrywide report showed that housing market conditions were unraveling at an unexpectedly rapid pace.
We need regulations to force corporations to act in an ethical manner. While you guys complain about immigrants coming over the boarder, foreign interests are buying up American companies hurt by the sub prime mortgage debacle.
We need change and not corporate loving Republican can bring it.
4. Leslie Bates | January 11th, 2008 at 6:57 am
2. oo | January 11th, 2008 at 6:14 am
What ever happened to “blogs for bush”?
Oh, you flip flopped because you are too ashamed to align yourself with such a buffoned idiot who couldn’t run a lemonade stand in the middle of a dessert let alone run a country.
If you bothered to click on the “about” button and read the explanation for this sites existance you would know why Mark, et al., changed to Blogs For Victory.
Are lobotomies a mandatory part of becoming a liberal or a progressive?
Furthermore, Morons do not fly supersonic fighters (F-102) armed with nuclear missiles nor do they receive MBA’s from Harvard. If anything, someone who believes that a fighter pilot with an MBA is an idiot is truly someone who qualifies for the title of moron.
Seriously, I think it has to take a lot of hard work for someone to be dumber than a Democrat.
5. Leslie Bates | January 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I intended to leave a comment about the magical use of the word “Change”.
“Change” is a magic word that the material and spiritual parasites use to make themselves feel good about their desire to exercise control over the productive members of society.
The fact of reality is that those of us who are by choice or by default in the Conservative faction generally prefer to deal with other people on the basis of consent. We generally do not object to a change in the material or social aspect of our lives as long as it is done by consent.
But the Left, who presently style themselves as progressives, know that most of us will not consent to being leeched off by willful parasites. Therefore they seek to “change” our society back to the barbaric structure of a lord/serf structure, with themselves holding the whip over the rest of us.
6. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Leslie, to expand a bit on your comment, we’re getting dangerously close to a tipping point where the consent you describe will just go out the window. Right now about 51% of the population is pulling the wagon while 49% is either riding in the wagon or at least hitching a ride in the wagon from time to time. Politicians (particularly Democrats) appeal to the people either riding in the wagon or people who would like to ride in the wagon. Once the percentage of people riding in the wagon exceeds 50%, then “consent” is dead. Once the majority can simply vote itself free guv’mint cheese, then this will no longer be a desirable place to live.
7. DM | January 11th, 2008 at 7:34 am
“Merrill Lynch is writing of 15b thanks to Bush’s economic policy.” – CW
Wow – Now we’re blaming Bush for the poor management decisions a financial company makes? Your BDS is glowing bright as ever.
8. SEW | January 11th, 2008 at 8:22 am
DM, “Christian” knows that the financial conditions she mentioned are the markets adjusting to the prospects of “change”. The prospect or Hussein or Billary as POTUS. The new era of Jimmy Carter finances. In fact I expect the markets to tremble more as the MSM annoints the election to Hussein or Billary.
9. anarchist | January 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Christian Wright, first Bush did appoint “helicopter” Bernarke and he is doing quite a lot. The fed lowers the interest rates by buying governemnt assets with “checkbook” or “ink” money, and the dollars are flooding the system. Not to mention all the short term asset purchases and all the other stuff.
The whole point of the financial sector is to arbitrage capital from less to more productive markets(to get the capital to those that will get the highest return from it). The service they provide relies entirely on how well they act as “observers” to the market.
So when a financial company fails and someone says the solution is more buerocratic mandates dictating the rules of voluntary free trade(democratic solution), or when someone suggest keep the inflation accelerator down full blast and basically create big subsidies for the financial sector payed for by general inflation(republican solution), just compare that to any other industy in the market.
If a hamburger place makes really bad decisions and is threatened with closing, is the solution a big government subsidy and some buerocratic regulation for the whole hamburger industry on how they must now cook the hamburgers?
Same for a car manufacturer, if the manufacturer makes cars that don’t work, is the solution subsidies and regulation?
I’d also like to mention that almost every national economic crisis is preceeded by artificially low interest rates follow by higher rates. Of course when you subsidize credit, buisnesses that rely on credit will expand. People will move into the subsidized areas, people will be chasing subsidy money rather than consumer satisfaction, so when you stop the inflation of course the markets all misallocated around it and someones gonna get hurt. And the fact that inflation tends to take purchasing power from the working class, those on fixed incomes and savers and transfers it to big buisness and the financial sector. Transfer payments from the poor to the rich really seems wrong to me.
10. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am
anarchist,
Thank you for the pessimistic, marxist look at our economy, much of which doesn’t even make sense.
[[so when you stop the inflation of course the markets all misallocated around it and someones gonna get hurt. - anarchist]]
What?
If you haven’t noticed, credit is currently hard to come by. The hard money markets have tightened up considerably. The past easy access to credit was in part attributed to Congressional directives to loosen up lending requirements therefore making mortgages more accessible to lower income families (that American dream thing). Well, we’ve all learned now that many of those loans, which wouldn’t have been made previously, actually shouldn’t have been made. Still, the sub-prime crisis effects only 4% of mortgage holders, hardly a “crisis” that can’t be overcome.
11. phil | January 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Hey Mark,
If I’m not still banned from Club Noonan, he’s something I wrote for ya!
I realize now that I’ve been wrong about Mitt Romney all along. I have been mystified by the ability of Republicans to support George W. Bush when they know he is lying to them, but that somehow Republicans did not extend Mitt the same support given his repeated problems with the truth. But now I think I understand it.
George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.
Mitt, on the other hand, is not a straight ahead liar; at least he’s not perceived in that way. He is viewed (by most sentient beings on the planet) as a panderer, one who will change any position, wiggle out of any past opinion, slither away from any previous statement, all with a pasted-on smile. Bush’s lying is straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance. Mitt is all about nuance; it’s actually entertaining to watch him try and explain his past support of gays, of abortion, seeing his father march with MLK. His slick rationalizations, professionally packaged, rehearsed and delivered with a faux-conviction that makes his new position seem somehow heroic, its marketing genius. Except that people aren’t buying it. Clearly they will accept lying from people they like, but they can’t accept pandering insincerity from somebody they don’t like.
Of course Mitt is well-schooled in the insincerity business. He’s the guy who told you (and expected you to believe it) that when Bain Capital bought your company and you were one of the 25% of employees to be laid off, this was actually a good thing for you. He was the person who, when Bain bought the factory where you worked and shut it down to move the operation to China, that this was progress. He was the guy who, when he bought the business where you worked and cut your benefits, told you that it was for you and for good of the company.
What Mitt knew then, and knows still today, is that those things actually were good. But they weren’t good for you, your co-workers, your friends, they were good for him, and the small group of managers who would buy a company, gut it, break it up and re-sell it at an enormous profit. Mitt and his partners were left with millions. You were left without a job, and with Mitt’s voice ringing in your ears telling you how great the whole thing was. The thing is, Mitt wasn’t exactly lying to them, he was simply, painfully, obviously, insincere. Bottom line: people will accept lying from a known liar as long as they like him. People will not accept insincerity from one well known for it, even if they do like him. Of course, with Mitt, they don’t seem to like him, either.
It’s clear that, with Mitt and his handlers, the belief is that it’s all about marketing. If they package the product in a certain way hopefully enough people will look past their misgivings about the brilliant panderer and vote for him anyway. But over the long haul, people will inevitably see through the packaging and get an unadulterated view of the product, and when they see the real Mitt they don’t like what they see. Would that all Americans are able to get a similar, unvarnished view of the man. If they do, then the Mittanic, which has struck dual icebergs in Iowa and New Hampshire, will slip quietly beneath the surface of the political landscape in our beloved country. Here’s hoping!
Have a nice day,
Phil
12. Richard Daugherty | January 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am
My complaint about the Mortgage companies is that under the guise protecting their interests they add all these hidden costs like PMI’s which are legal, but technically unfair. It is definately not Bush’s fault that they can’t properly manage their affairs and I agree that we shouldn’t as government help them out. Countywide and Merril Lynch are at fault with their financial woes, but to assist in trying to save themselves they have adding multiples costs to home loans hence the high foreclosure and late payment problems.
13. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am
George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.
Phil, I’ve seen you make similar assertions in the past. Could you give some examples of the “straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance” lies that President Bush has told. Some sort of credible proof would also be nice.
BTW, even friends of the Clintons have publicly commented on what accomplished liars they are and how disturbing it is that they lie with such ease. How do you feel about them (WRT to lying, that is).
