Can I get a Hell Yeah?!

[rep]

Which was and is exactly my point.

In regards to the administrations "disgusting behavior" since you brought it up and continue to feed it.

Show me:

1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.

Rep

[rep]

In case some forget.

Source Drudge

http://www.drudgereport.com/pa.htm

Rep

[Spexvet]

Which was and is exactly my point.

In regards to the administrations "disgusting behavior" since you brought it up and continue to feed it.

Show me:

1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.

Rep

I'll let the special prosecutor do that.

Are you forgetting about Scooter Libby? He's in the administration, isn't he?

[rinselberg]

pair of "Victoria's Secrets" to give for my country ...

I'm sure [that] every female CIA "spy" goes around posing in her pajamas. Except for press releases of course: http://www.time.com/time/personofthe.../people/5.html

I don't know whether anyone in the Bush administration "blew" Valerie Plame's cover, but "MF Horn" did a great job "blowing" out a jazz version of "Hey There (you with the stars in your eyes) ..." - the most memorable cultural artifact to yet survive from the 1957 Doris Day blockbuster The Pajama Game.

"Hey There" featuring Maynard Ferguson
Track length 04:21more: http://www.screamtrumpet.com/maynard.html

source: RinselTunes™


The way we are (2005): Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame reprise a steamy scene from the old stage musical and movie ...


The way we were (1957): Doris Day was more revealing ...

A fairly well known Internet poster from the optical community named "Darris C" posted an article a few months ago, the gist of which was that Valerie Plame's credentials as an undercover agent were somewhat overblown (har-har, some canned laugher here please ...) and that her official cover story had long been exposed in the press, years before any of us heard or thought much about the likes of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Maybe I can dig that report up later. That post was one of about a thousand that got wiped out recently by an online hacker (or was that an "undercover" operative hired by the Democrats? ...)

Now if only Bill "ah feels ya' pain" Clinton would pick up that dusty old saxophone again and blow out a few more bars for us ...

[Steve Machol]

Source Drudge

I don't know why, but those two words together made me crack up laughing! Thanks for that! :D

[rep]

In order to (lawfully) wiretap, he needs to obtain a court order thru normal channels or thru FISA; the latter takes about far less time to do than an actual wiretap set-up, and if I am not mistaken, has NEVER refused a request. So what's the problem?

Here is the problem and what should be obvious rational.

By John Hinderaker





The issue of speed is critical. When we capture a cell phone or laptop being used by a terrorist, it is usually because we captured or killed the terrorist. The amount of time we have to exploit the capture is very short. The terrorists will soon figure out that their confederate is out of business, and stop using his cell phone numbers and email addresses. So if we are to benefit from the capture, we must begin obtaining information right now. A delay of even a few days may render the information useless, as the terrorists will have realized that their colleague has been neutralized. And it is likely that the first hours or even minutes after we obtain a cell phone number or email address are most apt to yield helpful new information. So it is easy to see why going through the process needed to obtain a warrant from the FISA court would undermine the effectiveness of our anti-terror operations.

Byron York reminds some of us that both parties agreeded the FISA court was a problem.

In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court. Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court — problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission — and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.


People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.

Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. Investigators wanted to study the contents of Moussaoui's laptop computer, but the FBI bureaucracy involved in applying for a FISA warrant was stifling, and there were real questions about whether investigators could meet the FISA court's probable-cause standard for granting a warrant. FBI agents became so frustrated that they considered flying Moussaoui to France, where his computer could be examined. But then the attacks came, and it was too late.

Rowley wrote up her concerns in a famous 13-page memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, and then elaborated on them in testimony to Congress. "Rowley depicted the legal mechanism for security warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, as burdensome and restrictive, a virtual roadblock to effective law enforcement," Legal Times reported in September 2002.

The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.

Granted it does not explain why warrants were not sought after the fact as they are entitled to do.

