39 Comments

1. Marathon Pundit:

Once upon a time, Martin Sheen played John Dean in the made-for-TV film “Blind Ambition”

Mar 31, 2006 - 9:49 pm 2. Shochu John:

One comment that could not have possibly been made seriously, “Comparing Watergate to the NSA controversy is so absurd it’s almost silly. The former was about a domestic political break-in, the latter about national defense in a time of war”

You’re joking, right? I mean, Nixon tried to block the investigation of Watergate by claiming it would compromise national security. The only ones who bought that tale were the hardcore Nixon apologists. Here we are, thirty years later, and someone is claiming that this is totally different than Watergate because Tricky Dick’s old cover story actually applies in this case, because, in sharp contrast to then, we’re at war? Good one. You ALMOST had me.

Apr 1, 2006 - 12:08 am 3. David Thomson:

ìYou’re joking, right? I mean, Nixon tried to block the investigation of Watergate by claiming it would compromise national security.î

Do you have even the slightest evidence that the Bush White House is listening in to the conversations of its political opponents? If not, your point is entirely senseless.

Apr 1, 2006 - 2:40 am 4. Captain Hate:

Putting a dim bulb like Dean in a position of responsibility is probably the most impeachable thing Nixon ever did. Other than wage and price controls.

Apr 1, 2006 - 3:25 am 5. HA:

It was bad enough when the Democrats were sounding like Michael Moore. Now they’re sounding like Lyndon LaRouche:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3250patsy_bush.html

Apr 1, 2006 - 4:24 am 6. Old Dad:

Roger

I almost always agree with you, but not this time. Dean’s analogy is so far past silly that it makes ridiculous seem providential.

Words like lunatic, bananas, Dowdian, and Carteresque come to mind.

Apr 1, 2006 - 5:21 am 7. JK Ribera:

ShochuJohn, you seem to have been drinking too much shochu this time. Nixon may have invoked national security in his cover-up. This is really ABOUT national security. You may not like Bush’s approach, but your reasoning here is ridiculous.

Apr 1, 2006 - 6:26 am 8. Tom O'Bedlam:

“Harkin the corrupt”

I like that. I’m condemned to having the man represent me in the U.S. Senate.

Apr 1, 2006 - 7:34 am 9. neo-neocon:

I noticed that Dean testimony, too. But my reaction to it was somewhat different! (April Fools!).

On a more serious note, it never fails to amaze me how so many people seem grimly intent on replaying the 60s (in this case, the early 70s), trying to relive their glory days. Dean is just one of them.

They seem blind–”Blind Ambition,” indeed!–to the possible consequences of their actions. The fact that we are currently in a war that concerns our personal and national security seems to be of no consequence to them; the fact that the wiretaps were clearly done this time in the interests of national security likewise seems to have escaped them.

Apr 1, 2006 - 9:00 am 10. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

Watergate, Vietnam, Watergate, Vietnam, watergate, Vietnam, Watergate, vietnam………… for the last 30 years. When will the Dems get a new setlist. Even the Stones mix in a new number now and then. Dean has been pimping his Watergate testimoney and the MSM has been buying his “this is just like watergate” bilge without any serious examination for as long as the Dems. At least Tony Orlando doesn’t try to sell the Yellow Ribbon song as a new release. C-Span should set up shop in Branson, Missouri for all the golden oldies and let them sing their tired songs for aging 70’s Dems who want to re-live the glory days.

P.S.- Roger, I share your Boxer shame. Not only did I vote for her, I gave her $500 for her first campaign, my first large political donation. I bought a Ford Pinto too so that tells you where my head was at the time.

Apr 1, 2006 - 10:18 am 11. neo-neocon:

Kevin Peters: The thing is, at concerts, no one really wants to hear the new stuff, do they? It’s the Golden Oldies that keep them coming back.

Apr 1, 2006 - 11:58 am 12. promoguy:

Kevin, I can believe that Roger in his semi liberal-neo conservative-mix’em up party affiliation may have voted for Boxer. But, I’ve always liked your postings, so please, in all that is holy, don’t tell me you voted for her….(I guess I can accept the Pint part)

Apr 1, 2006 - 12:41 pm 13. Kevin Peters:

Neo-neocon:

How true. Everytime Dean is on any of the pundit gab fests you can count on him saying “what did he know and when did he know it”., “the cover-up is always worse then the crime”, President —- (fill in the blank) is being ill served by his staff and that he needs to get it out before it overwhelms his administration.” Ad-nauseum. But from a buisness point of view he has made a nice little niche industry out of his crimes.