14. phil | January 11th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Hi Spooky,
Bush lies, why that’s a pretty rich vein. Lets start with this one, I think it’s probably one of your personal favorites, and oft-repeated: “The people who are attacking our forces in Iraq today are the same people who attacked us on 9-11!”
With respect to the Clintons, why don’t you post those comments from their “friends.” Those don’t sound like “friends” to me. But regardless, I have no intention of supporting either Clinton for the presidency ths year unless nominatted, in which case I will happily and enthusiastically support her over any of the misfits and/or douchebags (sorry, Mark) posing as Republican candidates this year.
Thanks for the feedback, by the way
15. OhioOrrin | January 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I support not-for-profit health care coupled w tort reform & malpractice award caps.
16. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Phillip,
You’ll have to try again. The forces attacking us in Iraq that Bush referred to was AQI. If you remember, AQ was responsible for 9/11.
That was a really weak example. Got any more?
17. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Here’s one little snippet of Clintons convenient memory:
Scheuer, who wrote the book “Imperial Hubris,” said he met every 10 days with top members of Clinton’s anti-terror team and plans for an invasion were never presented or discussed…
Fran Townsend, a former top intelligence adviser in Clinton’s Justice Department and now Bush’s anti-terror czar, rolled her eyes when asked about Clinton’s invasion plan.
“There were lots of things that seemed new” in Clinton’s recollections on Fox, Townsend said…
18. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oops, neocon beat me to the punch. “Really weak example” is the understatement of the year.
With respect to the Clintons, why don’t you post those comments from their “friends.” Those don’t sound like “friends” to me.
This is one that immediately comes to mind because it was fairly recent.
Perhaps I should have said “friends and other Democrats” because, If you haven’t heard other prominent Democrats like Bob Kerry, for example, say what accomplished liars the Clintons are, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
19. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Phillip,
Please engage us in the debate and respond to my posts. I hope to get to the bottom of your BDS derangement, which may help you extract your head from the dark recesses in currently occupies.
20. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Phil,
In-context quote:
Now, since the actual men who attacked us on 9/11 are dead on 9/11 you can, if you’re an idiot, say that the President is lying here - if, however, you’re not an idiot, then its clear he’s referring to the sort of people…the same sort of people who attacked us on 9/11 are attacking us in Iraq, and if we don’t defeat them in Iraq, then we’ll pay a high price for it. I’m hoping that since you’ve now seen the in-context quote that your lack of idiocy will cause you to admit that you’re wrong about the President lying.
Also, however, while researching this, I did come across this from Obama:
That is from a press release from Obama - and that, in a nutshell, is the entirety of the opposition to the liberation - ignorant people who stand slack-jawed in front of the idiot box and think that the pictures tell the whole story…
21. semby | January 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Rudy is the best…has the most meat in all his policies. If you want to know what Rudy is going to do, ready his writings and you will know. The others answer symbolically.
Rudy should be the next President!
22. anarchist | January 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
neocon, I can’t really tell if your just economically ignorant, or your intentionally trolling to get a rise out of me or someone else. But you’re completely backwards.
The idea that this sort of cylical market activity in endogenic to the free market is a Marxian concept.(Yes I realize credit expansion is endogenic, I’m talking about the massive realization of clusters of errors occuring at once like the current housing market).
The idea that we need a central bank and fiat money origanted from Marx believing that legal tender laws based on hard money combined with banks owning most of the hard money created an expliotive system that garaunteed the banks could charge ursury. So a central bank and fiat money is originally a Marxian concept.
Of course if we stop subsidizing the financial markets through inflationary credit expansion it is possible it would cause a recession. The idea that this would be bad in the long term is based off the fundamental Marxian fallacy that an economy organized by government fiat rather than consumer prefrence can somehow be better for consumers. The idea that subsidies make everyone better off is really based off of the Marxian confusion between price and value that flawed all his economic conclusions.
Credit is hard to come by because the diffrence between the financial market’s obligations and income is shrinking. The question is why would the whole financial industry, who’s whole speciality is watching markets, misjudge itself so badly? Maybe because the fed keeps dicking with the interest rates? When the fed made them like 1% all these guys that profit from low interest expanded, and when rates go back up some of the buisnesses don’t pan out. Why do you think cyclical market activity always seems to affect big higher order markets dependant on credit?