P. S. If your listed on terrorist computers and talking to them outside of the US. ( Which was true in every single case) I hope they do a lot more than just listen in to your private conversations.


Rep

[chm2023]

Granted it does not explain why warrants were not sought after the fact as they are entitled to do.

P. S. If your listed on terrorist computers and talking to them outside of the US. ( Which was true in every single case) I hope they do a lot more than just listen in to your private conversations.


Rep

Don't you see not getting the warrants after the fact emphasizes the real problem here? There is no legitimate reason not to follow the law, no downside re national security. So Bush doesn't do it because he doesn't want to? Oh, okay.

And yes, I am on countless terrorist computers, it's my avocation. I thought I had mentioned that....



[/QUOTE]

[rep]

I don't know why, but those two words together made me crack up laughing! Thanks for that! :D

Source Drudge

Just a reminder to please not post copyrighted stories and materials on the Board. If there is a story you want to post about, Fair Use Doctrine can be difficult to interpret but it would appear to allow a brief example or summary of the material followed by a link to the complete article.

Please keep this in mind if you are posting material from other sources. Thank you.
__________________


OptiBoard Administrator

I am assuming that this is your personal opinion, on which I happen to disagree.

"Just as the NRA is against any restrictions on gun ownership even though there is no 'demonstration' that their fears are justified".

Not that I am a member anymore, but I think there is a world of evidence that their fears are and have been justified time and time again.

Rep

[rep]

And yes, I am on countless terrorist computers, it's my avocation. I thought I had mentioned that....

[/QUOTE]

Top Stories...

•Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List
•Bono Gets Time to Forgive Subscriber Debt
•Draft of Bush Speech Touted Baghdad Disney
•Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11
•Retailers Battle to Undercut Prices, Service



http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com...=2&u_java=trueDecember 19, 2005

Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

by Scott Ott

(2005-12-19) — Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

“If you’re concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,” the president said, “then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and we’ll let the National Security Administration know that you don’t want them eavesdropping on you

Your welcome,

Rep

[Steve Machol]

Rep,

You misundertstood. I am fully in support of protecting the 2nd Amendment and agree with the NRA on this point. I also think the 1st Amendment is of at least equal worth and believe it too should be protected. My response was to this:

Has there been any demonstration of wrongdoing by the government? Or does the concept just offend? Think, people!

I was making a comparison to show that it is not necessary to show irrefutable evidence of 'wrongdoing' by the government to be concerned when this government assumes more power, surveillance and control over it's citizens. I also think that if you though about this a bit, you'd agree.

Having said that, there is evidence of government abuses that have affected people's lives. I know this is probably not to your liking, but the ACLU has documented plenty of cases of this in the Freedom Files series.

So I am in support of the ACLU and it's efforts to protect the 1st Amendment, and also support the NRA in it's efforts to protect the 2nd Amendment. The more organizations we have fighting to protect our rights under the Constitution, the better. :)

[chm2023]

Top Stories...

•Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List
•Bono Gets Time to Forgive Subscriber Debt
•Draft of Bush Speech Touted Baghdad Disney
•Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11
•Retailers Battle to Undercut Prices, Service



http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com...=2&u_java=trueDecember 19, 2005

Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

by Scott Ott

(2005-12-19) — Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

“If you’re concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,” the president said, “then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and we’ll let the National Security Administration know that you don’t want them eavesdropping on you

Your welcome,

Rep




[/QUOTE]

Is this deliberately or unintentionally funny?

[rep]

Top Stories...

•Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List
•Bono Gets Time to Forgive Subscriber Debt
•Draft of Bush Speech Touted Baghdad Disney
•Bush Apologizes for Phone Taps After 9/11
•Retailers Battle to Undercut Prices, Service



http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com...=2&u_java=trueDecember 19, 2005

Bush Announces Do-Not-Wiretap List

by Scott Ott

(2005-12-19) — Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.

The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.