Apr 1, 2006 - 12:42 pm 14. Shochu John:

“Nixon may have invoked national security in his cover-up. This is really ABOUT national security. ”

Rubbish, this is about the rule of law and certain Presidents who seem to be laboring under the notion that they are above it and can simply use “national security” as a shield against uncomfortable questions about the legality of their actions.

Apr 1, 2006 - 12:49 pm 15. Kevin Peters:

Schochu John:
Nixon did use the F.B.I. to go after political opponnents. He did break into the D.N.C. He went after Ellsburg. He performed a series of dirty tricks. He destroyed documents. He hid the truth and encouraged his cabinent members to lie under oath. He didn’t tell the joint leaders of the Intelligence Committee about what he was doing. He had a private slush fund to carry out all these acts. Nixon went after politicians and activists he didn’t like and smeared foes using private money and some of the info he picked up from the illegal tapping. President Bush is tapping incoming calls from Al Queda members. Sure, you bet, exactly the same thing. Why do you think that Feingold is flying solo? If there was the faintist hint of a Watergate like scandal the Halls of Congress would have been filled to the brim with Democratic pols wanting to get their mug on C-Span the other day. Keep pushing the analogy. Fight for censure, fight for impeachment. The Republicans are in a world of hurt for the next couple elections but a strong impeachment drive by the Dems over this issue might just get them out of the ditch. The dem’s went ballistic trying to paint Reagan as the Devil incarnate and helped him survive Iran Contra. The repubs tried the Mina airport, shoot the pumpkin route and bailed out President Clinton. And now there is the “Worse then Watergate” gambit against President Bush. Rage on. Karl Rove probably didn’t think he could ever get this political lottery number but you give him hope.

Apr 1, 2006 - 1:26 pm 16. Kevin Peters:

Promoguy:

Alas, I must confess. I was a raging, yellow dog Democrat. When Reagan won my comrades all donned black armbands and we spent the evening drinking Jack Daniels Black Label and raged at how stupid the American voters were. I spent the next 8 years predicting Armagedon. If you think some of the born again Christians go on a bit about the end of the world you should have witnessed the dire predictions coming from my fellow Reagan haters. World War 3, the coming nuclear winter,(it was winter at that time, and Reagan was too dense to know that the freeze was coming, after all, the entire scientific world told us so.) Reagan was a paranoid commie hater and the more sophisticated among us knew that yes, the USSR wasn’t perfect but if we would just break bread with them and get rid of all our nukes peace would break out. I still have my Tower Commission report that told the truth about Iran Contra and I was insane with rage because it hardly dented his popularity in the end. You stupid American sheep! So of course I saw Barbara Boxer as the new hope of America.

I have faith that God forgives me of all my sins but sometimes I get a twinge of doubt when I think of my political past.

Apr 1, 2006 - 2:59 pm 17. Rick Ballard:

Don’t worry Kevin, it’s nothing that 100,000 years in purgatory won’t fix.

Apr 1, 2006 - 5:12 pm 18. Shochu John:

Kevin Peters says, “President Bush is tapping incoming calls from Al Queda members.”

Mr. Peters, were any al Qaeda members actually spied on? I have seen no evidence of that. What we do know is that a lot of innocent people were spied on without warrants. This disturbs us who are unwilling to burn the constitution because we’re scared of terrorists. Nixon’s behavior was different in scale, not in nature. In both cases, it is the Executive attempting to elevate itself above the law.

Apr 1, 2006 - 6:07 pm 19. OregonGuy:

I watched Dean’s testimony, and thought for a moment that he was going to clear President Nixon’s name for a moment…something he should have done 32 years ago.

Apr 1, 2006 - 6:16 pm 20. vet222:

Were any al Qaeda members actually spied on? I have seen no evidence of that. What we do know is that a lot of innocent people were spied on without warrants.

Oh General Hayden, Shochu John would like you to tell all the Al-Queda guys that you have surveilled that they are being spied upon so they can develop a more secure way of communicating! He demands evidence!

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00013.cfm

Apr 1, 2006 - 7:17 pm 21. Captain Hate:

“Mr. Peters, were any al Qaeda members actually spied on? I have seen no evidence of that. What we do know is that a lot of innocent people were spied on without warrants. This disturbs us who are unwilling to burn the constitution because we’re scared of terrorists.”

This is an April Fool’s day post, right?

Apr 1, 2006 - 7:53 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Captain Hate,

You’ve never seen leftist circlejercular reasoning before? He’ll show you his PhD in Tautology if you ask him nicely.

Apr 1, 2006 - 7:58 pm 23. larry:

Kevin Peters at April 1, 2006 10:18 AM:
“…..should set up shop in Branson, Missouri…”

Branson might be a good place for them, Kevin. We’d get to see them tarred and feathered.

