Michael Goldfarb is of course being sarcastic, but he is absolutely justified. The Yoo memo is very old news. Similar memos became public before the 2004 elections and were discounted by the American electorate.

Mistake one: you presume this issue has any sort of shelf life, after which its relevance fades. It doesn't.

I am sure that polls show healthy majorities of the American people do not view harsh interrogation of odious terrorists as something to be concerned about, witness the popularity of shows like 24.

Mistake two: you mistake TV with the real world. It isn't.

Even a left leaning news show like "All Things Considered" doesn't consider this story worthy of their attention:

Mistake three: you mistake a single radio news show as representative of wider opinion. It isn't.

And to address another point, there is very good justification for keeping these things classified. There are all kind of nutty leftist prosecutors/judges in out of the way corners of Europe, who might indeed use distorted interpretations of these documents (in particular purposeful mistranslations) as a basis for various harassing actions against former US officials traveling in Europe.

Mistake four: believing there is some kind of 'exceptionalism' due Americans in the world, whereby they are exempt from any and all consequences of acts committed in their name. They aren't.

Mistake five: still hiding behind that unpronounceable handle, even after you've been found out. I don't know if its cowardice or simple laziness.

Like it or not, one can't continue of a theme for this long if it is patently false. Liberalism is indeed linked to weakness, dependency, and helplessness. For good reason. It's all about compensating those who are weak, dependent, and helpless... and restricting those that aren't.

Admittedly he's calling for Hobbes's "State of Nature", which leads one to wonder just where he went to school, but still this is a fairly cogent argument he's offering.

On the other hand, I'd willingly bet my right arm he'd be the first to come crying for Hobbes's "Levithan" to save him from it were he ever dropped into the middle of it.

In short, he likely hasn't considered the full implications of his statement. More's the pity.

As a New Yorker who, but for a quirk in timing, would have been in one of the towers when they collapsed, I'm finding it extremely difficult to be 'polite' to these gentlemen.

Can someone help me out and suggest a text we can send them?

Are you trying to make bowling and protecting the country from a perceived threat equivalent?

Hey, you're the one who's fixated on the bowling score.

A lot of people (as evidenced by a 2nd term) think that Iraq was a good idea.

A lot of people still thing Hussein ordered 9/11, too. That doesn't make decisions based on such an error correct.

Continuing to make decisions based on such an error is plain out stupidity.

And as an aside, shooter242, you realize the only reason anyone replies to you at this point is because you're wearing a "Kick Me!" sign on you groin, right? If you want the pain to end, just take it off.

From the text you exerpt:

the NSA did not seek FISA Court warrants to collect communications between individuals in the United States and foreign countries, because it believed that this was an FBI role.

This has nothing to do with Mukasey's story. It isn't a question of who was supposed to conduct the surveillance, but that it wasn't actually done in the first place.

Provided of course that the AG was being truthful. A dubious prospect with anyone employed by this Administration.

My gods, where did you go to school? Your parents (provided you have any that would claim you) should demand a refund.

Does this constitute deliberate misrepresentation of facts, or simple fabrication?

In either case, does he face sanctions of any sort for such, given there is ongoing litigation concerning the subject matter and his claims could unduly impact those cases?

Does Mukasey face any manner of sanctions by making these manufactured claims in publich while there is ongoing litigation concerning the subject matter?

Put another way, could these claims of his, whether factual or not, be considered a form of deliberate pressure placed upon the various Courts involved in the ongoing suits filed against telecos for their complicity in warrantless wiretapping?

Generally speaking, the less government the better, which usually equates to "no way would I vote for a democrat".

"Less government" in what sense?

"Less intrusive"?

"Less competent"?

"Less involved"?

"Less capable"?

"Less intelligent"?

"Less reality-based"?

Define your terms before you go wishing for stuff, son. Otherwise you end up electing idiots and watching major American cities and infrastructure get destroyed.

Seems to happen a lot under Republicans, when you think about it.

Because less actual "governing" would get done, it would be called "less" government.

Do you think he has any actual awareness of the consequences of that kind of arrangement?

What would be the incentive to stop doing all of that?

They ignore marches, protests, law, morality, common sense, their oath's of office, and even Congress.

Were I someone like Elephantman or shooter242, I'd probably lean towards nuclear blackmail to get them to behave.

As it is, I'll just concentrate electing better Democrats and ensuring future generations consider the names Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Hannity, Limbaugh, Robertson, Hagee, and "Republican" is considered nothing but rude words unfit for civil conversation.