“If you’re concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,” the president said, “then go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and we’ll let the National Security Administration know that you don’t want them eavesdropping on you

Your welcome,

Rep

Is this deliberately or unintentionally funny?[/QUOTE]


Check out the Bush apologizes for phone taps after 9/11.

It asserts that he wishes they had tapped the phones BEFORE 9/11

Rep

[rep]

Rep,

I know this is probably not to your liking, but the ACLU has documented plenty of cases of this in the Freedom Files series.

So I am in support of the ACLU and it's efforts to protect the 1st Amendment, and also support the NRA in it's efforts to protect the 2nd Amendment. The more organizations we have fighting to protect our rights under the Constitution, the better. :)

Look what else this fine organization advocates:

• the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
• the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
• the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
• the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
• the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
• opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
• opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

Your correct, I can't support an organization that also supports endorses and defends these policies under the guise of " individual rights". I also hope your not a member since they (ACLU) seem to be running intelegence gathering information on their own members. All in the name of individual rights I suppose.

Just to let you know I am not thrilled about the war time powers that have been implemented. Mainly because after the war is won, and it will be, there is the tendency for things to remain in place and not revert back. But with the type of enemy we are fighting now I think we have to use every tool in the shed to stamp out those who continue to wage war against us. Then we can talk about things going back to whatever is normal.

Rep

[rinselberg]

A fairly well known Internet poster from the optical community named "Darris C" posted an article a few months ago, the gist of which was that Valerie Plame's credentials as an undercover agent were somewhat overblown (har-har, some canned laugher here please ...) and that her official cover story had long been exposed in the press, years before any of us heard or thought much about the likes of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Maybe I can dig that report up later. That post was one of about a thousand that got wiped out recently by an online hacker (or was that an "undercover" operative hired by the Democrats? ...)

source: http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...2&postcount=29


I think I have the article that Dr. Death (Darris Chambless) posted about Valerie Plame, which has become a small but notable subtext to the topic of this thread. It was from Bill Gertz, published in the Washington Times under the title "CIA officer named prior to column."

The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say ...

For the complete article: http://washingtontimes.com/national/...5439-4033r.htm

I am not privy - at least not yet - to the origin of the "Dr. Death" byline, but the latest posts from Darris Chambless can be found on the web via http://www.laramyk.com/forums/index.php


The Southern boy on his second favorite instrument. "I got the I lost my nickel bag of yellowcake way down in Niger blues." Hope it wasn't another "Three Dog Night" for ya', Bill!

source: RinselNews™

[chm2023]

Look what else this fine organization advocates:

• the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
• the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
• the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
• the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
• the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
• opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
• opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

Your correct, I can't support an organization that also supports endorses and defends these policies under the guise of " individual rights". I also hope your not a member since they (ACLU) seem to be running intelegence gathering information on their own members. All in the name of individual rights I suppose.


Just to let you know I am not thrilled about the war time powers that have been implemented. Mainly because after the war is won, and it will be, there is the tendency for things to remain in place and not revert back. But with the type of enemy we are fighting now I think we have to use every tool in the shed to stamp out those who continue to wage war against us. Then we can talk about things going back to whatever is normal.

Rep

What is the source of this? I don't get the policy reference numbers???

[spartus]

Well shame on all of them. And it appears that the Echelon program was more of a capability than an actual practice up til now from reading your link. Talk about Big Brother.

Oddly enough, George Tenet testified before Congress about this on April 12, 2000:

I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

Thank you anyway for the attempt to muddy the waters of the debate, Roy. Let's stick to the topic under discussion, that being the deliberate and continued contravention of the law by the President. The "but Clinton did it!" sputters are getting increasingly desperate.

Privacy is dead, and most people are happy about it (see public nudity, celebrities, reality shows, blogs, people talking on their cell phones in earshot, your credit report, how many cookies are being set everytime you click...). It's not good, but it's the truth.

This is actually quite a non sequitur. What does reality TV have to do with the government behaving itself? Very, very little, unless The Real World: White House is coming up next.