So there are 3 major solutions I’ve heard, the democrat solution, massive regulation, the republican solution, constant geometric inflation and the really radical solution, the one I’m trying to advocate, the free market.
Of course you have to realize that the government cannot create hundreds of billions of dollars of flow through debt without the fed propping up that system and creating a little artificial market for that debt. So as long as we have big deficits, we’ll have slightly artificially lowered interest rates.
23. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Retired Spook,
Presto! The Presidential lie, in fact, the gratuitous Presidential lie, in which he not only lied to you and Mark and everybody about our intelligence gathering activities but goes out of his way to remind any would-be terrorists that we engage in such activities, that everyone at Blogs For Victo(r)y studiously ignores. All you had to do was ask:
24. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Mayor Giuliani knows a thing or two about “change” right now:
25. Blogs For Rudy Giuliani&#&hellip | January 11th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
[...] Blogs For Victory » Giuliani Brings “Change” Down to Earth [...]
26. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Phillip,
Incidentally, my marxist comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I forget most liberals don’t have a sense of humor, so I apologize. Your hysteria on the economy is what I find amusing. Many sectors of the economy are performing well, a few are performing very poorly. Real wages did rise in 2007, unemployment was kept low, exports increased and more jobs were created. The current tightening of credit is a good thing, but it will slow down spending which could lead to a recession. COULD. Doesn’t have to.
The following are excerpts from your post that I challenge.
[[clusters of errors occuring at once - phillip]]
Please elaborate.
[[income is shrinking - phillip]]
Yet:
Real Wages Are Rising, but Let’s Not Get Carried Away
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=12&year=2006&base_name=real_wages_are_rising_but_lets
27. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Giuliani’s aides can’t work for free! That’s Marxist!
28. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I see Diana is back to her cutting and pasting of irrelevant topics.
29. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
neocon,
You and Retired Spook asked for an example of a President George W. Bush lie that wasn’t “weak”. I supplied one. Care to comment on its substance?
Also, are you saying that a post about Mayor Guiliani’s campaign apparently having financial problems isn’t relevant to a post about Mayor Guiliani commenting about other Presidential candidates?
30. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yes,
The post about Rudys campaign finances is completely irrelevant to his defining what “change” is meaning in this campaign.
And I will continue to investigate this 2005 “Think Progress” link. I seriously am suspect about the source and context. However, as I have said before, you owe it to the country to do something about this lie, if in fact it is an impeachable offense, as you have asserted.
Your cowardice to not proceed along that vein, coupled with your incessant whining about it, reveals how juvenile you are.
btw, do you think the Clintons have ever told untruths?
31. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
neocon,
Please do “investigate”. I’m sure that the video was done with some kind of powerful liberal trickery. That’s really sad on your part. I’d have thought you’d at least rise to the President’s defense somehow. I don’t know how you could, especially given the subject matter. So, I guess that explains why you had to break the glass on the “IN CASE OF BUSH-LOOKING-DISHONEST EMERGENCY” box on the wall and reach in for the most pathetic and juvenile stance of all, “Well, they do it TOO-OO!” Ever had any children?
32. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Diana, you posted the same link in a previous thread, but my security software doesn’t seem to like the source. Color me dense, but I don’t see any part of what you cite that is a lie. There was a great article a while back in, of all places, the Washington Post, which would fill in some of the blanks that you’re missing if I still had the link to it, which, unfortunately, I don’t. It was an interview with two of the FISA Judges in which they described their reluctance to grant the FBI a wiretap warrant when the probably cause for the warrant was an NSA intercept targeted against a know terror suspect outside the U.S. As A.J. Strata noted in this post, that was one of the reasons that 9/11 was able to occur.
I’m getting interrupted by business, but I’ll try to expand on this later. In the meantime, please tell me what part of what you posted was a lie.
33. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
neocon,
While you’re carrying out your investigation, please feel free to peruse to peruse the context and substance of that quote at this notorious liberal propaganda site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
34. neocon | January 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Diana,
I think Spook as just countered your hysteria quite well. I will continue to debunk your claim at a later time.
But I did notice that you completely ignored my question re: the Clintons. And ignored the fact that you again went off topic in your zeal to discredit anything conservative, which by the way, lessens your credibility and reveals your allegiance to liberal group think.
35. anarchist | January 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I wrote the post you’re quoting, not phillip.
