Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 9:17 AM CST

This is the same "liberal media" that continues to sell us Bush's wars, and continues to promote the coming police state.

I have no doubts about Carter's hypocricy, but to say that any "liberal media" is helping him out is ridiculous. The media may throw a bone to the left now and then to keep the division going, but it clearly serves big business and the warmongers more than it serves any liberal agenda.

If the media is in any way attempting to paint Bush as a villain, it is because they fear the longevity of his career might mean an end to their own freedom to report what they see. The man IS a villain, and if they have to split hairs and play the hypocricy card to ruin him, then so be it.

You'll notice that most of the American people aren't being won over by the media on the side of the Dems. Instead, the media is convincing most Americans that BOTH parties are as full of it as a goose. If our country makes it through Bush's planned WWIII scenario, then we might see the emergence of more viable political parties in our country someday, instead of being force-fed some choice between to heads on the same dragon.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 12:47 PM CST

I agree with the logic that Big Media would naturally be aligned with the moneyed interests but, in practice, Big Media is not. What counts more than anything to a news network is its ratings. And how you improve your market share is to be controversial or salacious or ---and this is important--- contrarian.

If you run a clip fifty times of Jimmy Carter bemoaning the wiretapping of the King family, it bears the weight of condemnation ---all directed, somehow, at George W. Bush. But if you try to complicate matters by pointing out that it was Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover who did it, you blunt the thrust of Carter's remark. You contextualize it ---and that bogs down the score-keeper at home who doesn't know dick about American History or the value of fairness.

I dislike quoting polls and surveys and such, but the great majority of Big Media news reporters and producers routinely characterize themselves as liberal. There's no question that the contrarian ---maybe muckraking--- impulse in journalism is opposed to conservatism.

Wednesday, 8 February 2006 - 1:13 PM CST

Interesting point. Still, I can't see that the media leans any further left than right. I can only hope that more media people will find the voice of their true conscience and expose the truth about all the villains on both sides of the aisle.

But the lack of historical context for this issue is a moot point. Who cares if anyone got away with it in the past. The question is and should remain, "is it right"? To which the answer should be a resounding "NO"!

Our President has more than one system in place whereby he may conduct surveillance of potential enemies of the state through warrants acquired even after-the-fact in necessary operations. For ANY president to circumvent such processes at their own discretion violates the trust placed in the Executive office by the American people.

Whether the other bad kids got away with it doesn't matter.

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 11:48 AM CST

Signals intelligence only works if the target is unaware of the monitoring or if the target is convinced that it has a secure mode of communicating that can't be deciphered or discovered.

Neither one of these would apply when you look at terrorists networks. In fact, the whole concept of cells and leaderless, asymetrical, resistance is formulated in attempt to overcome these kinds of problems.

They have to rely on face to face or dead drops to communicate.

The thought that they would be trying to talk "in the clear" on a cel phone or land line is ridiculous. The idea of the enemy thinking they have a code or channel that can't be broken or found by the NSA is equally unbeleivable.

Who is getting monitored? Take it to a judge. Let congress take a look.

It's time for us to ask the administration....
"where my money at beeeyatch?" or "what you fukkin' wit, now?"

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 12:38 PM CST

Historical precedence always matters in the life of a country. It informs everything a people does.

Jimmy Carter talked at Mrs. King's funeral about how awful it was that a President had once spied on her and her husband. Okay. But that President was a Democrat and the last of Franklin Roosevelt's New Dealers. LBJ belongs on the Mt. Rushmore of Civil Rights ---but not for spying on Martin Luther King. But people remember what they want.

George W. Bush may not wind up on the Mt. Rushmore of Civil Liberties, but he may very well wind up being one of the most consequential leaders of our lifetime. If he can begin the process whereby Islam is secularized, he will be considered a giant of the Twenty-First Century.

Hard though that may be to believe.

Thursday, 9 February 2006 - 12:43 PM CST

Thanks for your excellent comments, sir.

I think you might be overestimating the intelligence of these stateside al-Qaedist cells, though. One of them was trying to come up with a way to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, so let's not think too much of their capacity for rational thought.