I would recommend that everyone play by the rules, or you're going to get caught, sooner or later.

Just hope for benevolent governments.

Living in a democracy means that it is our responsibility to demand a benevolent government. The keys to this are freedom of speech, assembly, and transparency in government. The fewer unnecesary secrets, the better. Even more important than that is exercising our right to vote. If you merely "hope" for benevolent rulers, don't be surprised to wake up one day in a totalitarian state.

Now. I posted (and backed up) figures about FISA warrants and their near-100% record of being approved--and keep in mind that these can be retroactive warrants issued. There is no reason whatsoever that this court--this secret court that exists purely to approve FISA warrants--was never notified about any of these oh-so-critical wiretaps. Using the above logic of fvc, and drk, in the sense of if-you've-done-nothing-wrong-you-have-nothing-to-hide, why not explain to the appropriate people who, what, when and why you listened in on their conversations? You don't have to shout it from the rooftops, you just have to fill in the FISA court, the head s of the intelligence committees in both Houses...and I think that's it.

All they have to do is obey the law. This is so simple to understand I'm not surprised Rep started throwing out noise about Valerie Plame.

Show me:

1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.

Rep

To answer:

1. I can't. It's also equally impossible for you or I to prove that he didn't. This is the reason there's a grand jury and a federal prosecutor trying to find this out.
2. I can't. And it's also impossible for you or I to prove what work, exactly, she was doing for the CIA. However, there has got to be a specific reason that the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak and bring criminal charges if necessary. There also has to be a reason that John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation due to a conflict of interest. Which, again, brings us back to the federal prosecutor. 'Tis not my job or yours to argue on the Internet about the factual basis of these things, because my beliefs or yours have no bearing on them.
3. This, again, is the special prosecutor's job. He has been working for nearly two years on this, and I'm sure there will be answers forthcoming someday. And, of course, as any traffic cop will tell you, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
4. Don't look now, but you just proved #1 yourself.

I'll quote a highly-placed government official to explain this in greater detail:

"It is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.... We're at war, and we must protect America's secrets."

The source of this quote, and the quoted, can be found here. It's not exactly about this case, but the words still ring true. :)


As to the pajama photo exonerating anyone, Rinselberg, it's a lot like arguing that you've never broken your leg because 2 years after it's healed it doesn't hurt anymore.

And you seem to really want someone to engage you about Maynard Ferguson, so here goes: I think he's goofy and overrated, though unique (other than Arturo Sandoval, maybe, but that's a completely different genre). Chameleon's great fun, but I think I prefer the live version of Macarthur Park (on the greatest hits album), mostly due to the bari sax solo. Blue Birdland's also good.

Here is the problem and what should be obvious rational.

By John Hinderaker

The issue of speed is critical. When we capture a cell phone or laptop being used by a terrorist, it is usually because we captured or killed the terrorist. The amount of time we have to exploit the capture is very short. The terrorists will soon figure out that their confederate is out of business, and stop using his cell phone numbers and email addresses. So if we are to benefit from the capture, we must begin obtaining information right now. A delay of even a few days may render the information useless, as the terrorists will have realized that their colleague has been neutralized. And it is likely that the first hours or even minutes after we obtain a cell phone number or email address are most apt to yield helpful new information. So it is easy to see why going through the process needed to obtain a warrant from the FISA court would undermine the effectiveness of our anti-terror operations.

Hindrocket is--and I'll be generous here--an idiot. I mean, really, really stupid. But that's just pointlessly ad hominem. It is a statement of opinion, not fact, but it did need to be said, I feel. As to the above, I'll agree with the facts, and disagree violently with the conclusion: Speed is important, which is why FISA allows you to get the warrant up to three days later. Why did Hindrocket ignore this simple fact? Because it blows his whole rationalizatio--I mean, rationale. :)

Byron York reminds some of us that both parties agreeded the FISA court was a problem.