But to clarify, “massive cluster of errors”, refers to a recession, or something like the current US financial markets problems in regards to housing mortgages.
And I’m talking about incomes to the financial markets shrinking. Again this has alot to do with securitized mortages that financial firms are holding that are losing value, like in the original post that started this conversation…
I don’t know at all if there will be a recession or not. What I’m trying to say is that it’s kind of up to the fed. What I’m also trying to say is that if the fed quit making open market operation or pretty much quit “printing money” that this may very well cause a recession. This is why the fed would never do this under Bush, so don’t worry, I garauntee that we will not have a hard recession under Bush. What I’m also trying to say is that the recession wouldn’t be a bad thing in the long run at all. All this money printing is just subsidizing certian parts of the market that benifit from cheap credit at the expense of everyone else through general inflation. If the fed quits inflating and these places go under, it means they were not economically justified. The temporary reorganization of the markets from ones that are based on government fiat, to markets based on consumer prefrences will cause a recession. When Russia went capitalist it suffered a 40% loss of GDP in 1 year, of course our economy isn’t nearly as skewed towards government fiat as theirs was, but no capitalist economist would argue that they should have just stayed communist to stave off the recession.
That’s my whole point, subsidies distort activity, and when you remove the subsidy people get hurt. The trick isn’t smarter bureaucrats at the fed making better rules, the trick is quit doing anything. And when it comes to credit subsidies, saving gets us genuine growth, credit expansion gets us boom and bust.
36. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Mark,
I hope you will indulge Diana and me in our off-topic discussion about President Bush’s “lies” with regard to warrantless wiretaps. This time it was not Diana who went OT, but Phil who brought up the fact that President Bush is such a “straightforward liar”. This subject hasn’t been broached in while, and, quite frankly, I thought it had been laid to rest a year or two ago.
Diana, I read your WhiteHouse.org piece 4 years ago when it was originally posted. I just scanned it again, and I don’t see anything in it that buttresses your assertions.
I’m still looking for the WAPO article, but, in the mean time, here is another StrataSphere post that cites an interview with DNI Mike McConnell.
BTW, Mark, if you want to create a new “Bush lied, people died — debunked” thread, that would be fine with me. I think it’s time to put this to rest once and for all, and it’s every bit as important as Rudy defining “change”.
37. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Retired Spook,
The issue of the interrelationship between the FBI and intelligence agencies was the primary issue being dealt with in In Re Sealed Case No. 002-01. The question is not whether or not the FISA statute can and should be modified. The question is, do you or do you not approve of the fact that the President ordered violations of FISA which, as the law states, “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)… and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted.” The FISC has held that FISA is constitutional. So, the President, as I said, gratuitously lied. He didn’t have to say what he did, but he chose to do so for reasons known only to him.
There is no question of whether or not the violations occurred. The Administration has acknowledged that on multiple occasions. They just make a claim, based on analysis offered by the President’s lawyers that he has the authority to violate the law. That claim awaits a full legal review.
38. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
neocon,
The point about your grasping at the Clintons is relevance. So? Do you want to bring in all Presidential lies including those of President Reagan, President Nixon and President Johnson? Explain the relevance other than trying to deflect criticism from the current President, who is still in office and capable of affecting the government, that you venerate.
39. GOP4ME | January 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Hey Diana, got a comment about this link?
http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html
Sorry guys, it’s off topic, but I am just dying to heat her flippant remarks…
40. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
That would be the Center for Media and Public Affairs which receives much funding from the highly conservative Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations.
41. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
They just make a claim, based on analysis offered by the President’s lawyers that he has the authority to violate the law. That claim awaits a full legal review.
I think a better way to word that would be that “based on analysis offered by the President’s lawyers that what he did was not a violation of the law.”
And, as you note, it awaits full legal review.
The FISC has held that FISA is constitutional.
Isn’t that sort of like the fox saying it’s OK to raid the hen house?
There is no question of whether or not the violations occurred.
Again, according to whom — you?
42. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Retired Spook,
To minimize the cuts with pastes that people seem to object to, here is the President referring to the activities on December 19th, 2005, three days after the New York Times reporting the warrantless surveillance, in which he defends the program’s legality without denying the essential core of the program which was that it was not using warrants:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
here is then-Attorney General Gonzales’ defense of the legality of the so-called TSP on February 6, 2006 before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/gonz20606stmnt.html
43. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Retired Spook,
To minimize the cuts with pastes that people seem to object to, here is the President referring to the activities on December 19th, 2005, three days after the New York Times reporting the warrantless surveillance, in which he defends the program’s legality without denying the essential core of the program which was that it was not using warrants:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-2.html
44. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
here is then-Attorney General Gonzales’ defense of the legality of the so-called TSP on February 6, 2006 before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/gonz20606stmnt.html
45. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Admiral McConnell’s letter to Senator Leahy of July 31, 2007 referring to interceptions “without a court order”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/NID_Specter073107.pdf
46. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in May 15, 2007 describing the efforts to get a hospitalized Attorney General John Aschcroft to override Comey and reauthorize the program:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501043.html
47. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Then-Press Secretary Tony Snow on January 17, 2007 (emphasis added):
48. djp | January 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
if there are ten people who need a colonoscopy today, and only 5 colonscopies can be done today, who decides who goes first, and who has to wait for later?
This is no different than the situation is decided today. Today, the person who can pay for colonoscopy gets it. The person who cannot does not. You people pretend that all you have to do is show up and you get all the medical care you desire is childish in the way it misunderstands our current medical system. People are denied necessary healthcare in America all the time, adn they die from that all the time. And you continue to repeat fantasies of rationing as if there was no rationing ongoing today
49. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Well, Diana, your computer (or ISP) must be faster than mine. Let me take these one at a time.
From you 2005 WhiteHouse.org link, I assume you’re referring to this:
Yup, sure sounds ominous to me. Grab the kids and lock the doors — YIKES!!
From your 2nd link (Gonzales’ testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee):
Nope, nothing there either. Next.
Well, it doesn’t seem to want to let me cite the appropriate language from that letter, but I’m not aware of any element/s of FISA that require a warrant for foreign surveillance by NSA. I reported directly to NSA (and even worked there on several occasions), and we NEVER, EVER got a warrant.
I still don’t see any “there” there.
I’m sorry, Diana; I don’t have the time or energy to play your little game any more. This is just senseless BS that’s been hashed and rehashed. This was going on before Bush was President and it will continue after he’s gone, no matter which party wins the WH. And you should thank God that it is, but if bothers you so much, take it up with your Senator or Congressman.
50. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Oh oh… Spook has turned into a cut’n'paste junkie! Lol!
51. Ricorun | January 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
For the record, I personally don’t mind cutting and pasting — just so long as it’s sourced. But I also understand that this site makes links difficult, which presents a dilemma. I suppose that unless or until the administrators of this site solve their problems it will continue to contribute to the kind of Romper Room mentality that seems to be in ever increasing evidence here. Then again, maybe it’s just the election season that drives people alternatively wingnutty or moonbatty.
52. phil | January 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Geez, don’t any of you people work? If you worked for me I’d fire you all. Oops, did I sound like Mitt there? Sorry.
Anyway, neocon, to your comment “The forces attacking us in Iraq that Bush referred to was AQI. If you remember, AQ was responsible for 9/11,” don’t act stupid. You and I both know that AQI has no relationship to the people who attacked us on 9/11. Of course, the knuckle-dragging, bottom-feeding ignorant dopes believe (and want to believe) that there was a connection, thus Bush’s contention that there was/is. But only the truly stupid believe it. You ain’t one of them, are you neo?
Have a nice weekend, but first, back to work!
Phil
53. Just Another Taxpayer | January 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I think what will be clear in voters minds will be that tax cuts don’t matter if the private sector spends the money as wastefully as Bush does in Iraq.(ie subprime mortgage crisis. 2 million foreclosures and counting.)
How much US money must be spent in Iraq to help a homeowner avoid foreclosure?
How much US money must be spent in Iraq to avoid the Bush recession?
How deep does the Bush recession have to be before spending another 500 billion dollars on the Iraqi welfare program becomes politically unacceptable?
54. JS | January 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I just cant figure out how it got from Guliani to the Warrantless search though…..strange how that happens, eh?
Did you ever figure out how to circumvent the Constitutional power of the Executive Office Diana? You really cant keep going backwards on this forever ya know.
55. Retired Spook | January 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Oh oh… Spook has turned into a cut’n’paste junkie! Lol!
