You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘John R. Bolton’ category.
it is probably time to discuss this.
For years we have quietly known and accepted the negatives of having an NSA. Things like we need it for our protection, or it makes things safer, tended to overide our fears that they know too much already, and I can’t do anything in private anymore…
We accepted that as progress.
However, when you have an organization so secret, that members of Congress are shocked to find out what it is doing, that no one knows who is authorizing who gets spied upon and what, that when brought before the courts for overstepping the Constitution, it can’t be prosecuted because a) it operates under “secret” laws, b) with “secret operations”, c) authorized by “secret courts” …. it is time to shut the entire operation down.
Why do we have the NSA when we have the CIA and the FBI. The FBI covers domestic spying. The CIA covers international spying. So, unless we find out that there are aliens and the NSA is really running the world while we think otherwise, then it probably ought to go.
I find it interesting that those on the far right, and those on the far left are the most outraged by this disclosure. We’ve been stating that news on this blog after the story was broken back in 2007-8 and not one press person cared. I supposed the AP Story opened their eyes this time. Struggling to put a finger on why, I came up with the theory primarily by looking at Congress, that it is the libertarians on left and right who are against, and the conformist, primarily in the center who are acceptive. So this gives us a split where the bottom third and the top third of the political body are opposed to the middle third… If you look at Congress that is exactly how it splits up. Moderates are pro domestic spying, the libertarians are not.
Probably similar is the theory that those beholden to corporate interests are pro-spying, after all, that is normal in the corporate environment; interoffice spying is not limited by any judicial system because it is deemed to be private. Those aghast, tend to fight corporate intrusion from their original political perspective, either left of right.
What the NSA does, watch everything to discern what is happening to increase its chances of survival, is not new. Intelligence has been the secret success of many an empire. Knowing what someone will do before they do it, is pretty comfortable in a world where in a day, we probably pass within 10 feet of 10,000 people (that includes inside our vehicles).
That is what all governments with the capacity, do. The biggest argument against it, is that it is un-American. Sure we have the “ability” to do it, but do we have the restraint, not to…
America has always been ruled by restraint. When Washington was entreated to be the King, he restrained and said no. When the heads of Europe all bet that Washington would invent a method to stay in power, he restrained, and government turned over peacefully. When the US was left in charge of a broken Europe, it put it back together and went home. The only country to invade another and give it back willingly to its original owners.
We had a scare in Boston a while back. Did the NSA protect us then? It’s a secret, no one knows. In Newtown 26 bodies littered the floor of an elementary school. Did the NSA protect us then? When a gunman burst into Aurora firing into the audience, did the NSA protect us then? When Gabby Gifford took a bullet, where was the NSA? Did the NSA protect us then?
That is the point. We are always in danger. But our personal lives are more at risk if our private information should fall into a competitors hands, than being victim of a terrorist. In Boston just 2 people died. In Newton 26. But each and every one of us, is at risk that selective information from ones past, can be used in secret to smear each and every one of us, should it fall into the wrong hands.
What would happen if we shut the entire agency known as the NSA down? A big nothing. They overstepped. It is not knee-jerking anger to respond “Shut them down right now!” It it calm, cool reasoning tipping the balance, that points out simply that is the right way to go.
The Salt Lake Tribune article quoted in the post below, puts their finger directly on the problem.
We don’t know which Mitt Romney will show up!
When he’s with Tea Partiers, his policy bends to the Tea Party.
When he’s with corporate moneybags, his policy bends to their needs.
When he’s courting a liberal audience on the debates, his policy bends to liberalism.
There appears to be an urgent need to please. A psychological urge to say the right things, and avoid confrontation whenever possible.
Tonight, he sat with the President.
He said fourteen times: I agree with the president, then goes on to repeat verbatim what Obama just said. Because he was repeating Obama, even I found some of what he said was agreeable, presidential, and the correct assessment. It appears that in foreign relations, we will not have any “daylight” between what Romney would do, and what Obama would do…
There’s a problem.
Just last week, Romney said something else. On Iran, he said we needed to draw a line and go to war with Iran. Tonight, he said war was off the table.
Just last week, Romney said we needed to get tough on China. Then tonight, in a very revealing episode that I hope America caught, he said: We need China. I would do nothing to offend China. Then 2 minutes later, he says on day one he will lable China a currency manipulator, and get tough on everything else, (back to where he was two weeks ago.)