I'd like to see some corroboration of this. Surely, York has a source for this.

Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. Investigators wanted to study the contents of Moussaoui's laptop computer, but the FBI bureaucracy involved in applying for a FISA warrant was stifling, and there were real questions about whether investigators could meet the FISA court's probable-cause standard for granting a warrant. FBI agents became so frustrated that they considered flying Moussaoui to France, where his computer could be examined. But then the attacks came, and it was too late.

The President of The United States has, I believe, slightly more pull than FBI Special Agents in getting someone's attention. Considering that he, personally, OK'd the use of these wiretaps 30 times (as you yourself, rep, have mentioned), it shows his personal involvement. So, if something was important enough, you'd hope that the hierarchy could be short-circuited in order to get quick approval. Well, "quick approval" in the sense of "up to three days after the fact".

Granted it does not explain why warrants were not sought after the fact as they are entitled to do.

Exactly my point. Not only that, the administration, in the form of McClellan, Rice, and Cheney are still out there, explaining that they don't need warrants for anything. Ever. Their discretion--shown to be, at best, spotty--is all we have to go on. I wonder how you'd feel if President Hillary were exercising these same powers.

P. S. If your listed on terrorist computers and talking to them outside of the US. ( Which was true in every single case) I hope they do a lot more than just listen in to your private conversations.[/QUOTE]

You seem to know quite a bit about these secret wiretaps and who was, in fact, secretly surveilled. Where, pray tell, do you get your information, because I'm sure some people would love to know this for sure. Like... I dunno... the Senate.

Snark aside, from what has been released so far, apparently Vegans, Catholic worker's groups, Greenpeace and PETA pose terroristic threats.

Oh, and oops, there were purely domestic communications monitored.

And we've got a FISA judge resigning in protest. So that's nice.

About the ACLU:

Look what else this fine organization advocates:

• the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
• the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
• the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
• the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
• the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
• opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
• opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

Your correct, I can't support an organization that also supports endorses and defends these policies under the guise of " individual rights". I also hope your not a member since they (ACLU) seem to be running intelegence gathering information on their own members. All in the name of individual rights I suppose.

Just to let you know I am not thrilled about the war time powers that have been implemented. Mainly because after the war is won, and it will be, there is the tendency for things to remain in place and not revert back. But with the type of enemy we are fighting now I think we have to use every tool in the shed to stamp out those who continue to wage war against us. Then we can talk about things going back to whatever is normal.

Rep

This is all very interesting stuff, and I'd love to see where you got this list from. I would like to address this also, but this post is quite long enough on its own. I've already weighed in on the ACLU here. Hope that helps to clear things up.

[rinselberg]

As to the pajama photo exonerating anyone, Rinselberg, it's a lot like arguing that you've never broken your leg because 2 years after it's healed it doesn't hurt anymore. And you seem to really want someone to engage you about Maynard Ferguson, so here goes: I think he's goofy and overrated, though unique (other than Arturo Sandoval, maybe, but that's a completely different genre). Chameleon's great fun, but I think I prefer the live version of Macarthur Park (on the greatest hits album), mostly due to the bari sax solo. Blue Birdland's also good.

That is one FANTASTIC post, spartus. I'm honored to be quoted in it, even if the price of honor includes a little time in the intellectual stockade. To cut to the chase: For the most part, I think we AGREE about this. I don't understand why they sidestepped or chucked out the old, reliable FISA and bench warrant routine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I think maybe "W" took some bad advice on this one: Maybe it was Cheney or somebody under Cheney (?) that saw this as an ideological sine qua non - you know, that Latin thing: "Can't do without". (I may have botched that up a little.) In other words, somebody wanted President Bush to establish these no-warrant wiretaps as an executive privilege, to be used and handed down to the next (Republican! In their view ...) president. That's the only real theory that I have about it. Maybe something more will come out of the administration, if Congress keeps beating on them about this (as I think they should.) Maybe it was something that the administration could explain (in secret) to the heads of the Congressional intelligence/oversight committees and then they can turn around and say to the public, yeah, they had a good reason for it, which we cannot divulge publicly, but now we're all OK on it. Likely scenario? Probably not. But that's as far as my thinking takes me, on the main topic of this thread.