Yeah, Rico, I did kinda get carried away, but alleged abuse by and misuse of the intelligence community is something that tends to get my dander up, particularly when the sole motivation (of the alleged abuse) is protection of American lives. I’m really surprised that a former law enforcement officer (Diana) feels the way she does. Surely she had to have seen innocent people die during her 30 years on the force because some egotistical judge required unreasonable probable cause before issuing a warrant.
56. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Retired Spook,
If my motivation hasn’t been clear, then it is my poor writing that is to blame. The attacks of 09/11/01 may or may not have been detected beforehand in a way that allowed them to be disrupted IF the government had been executing the program or programs that President Bush has stated he authorized after the attacks. If for no other reason, I would have had those attacks prevented, if possible, because of how close they came to killing my oldest brother at work at the Pentagon that morning.
IF the President’s motivation for authorizing the program or programs in violation of FISA was because of FISA’s limitations, then I could easily understand and forgive such a step if, at the same time, the President had requested the Congress (then led by Republicans) to modify FISA to accommodate the program or programs. The reason FISA was enacted in 1978 was because of the history of Executive Branch abuses under both Democratic and Republican presidents documented by the Church Committee. However, it can always be amended to make it better.
For reasons known only for a certainty by the President himself, he did not ask for changes to FISA until after the revelations from the New York Times. However, given what we know about Vice-President Cheney’s expressed feelings about what he views as the dilution of Presidential authority since the resignation of President Nixon, it seems highly plausible that a primary motive was to push back against that dilution by claiming a Constitutional basis for rejecting Congress’ ability to regulate this kind of activity. It is this claim that awaits a full judicial review ala Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. One can only wonder at why, since the Executive Branch has argued so forcefully that it has such a Constitutional basis, that it hasn’t eagerly sought such a review by the Chief Justice Roberts-led Supreme Court.
The fact that you were an honorable member of the intelligence community and never knew any members who didn’t seem to be honorable is no more a rationale for assuming no abuses will occur than it would be to argue that because I never encountered a Richardson police officer abusing the Fourth Amendment that we shouldn’t have a Fourth Amendment. It’s all checks and balances. From Lord Acton to President Reagan, the observation has always been that power is corrupting. In fact, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General reported last March that “the FBI used NSLs [National Security Letters] in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” No system of laws is perfect. However, no system of men is perfect either and simply because a system of men has truly good intentions does not mean that they should be blindly trusted to always do good. Conservatives have long understood that in other contexts. It’s puzzling that they don’t understand it in this one.
57. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Diana,
But you still have yet to tell us just why you think President Bush decided to, as you believe, violate the law. It is my contention that President Bush violated niether the letter nor the spirit of any US law in the NSA’s signals intelligence program - it is your contention that he did.
Why?
If you can’t provide us a hard and fast answer to that question, then please just drop the matter as you’re getting rather tiresome about it.
58. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Mark,
My opinion, as stated above, is that the violations were conscious push-back against what the Vice-President has persuaded the President to believe, or perhaps the President already believed, were encroachments on the inherent powers of the office. The attacks of 09/11/01 simply happened to become a rationale for exercising those beliefs against the fact that Congress was limiting the authority of the Executive through FISA. Those beliefs have been articulated as the Unitary Executive Theory. However, that theory is not even accepted by all conservatives, as witness the formation of the American Freedom Agenda (http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/About/default.html) by Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, John Whitehead and Richard Viguerie. In all seriousness, did that answer your question?
59. Diana Powe | January 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I can’t offer more than my educated guess as to President Bush’s motivations because I lack the ability to read minds and he hasn’t said. However, as I stated in my longer post, the fact that people hold or believe they hold pure motives does not mean that they shouldn’t be subject to checks and balances. That was a profound wisdom of those who founded this nation.
60. Mark Noonan | January 12th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Diana,
Not really - your link to AFA just brings up their litanry of alleged abuses, none of which are backed up by fact, some of which are clearly just pulled from the land of anti-Bush make-believe more usually inhabited by leftists.
As I try to keep up on current affairs, I know why some people and groups believe all the things you state about President Bush - but I’m curious to know why you think President Bush would do such things. I’m not asking you to mind-read - but you must have thought on the matter and reached some sort of conclusion as to precisely why President Bush has, in your view, committed impeachable offenses. One doesn’t do such things for light or transient causes - one does such things in the service of specific goals.
What are the goals?
61. Jones | January 12th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Diana,
On your longer post (#55), you stated the following in reference to not asking for modifications to FISA:
“One can only wonder at why, since the Executive Branch has argued so forcefully that it has such a Constitutional basis, that it hasn’t eagerly sought such a review by the Chief Justice Roberts-led Supreme Court.”
I think you may have answered your own question. If one branch of government wants to reclaim power from another branch of government, why should they let the third branch decide?
Assuming your rationale is correct, I don’t think Bush/Cheney would want to involve the Supreme Court. They would not want the Supreme Court or Congress interfering with what they feel would be the sole domain of the executive branch. This would be especially true since many conservatives feel that the Supreme Court is now the most powerful branch (”separate but equal” has obviously been more like a seesaw over the past 200+ years)
62. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Mark,
What are the President’s goals in ordering acts that I and others view as grounds for impeaching him? The obvious answer is simple. As he’s forcefully said many times in a variety of ways, “My job is to protect the American people.” (In his 09/11/06 interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer he came close to poking Lauer in the chest as he said, “…my job is to protect you.”) If the President believes this to be true, which I’m completely certain that he does, and he believes that FISA is an unconstitutional encroachment on the presidency then why would he not ignore the law in service of what he views as his higher individual calling of protecting America?
This is his obvious goal which is supported by his affirmative statements. However, although I am in no way a psychological professional, the nature of the work forces police officers to consider human motivations in many kinds of contexts. So, in addition to the President’s obvious motivation, I can speculate about other possible influences on his behavior:
63. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
1 - The President has a particularly complex relationship with his father which is unavoidably colored by President H. W. Bush’s many accomplishments as (at the time) the youngest ever naval aviator, recipient of multiple combat decorations during WWII, successful campaigner for the U.S. House, ambassador, CIA Director, Vice-President and President (including success in prosecuting the 1991 Gulf War).
2 - The President may have suffered or may suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with symptoms of survivor guilt as a result of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Part of the evidence for that speculation is the President’s failure to respond in a reasonably timely manner when informed of the attacks.
64. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
3 - Despite denying the term “alcoholic” as applicable, the President’s statements that he drank “too much” prior to 1986 may indicate he is a recovering alcoholic. Recovering alcoholics, especially those who deny an ongoing alcohol problem, are prone to rigidity in their thinking patterns. In fact, a feature of the President’s behavior often cited approvingly by his supporters is his firmness in holding to his positions regardless of changing circumstances or public approval. Additionally, the President’s self-described religious views, while not specific to any denomination, are widely approved among Christian evangelicals who view Scripture as both inerrant and literally true.
4 - The President has a history of, at minimum, having rules follow him rather than the other way around - 1966: arrest for disorderly conduct with the charge subsequently being dismissed, 1968: acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard despite his minimum pilot aptitude score and lack of other qualifications for flight training, 1972: failure to take his Air Force flight physical and lack of sanction beyond his being removed from flight status two years short of completing his service obligation, 1972: transfer to a unit in Alabama after his request was initially denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center, 1976: arrest for driving under the influence. In addition to formal rules, the President has demonstrated his willingness to apparently disregard less formal social and cultural rules. In his September 1972 request to perform “equivalent duty” directed to his commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, 1st Lt. Bush casually signed the document “George”. More recently, the President obviously startled and produced a grimace on the face of German Chancellor Angela Merkel by grabbing and squeezing her shoulders while walking into a public G-8 summit meeting in July 2006.
65. Diana Powe | January 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
5 - The President has a complex and unprecedented relationship with Vice-President Cheney who is older, has more Washington experience and is inextricably linked to the success of the 1991 Gulf War. The Vice-President is widely known for his desire to reassert presidential power after Watergate with James Baker’s handwritten notes from a meeting with Cheney in 1980 including the phrases “Pres. seriously weakened in recent yrs.”, “Restore power & auth to Exec Branch - Need strong ldr’ship. Get rid of War Powers Act - restore independent rights.”
The five areas I’ve cited above are speculative to one degree or another as to how much they influence President Bush’s decision-making. However, given the known facts about his history and plausible inferences that can be made, it doesn’t surprise me at all that the President would choose to violate a law that he may well view as completely unconstitutional.