Apr 1, 2006 - 8:04 pm 24. Lem:

If spying on terrorist is like a Watergate crime, ah, let’s see, wait a minute; I’m having an admiral Stockdale moment. “Who am I? Why am I here?”
John Dean. Let this be a warning to children and future civil servants, this is what happens when whistle blowing rises to unimagined levels of reverence.
Poor man sees conspiracies and malfeasance everywhere so as to justify face time on prime time.

Apr 1, 2006 - 8:45 pm 25. Ric Locke:

Shochu John,

It’s clear that you don’t believe any of that stuff.

Because if you did, you’d be living in the backwoods of Idaho or eastern Washington with the rest of the paranoid conspiracy-theory freaks, wearing woodland camo, carrying an ugly gun, and bitching to your buddies that you really used to enjoy the Internet thing, but you were going broke buying tinfoil and the mind control rays made your teeth hurt.

The NSA is not a law enforcement agency. Try stopping with the anguished bleats and think the implications of that through, please.

Regards,
Ric

Apr 1, 2006 - 9:09 pm 26. Kevin Peters:

Rick;

thanks for the leniant sentence, I only hope God is as mercifull

Apr 1, 2006 - 9:59 pm 27. klrfz1:

This is an April Fool’s day post, right?

I had the exact same reaction to “Smart” John’s post, Captain. I really didn’t think SJ’s that stupid. Maybe I’m just too generous and tolerant.

I am really glad Richard Nixon’s reputation with the American public was rehabilitated before his death. John Dean is no hero to me, now. In fact, now that I know Deep Throat was a disgruntled, back-stabbing FBI agent who violated his sworn oath, …

Apr 1, 2006 - 10:49 pm 28. Tara:

It seems John Dean was for listening in on Al Qaeda before he was against it.

According to Powerline, Senator Hatch found an article quoting Dean on the President’s powers and Dean saw it another way shortly after 9/11 …

Senator Hatch resurrected an article Dean wrote five days after the September 11 attacks in which he argued that “the president does not need congressional authority to respond.” The Constitution, Dean argued in a FindLaw article, “does not put the Congress in charge of counterterrorism, which is an executive function.”

Worse than Watergate,eh?

It seems Dean has a new book coming out soon and he also made sure he got a nice picture taken of himself so he could use it on the book’s dust-jacket…I wonder if Feingold will get a percentage of the book’s sales for Dean’s testimony at the censure hearing?

You can read the post on Dean at Powerline.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013622.php

Apr 2, 2006 - 8:35 am 29. Shochu John:

Ric says, disbelieving I mean what I say, “Because if you did, you’d be living in the backwoods of Idaho or eastern Washington with the rest of the paranoid conspiracy-theory freaks,”

Rich, how did I in any way implied I thought there was any cospiracy? Frankly, I am surprised at the level of derision in here towards me when all I suggested is that the government not be allowed to tap people’s telephone calls in this country without a warrant. The derision, I hasten to observe, is not actually accompanied with a counter-argument of any substance. I am futher surpised at the level of credulity and trust certain people are willing to grant unchecked to the federal government, especially when I venture that many of those same people believe in the Reagan revolution, the Republican revolution of 1994, and principles of limited government. I regret that I even have to inform you that the executive branch is not allowed to unilaterally declare its actions above constitutional scrutiny simply by pleading national security. If anyone here actually wants to engage in a discussion rather than a less than enligeting exchange of playground taunts, I eagerly await.

Apr 2, 2006 - 9:26 am 30. promoguy:

Kevin & Rick, 100,000 years in purgatory is that a big of a deal? Maybe you should do the Sopranos calculation to come up with the real number of years.

I remember on a Sopranos episode a few years back when Christopher was in the hospital and explaining his near death dream to Paulie Walnuts, Paulie explains purgatory. Says, you figure up the years by adding your venal and mortal sins. He came up with about 1400 years to which he said he could do standing on his head.

You may come up with less and I’ve already given you proof that it’s a piece of cake.

Us Jews don’t worry about that stuff. We just die.

Apr 2, 2006 - 10:25 am 31. klrfz1:

Sochu John. There is a reason few are interested in a “discussion” with you. Normally there is at least some give and take in a discussion. You never give. You don’t ever, ever concede anyone else’s point. You don’t ever, ever give out anything personal. You always, always hew to the Democrat Party line, usually the Kos Kids faction. You’re never funny, rarely interesting, hardly ever bring any new or different perspective. I’ve heard it all before. All the questions, all the sneers, all the evasions. Everything you have to say is old news and spin. I ridicule you in the hopes that some day you will finally realize just how fucking ridiculous you are. I am an optimist. I do believe there is hope even for you.