As to the Valerie Plame subtext (of this thread): This is a departure from what I believe is the usual "rinselberg" posting style, but to cut to the chase again - there's something about Joe Wilson I just can't LIKE! I mean, to me he's just another talking head on TV, but I just can't get too worked up about the "outing" of Valerie Plame. I guess we'll have to see (as you said) what the special prosecutor finally comes out with. It's already cost "W" one Scooter Libby overboard, so it's not all going to waste. A price has been paid. Was Valerie Plame worth more than one not so widely esteemed guillotined head? I dunno. That photo that I posted above (from rep's link) - that's a crackup. I can just see myself as Jay Leno, holding that photo in front of me and saying that the caption is ... on and on! Look at what Plame is doing with her hand to her head, let alone the pajamas. She looks like that "Ed Glosser" act that Christopher Walken puts on - the Trivial Psychic: Oooh, it's coming to me now, Vx nerve gas in Hussein's Presidential Palace Number 18 ... Read Wilson's book and tell me about it, but I don't think I'll be picking up a copy myself.

Finally, you know your Maynard better than I do. MacArthur Park is one of my all time favorite jazz tracks. They took what was called the world's WORST EVER pop vocal, composed by Jimmy Webb and "sung" (spoken, would be more right) by Richard Harris and converted it into one of the great all time big band (or medium band) jazz cuts. Birdland - very good. Chameleon - not much use for that. I really haven't heard that much else - I picked up the album title and the nickname "MF Horn", but I haven't even listened to that. (What is this? True Lies and Videotapes ...) I heard that version of MacArthur Park a lot in college. One of my roommates was in the marching band - clarinet player, he really liked it and played it all the time on the stereo. And I never got tired of it. And probably never will.

Great post, spartus: I see it winging its way around the globe on Internet-2, at broadband speed end to end, a flat panel monitor in every home, served up by Steve Machol's future OptiBoard host - a cluster of 64 Pentium-4's surplused at a discount from the National Security Agency ...

"Jazz on"


Other recent posts by rinselberg: CLICK on any of these post titles (below).

Response to "Iraq has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden."
Fingerpointing: Playing the "Plame" game.
I regret that I have but one ...

[Spexvet]

Look what else this fine organization advocates:

• the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
• the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
• the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
• the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
• the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
• opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
• opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
• opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

...Rep

Are these terrorist activities that are happening in conjunction with organizations outside the US?

NO.

[findtheneedle1]

Hell Yeh !!!! !! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spexvet]

Has there been any demonstration of wrongdoing by the government?

How about:

BERLIN — German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Tuesday that the United States has admitted making a mistake in the case of a German national who claimed he was wrongfully imprisoned by the CIA.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...1206?hub=World

[Spexvet]

But I have little sympathy for those who want the right to protest the government in a childishly hippie-trendy fashion, and then claim persecution by the serious people charged with protecting the safety of these people.

This is not terroristic behavior! Consider that "right to life (anti-choice)" demonstrations "protest the government in a childishly hippie-trendy fashion".

[spartus]

That is one FANTASTIC post, spartus. I'm honored to be quoted in it, even if the price of honor includes a little time in the intellectual stockade. To cut to the chase: For the most part, I think we AGREE about this. I don't understand why they sidestepped or chucked out the old, reliable FISA and bench warrant routine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I think maybe "W" took some bad advice on this one: Maybe it was Cheney or somebody under Cheney (?) that saw this as an ideological sine qua non - you know, that Latin thing: "Can't do without". (I may have botched that up a little.) In other words, somebody wanted President Bush to establish these no-warrant wiretaps as an executive privilege, to be used and handed down to the next (Republican! In their view ...) president. That's the only real theory that I have about it. Maybe something more will come out of the administration, if Congress keeps beating on them about this (as I think they should.) Maybe it was something that the administration could explain (in secret) to the heads of the Congressional intelligence/oversight committees and then they can turn around and say to the public, yeah, they had a good reason for it, which we cannot divulge publicly, but now we're all OK on it. Likely scenario? Probably not. But that's as far as my thinking takes me, on the main topic of this thread.

As to the Valerie Plame subtext (of this thread): This is a departure from what I believe is the usual "rinselberg" posting style, but to cut to the chase again - there's something about Joe Wilson I just can't LIKE! I mean, to me he's just another talking head on TV, but I just can't get too worked up about the "outing" of Valerie Plame. I guess we'll have to see (as you said) what the special prosecutor finally comes out with. It's already cost "W" one Scooter Libby overboard, so it's not all going to waste. A price has been paid. Was Valerie Plame worth more than one not so widely esteemed guillotined head? I dunno. That photo that I posted above (from rep's link) - that's a crackup. I can just see myself as Jay Leno, holding that photo in front of me and saying that the caption is ... on and on! Look at what Plame is doing with her hand to her head, let alone the pajamas. She looks like that "Ed Glosser" act that Christopher Walken puts on - the Trivial Psychic: Oooh, it's coming to me now, Vx nerve gas in Hussein's Presidential Palace Number 18 ... Read Wilson's book and tell me about it, but I don't think I'll be picking up a copy myself.

Finally, you know your Maynard better than I do. MacArthur Park is one of my all time favorite jazz tracks. They took what was called the world's WORST EVER pop vocal, composed by Jimmy Webb and "sung" (spoken, would be more right) by Richard Harris and converted it into one of the great all time big band (or medium band) jazz cuts. Birdland - very good. Chameleon - not much use for that. I really haven't heard that much else - I picked up the album title and the nickname "MF Horn", but I haven't even listened to that. (What is this? True Lies and Videotapes ...) I heard that version of MacArthur Park a lot in college. One of my roommates was in the marching band - clarinet player, he really liked it and played it all the time on the stereo. And I never got tired of it. And probably never will.

Great post, spartus: I see it winging its way around the globe on Internet-2, at broadband speed end to end, a flat panel monitor in every home, served up by Steve Machol's future OptiBoard host - a cluster of 64 Pentium-4's surplused at a discount from the National Security Agency ...

"Jazz on"

Thanks for all that. I hadn't been by in a few days, and had a lot of material to cover. I remembered a few other things that I'd wanted to mention shortly after posting, but I'll let everyone else get a word in edgewise before I bother with that.

About Joe Wilson: Yes, I agree that he's a grandstanding windbag. This is a guy who, as Ambassador to Iraq in 1990, while Hussein was threatening to hang American embassy workers, said this:

source
He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.

He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

Blowhard or no, he's got style.

However. This has very little bearing on whether or not his CIA agent wife's cover was blown by... well, someone. Who precisely that was... is Fitzgerald's job.

Oh, one more thing.

source
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

[rinselberg]

It's a lovely day in the neighborhood ...

Some of y'all may want to put the corks back in your champagne bottles for awhile yet. The House and Senate just agreed and sent a one-month extension of the non-permanent provisions of the Patriot Act (including the post 9-11 expansion of flexibility in the granting of roving wiretaps) up to President Bush for his approval. The issues will be taken up again by Congress after the turn of the year.

Source: RinselNews™

[Uncle Fester]

To lighten the debate:

There is a simple answer to this great debate!

That is to elect me Dictato---eerrr President for life ;)

I PROMISE I will only do what is right for my beloved Fatherlan--eerrr Homeland and will NEVER abuse this power like it was in the past.

Trust Me
:cheers: