getting the surface "facts" about something is only part of the job. One should look at what the facts imply, then look for additional relevant facts, and analyze them. Maybe then the story has some meaning. It is hard to believe Time does that, considering what gets uncovered later.

in the lead up to the Iraq war, most of the world was dead set against it. We did not see many stories in the MSM reporting that, finding out why, and then presenting a realistic evaluation of the evidence. That was your job, and it might have gotten done if the MSM were truly free, rather than the possession of an oligarchy.

Understanding the facts of some stories requires specialized knowledge, and if you are not an expert in the area, it takes some real research and effort to gain that understanding. The best example is obvious.

Paul,

If we want to be formal about this in the future, a useful way to refer to Shooter's way of thinking would be "Logic 242".

wrote:Because the lack of generosity is a sign of a weak professional ego.

I think it is more than that. Even in the well-practiced, if one cannot do what one really thinks one should, it shows.

So the excerpts from Barton Gellman's book in the WaPo are speculation, reporting, or something else?

when shooter tries to run a tutorial on constitutional law. Does he realize that Glenn might know more law than he does? Surely he must....but it does not seem so.

Why would you suggest his actions are not illegal?

1. You are blind, stupid, and ignorant.

2. You are part of a propaganda machine.

It is possible for both to apply at once. Shooter, next time someone breaks into your house, tell the police that you will not cooperate with the investigation until SCOTUS gives you permission.

wrote:

Oh really? Where does it say Bush reauthorized it with knowledge that it was illegal? Anywhere?

Is it not the president who does such things? Perhaps the tooth fairy can do it on alternate Thursdays?

Seriously, the president authorizes such things; this means he is responsible, you know, the one under the gun; did it when he was governor; does it now. Has the best legal advice; has to. Not a job for little boys.

And you, shooter, do not have the authority to offer excuses.

The job of president is tough; not for moose-dressing governors or cross-dressing mayors. Oh, wait, he did not get the nomination.

I agree that cutting off funding, or threatening to, is not a practical option.

But they have the power necessary through a contempt of congress citation. But the will to use it is not there.

The president is responsible. If those he supervises are non-responsive on a regular basis, the buck passes to the top, and impeachment is a decent threat. It would be interesting to see what happens under a different president, that is, if we had a legislative branch with approaching 1070.

|----------------------|

|----WELCOME----|

|----------------------|

We left the light on for ya!

and I can see appointing an investigative panel with a dozen members , maybe two scientists. All scientists? Perhaps the FBI does not want a result.

wrote:

Where is the proof that the NSA or the FBI has used this information to harm somebody?

Why do you ask the question? That is irrelevant. The constitutional protections are there to prevent the possibility of the violations you refer to. It is not something that kicks in when someone shows that there has been a violation

In other words: this is not allowed because somebody will misuse it.

I think you know this, but your need to harass people who think differently from you overcomes all else.

Gellman does seem to have an odd view of Cheney, something like: Cheney is a principled guy, but his principles are different from yours or mine.

I do not see how his actions as vice president have anything to do with upholding the Constitution, that being the principal principle that counts in his job. There is an oath to swear to, afterall.

Gellman's work may be a good source for facts about the Cheney (vice-)presidency, but the case for "Cheney sees himself as a man of principle" is only made by allowing for an unusual level of self-delusion.

I made a quick pass through the comments, maybe I missed it, but I did not see a discussion of this, which Glenn quoted near the end of his post:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency"

Glenn, to me it would seem that limiting the power of a court would require a constitutional amendment, but I know little about it. What say you?

Furthermore, even if legal, does this alone not look like enough reason to put this beast in a cage for a while until it can be discussed properly?

Did you read the reference near the top of Glenn's post? (http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253783/is_purchasing_700_billion_of_toxic_assets_the_best_way_to_recapitalize_the_financial_system_no_it_is_rather_a_disgrace_and_rip-off_benefitting_only_the_shareholders_and_unsecured_creditors_of_banks)

I think it answers some of your questions.

means that the market has not been regulated properly, whether by anti-trust laws, or whatever. The idea that unregulated capitalism is the best for everyone is nonsense. Some who back deregulation are the the rich and powerful who usually benefit. The many who back it are the sheep on the way to the slaughterhouse.

Omooex, I do not think you are ignorant. Unfamiliar terminology gives everyone a headache.

toothless, can you back that up with some references?