If you don’t listen to what he says, it sounds nice. A gentlemanly man, nice suit, looking earnest, likeable, sophisticated, makes a good presentation.
If you listen to him on the radio, you miss all that. You get what he says. And what he says, is all over the map.
He will say anything to get elected.
Now that’s the joke of politicians every where. But is it good for America? If we tell the Israeli’s we will bomb Palestine, and tell Palestine we will defend them against Israel, then one of them is going to start something just because they think we got their back…..
So, what’s he going to do about China.
He’s going to be tough and be concilitory.
So, what’s he going to do about Iran.
He’s going to do what Obama did, sanctions.
So, what would he have done in Egypt?
He would have done what Obama did.
So, what is he going to do in Afghanistan?
He will do what Obama did.
So, what is he going to do with Russia?
He will do what Obama did.
So, what is he going to do in Antarctica?
Uhhh, President Obama, would you like to go first here?
If you are a dumb American, you probably don’t know that Romney campaigned on the opposite of all these up until this one debate.
Russia is our number one enemy.
Obama is indecisive on Israel.
Obama is indecisive on Iran.
I will put more troops back into Iraq.
I will put pressure on China and show them who is boss.
I would have supported Muburack.
I would have stayed out of Libya.
I would not have gone after Osama Bin Laden.
Now, he says he never said “let Detroit go bankrupt?” When that has been the campaign for 18 months?
Now, he says he will increase the deficit by $8 trillion and balance the budget?
Now. he says the deficit is our number one priority and he will cut the money coming in to pay our bills by 5 trillion to balance the budget?
Now, he says he is for abortion, when last week he would overturn Roe versus Wade on day one.
And it all depends upon the audience he is with, at that moment. He doesn’t even know what he believes in it seems. He just wants you to like him; he’ll tell you what you want to hear….
And as the Salt Lake Tribune puts it, it is not coy. It is a shameless disregard for the truth.
Romney’s character flaw, is dangerous. Who is he going to be in office? The guy who was crashing in the polls until he reinvented himself in the first debate by being Liberal? And, if we are to truly believe this guy… where are those missing tax forms?
Sometimes, though not always, a haiku can be as effective as large novel.
Today, I am in haiku mode. I want to bring to point some issues that others wrote, but perhaps you did not see……..
This first one is about our president, and belatedly is a comprehensive explanation for David’s piece proclaiming Bush to be the greatest president ever, or something like that. Forgive me for not re-looking it up on FSP, but I am assuming most of you are already familiar with it………
This one is reproduced from Media Matters.
Iran wins:
If George W. Bush had been The Manchurian Candidate for president, even on his own terms, it’s hard to see how he could have done a better job. He’s weakened the American military, destroyed our prestige abroad, increased the threats against us, exploded any hopes for fiscal discipline at home and done enormous damage to the political prospects of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement, whose tenants are now almost entirely discredited. Among the most dangerous of the nearly perfectly counterproductive policies that Bush has pursued however has been his strengthening of the domestic power and regional influence of Iran’s radical leadership. Just as Western Europe and Japan won the Cold War, Iran (and Al Qaeda) have won the Iraq war. As Peter Galbraith writes in the current New York Review of Books, here:
In short, George W. Bush had from the first facilitated the very event he warned would be a disastrous consequence of a US withdrawal from Iraq: the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia. And while the President contrasts the promise of democracy in Iraq with the tyranny in Iran, there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in southern Iraq.
[…]
The United States cannot now undo President Bush’s strategic gift to Iran. But importantly, the most pro-Iranian Shiite political party is the one least hostile to the United States. In the battle now underway between the SIIC and Moqtada al-Sadr for control of southern Iraq and of the central government in Baghdad, the United States and Iran are on the same side. The US has good reason to worry about Iran’s activities in Iraq. But contrary to the Bush administration’s allegations — supported by both General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker in their recent congressional testimony — Iran does not oppose Iraq’s new political order. In fact, Iran is the major beneficiary of the American-induced changes in Iraq since 2003.
If only Ken Burns weren’t a creature of that dagnab liberal media, we might get PBS specials about the actual sacrifice of our servicemen like this one.