So, SJ, are you a logger? What deep blue state do you live in? What do you do when you’re not doing politics? Anything?

Markus did have a funny one recently: he called me an “obnoxious dittohead.” Made me laugh because it’s true. Your insults, SJ, are just pathetic.

Apr 2, 2006 - 11:53 am 32. Kevin Peters:

Schochu J.

Cass Sunstein, regarded by most to be a liberal Law proff, says that Bush had the authority. John Schmidt, Asst. AG under President Clinton also states that the court has already ruled under previous cases that President Bush had the authority to issue the taps. There will be a court case that will decide it but your argument has been rebutted by highly thought of Law Scholars, not all of them Republican lackeys.And if the Presidents power is under discussion and dispute then it can’t be considered criminal And the most telling point is that before President Bush tried his “Nixonian” breaking of the law he informed the leader of the opposition party and member of the Intel co. that he was going to do it. As far as I know Nixon never informed Democratic members of the Senate that he was going to do all the numerous illegal things he did. President Roosevelt monitered all incoming mail and telephone communication from Europe during WWII. Did he rape the Constitution? Should he be censured? Truman? Lincoln? If the Carter era law is unconstitutional then it can’t be binding. President Bush informed Congress. Are they guilty of aiding and abetting?

Apr 2, 2006 - 11:57 am 33. vet222:

unilaterally declare its actions…

Congressional leaders were briefed about this program. Good contribution to the discussion though!

Apr 2, 2006 - 8:02 pm 34. Shochu John:

Well, Kevin, you could appeal to authority on the issue, or you could just look at the statute yourself. The FISA act of 1978 allows surveilance without a warrant if “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party” 50 U.S.C. ß 1802(a) or altertaively “to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.” 50 U.S.C. ß 1811. Either one of these apply? Nope. And the FISA act, “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. ß 2518(f). So, guess what, that means the wiretaps were illegal. Feel free to read the statutes in full yourself so you may be confident I am omitting nothing relevant.

As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice. Of course, if they were and did nothing, then they also need to be investigated as to their part in the violation of these laws.

klrfz, I have neither the time nor inclination to take part in the feces flinging contest in which you seem determined to engage me. Consider this an open invitation to ignore everything I write from this point forward and I will do you the same courtesy.

Apr 2, 2006 - 10:25 pm 35. klrfz1:

Kevin Peters

You see what you’re up against when you try to be reasonable with a troll.

Apr 3, 2006 - 12:15 am 36. nittypig:

“shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”

Notice the word “DOMESTIC” in there? The warrantless surveillance program is exclusively concerned with international communications.

Apr 3, 2006 - 12:59 pm 37. Shochu John:

Were the warrantless surveilance program exclusively concerned with international communications, we would not be having this conversation. The controversy is because the surveilance is happening on calls in which at least one party is in the United States. Ergo, domestic.

Apr 3, 2006 - 3:59 pm 38. Kevin Peters:

SJ:
Yes, that liberal idiot law proff Sunstein never read the laws you cite so of course he is wrong when he states that the President has the authority in his position as commander in chief. Same thing with the Clinton Asst. A.G. Since the law is so simple as you claim then the Bush arrest and prosecution should be a slam dunk. You read the law, Bush is not claiming he did not do it, so the trial should only take a week or two. Funny, it’s not happening. How can that be. Read the law. He broke it. Or maybe their are more complex issues that lead Sunstein, a liberal Dem and no fan of Bush, to think otherwise. And Sen. Rockefeller was told that A.Q calls to Americans were being tapped, sometimes without warrants. There are no arguments over the facts. Bush admits that these action you claim are black and white illegal happened. If it was so simple Bush would be in jail or at least be found guilty of breaking the law. And if it was that simple the Dems would have joined Feingold in his call for censure. And if it was that simple, why didn’t Feingold call for impeachment? After all, you have given us all the facts we need, Bush admits he did it, conviction, slam dunk. Why isn’t it happening? Maybe it’s more complex then you think.

Apr 3, 2006 - 8:00 pm 39. vet222:

—-As for him informing Democratic Senators of what was going on, they disagree that they were actually briefed on the key details of the practice.—-

No, no, no.. you’ve got the talking points all wrong, just all wrong. What Rockefeller said was that after years on the Intelligence Committee and as one of the most powerful Senators he didn’t have enough background or knowledge of the law to make a judgement. Gosh, I’ll be those Intelligence Committee meetings never discussed legal implication of foreign intelligence when he was in the majority!!!!!! Poor little Rocky…..

Apr 3, 2006 - 8:42 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: