Author Topic: Kristol Finds It “Unbelievable” Neocons are not Allowed to Trash Fourth Amendme  (Read 4215 times)

Eyeball Chambers

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
  • Would you hold still? You're making me fuck up...
Kristol Finds It “Unbelievable” Neocons are not Allowed to Trash Fourth Amendment

Think Progress
February 17, 2008

Today on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol mourned that an “emboldened” Congress refused to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for cooperating with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping.

Kristol said it was “unbelievable” for lawmakers to question the judgment of administration officials. Instead, he argued, Congress should just give them the “benefit of the doubt”:

I think it’s kind of unbelievable, frankly. It’s a judgment call. We don’t know. Not to give the administration the benefit of the doubt when they have career people, military people, intelligence people like Mike McConnell and Mike Hayden, and the attorney general, Mike Mukasey — I mean, these are not political hacks. These are not ideological people.

When they say this is important for our national security, the Congress — to block this legislation I find pretty amazing.

The Bush administration secretly conducted spying in violation of the Constitution and the law for four years before The New York Times disclosed it in 2005. For years, the White House lied about these activities to the American public. For example, in 2004, Bush claimed that “a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.” At least one telco refused to comply with the Bush administration’s request because it knew the actions were illegal.

Even now, the administration continues to lie about the consequences of the Protect America Act expiration. Just yesterday, Bush stated that it will now “be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack.” But as an expert from the Cato Institute admits, this statement isn’t true: “There’s no reason to think our nation will be in any more danger in 2008 than it was in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006.”

S

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Kristol is as scumbag as it gets.  I hope he has the balls to go speak in Austin again.  That I would pay to go see :) bring extra popcorn.  If there were any kind of justice, we would see the next administration getmo the neocons. :P

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
I find it "unbelievable" the Bill Kristol gets to express his opinion on TV.  How many more times does this guy have to be wrong before we can stop pretending he's relevent?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
I find it "unbelievable" the Bill Kristol gets to express his opinion on TV.  How many more times does this guy have to be wrong before we can stop pretending he's relevent?
no kidding... The neocon policy turned out disasterous, I really thought they would not have much of a voice after the 2006 elections.  What a statement of STFU.  And here Fox News is, I guess showing how loyal of a propaganda machine they are to the neocon and the whitehouse, give Kristol more time, hire Karl Rove ::)

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
U all now how I feel..but I love when Bill volunteers us for mre deployments...he must enjoy the war from the comfort of his DC club.
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
It must be nice to be continually wrong about life and death issues and yet suffer no personal consequences whatsoever.   

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
U all now how I feel..but I love when Bill volunteers us for mre deployments...he must enjoy the war from the comfort of his DC club.

LOL... he wants a war with Iran.  So does McCain.  you excited about seeing Tehran in the near-future, HH6?  if there's a draft, maybe I'll see you over there.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
No ground war..unless there is a draft of course. But we may....may see a limited air campaign...which will leave them pretty much useless as a military power. I'd prefer to see a popular upraising like we used to support. I think we can make a deal with the mullahs to shitcan the dinner jacket and tone down the bullshit.
L

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
No ground war..unless there is a draft of course. But we may....may see a limited air campaign...which will leave them pretty much useless as a military power. I'd prefer to see a popular upraising like we used to support. I think we can make a deal with the mullahs to shitcan the dinner jacket and tone down the bullshit.
last I checked the last plan and only plan they considered viable was total shock and awe annihilation of Iran.  They see the limited air strikes as leaving them with the capability of striking back in Iraq and afghanistan.  Anyway, the neocon push is for total decimation of Iran's capabilities.  That's their push in the public, their words, not mine.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
No..never saids it would be limited...we would sink every naval vessel and sub they have...we would destroy most of their army...all of their airforce..all their electronic intel all their radar sites..we'd crush anything military...its easy when u have something to destroy. After the first 30 min....they wouldn't be able to talk to each other. This isn't a neocon plan...this is pretty standard military planning for any operation against conventional targets. We wouldn't be rolling in tanks...limite dSOF units doing their thing...I don't think we'll move unless we have a viable government standing by.
L

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
No..never saids it would be limited...we would sink every naval vessel and sub they have...we would destroy most of their army...all of their airforce..all their electronic intel all their radar sites..we'd crush anything military...its easy when u have something to destroy. After the first 30 min....they wouldn't be able to talk to each other. This isn't a neocon plan...this is pretty standard military planning for any operation against conventional targets. We wouldn't be rolling in tanks...limite dSOF units doing their thing...I don't think we'll move unless we have a viable government standing by.
No, what I meant was that they saw two options on the table, one just hit the suspected nuclear sites.  two, hit it all.  They want, hit it all and see it as the only route.  Now the neocons are in with McCain and it's not like that matters because this advice given to a guy that sings bombiran like it's a joke, well I see they'll go for the total destruction plan.  I thought above you did say limited, maybe I missed what you meant when you said maybe we would see a limited air campaign.  From what I see, this would probably be the biggest shock/awe ever.  It's certainly the way they potrayed it... with glee.

also, it's kind of significant because if you happen to catch a talk on CNN or Fox, they're talking about it like it would just be a limited strike to set back whatever program they have.  So most people really think we're talking about just that.  But in a documentary I watched, which they put together, they were very specific in their belief that the only option was to send Iran back to the stone age.  I gotta ask, what will that do to fuel extremists.  There's a good chance it'll cause huge blowback in the wars even if Iran can't respond and with their country destroyed, ha... just imagine what will grow out of that.  This is so not the answer, and McCain seems dead set on it.

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
I find it "unbelievable" the Bill Kristol gets to express his opinion on TV.  How many more times does this guy have to be wrong before we can stop pretending he's relevent?

As crazy as this man sounds he should still be able to give his nutty opinion. One of the problems is that the general public has no idea what he is talking about.  Number two is that there is no one there to contradict and explain what stuff like this means. The consequences of their actions.


Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
As crazy as this man sounds he should still be able to give his nutty opinion. One of the problems is that the general public has no idea what he is talking about.  Number two is that there is no one there to contradict and explain what stuff like this means. The consequences of their actions.



yea... What Bill Maher said :D

And finally, New Rule, in two parts: A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid. And B), if you're someone from one of the think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War, and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, and the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war...you have to stop making predictions!

You know, there's a name for people who are always wrong about everything all the time: husbands. You know, it's a shame what happened to think tanks. They used to produce valuable, apolitical analysis. But partisanship crept into many of them. And the Bush Administration doesn't just come up with something as stupid as "If we leave now, they'll follow us home." No, they have someone from a think tank say it first. It's a way to lend respectability. The same reason a titty bar has food. I hear.

The think tanks that incubated the Iraq war have lofty names like the Heritage Foundation and the Project for a New American Century. Whatever. They've been wrong so often, I'm surprised they're not my broker. Richard Perle thought we could win Iraq with 40,000 troops. Paul Wolfowitz predicted, in 2003, that within a year, the grateful people of Baghdad would name some grand square in their fine city after President Bush. And he was right when he said they'd be waving American flags. They were on fire.

William Kristol pooh-poohed the fears that Sunnis and Shiites would be at each others' throats, as "the stuff of pop psychology." Right. And having your head chopped off is just a quick way to drop 11 pounds. Kristol, of course, is revered by much of the right because he was Dan Quayle's chief of staff, and was known as "Quayle's Brain." You know that. Which sounded impressive until I remembered Dan Quayle didn't have a brain.

And now, Mr. Kristol proposes immediate military action against Iran, predicting the Iranians will thank us for it. Hey, you know what, Nostrodamus? Why don't you sit this one out?

We'll get by using the Magic Eight Ball for a while. Because you guys have been so wrong about so much for so long, people are actually turning to the Democrats. So, we can say Iraq was a noble experiment, if that helps you. Our intention was good: to penetrate Iraq and bring it to a glorious, euphoric climax. But it's clear now that's just not going to happen. And yet we're still pounding away.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
They wouldn't be able to anything to us or their neighbors, with their military...but plenty with their proxies. I don't think we will do limited strikes because then they can shut down the gulf...plus we have to destroy enough to allow for our bombers to roll in unopposed...so I see the grand tour...we'll hit everything. Honestly..Russia china and the rest of the Arab world would rather see them crushed...a blocked Straight of Hormuz really impacts the Chinese...this has to be all or nothing.
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
As crazy as this man sounds he should still be able to give his nutty opinion. One of the problems is that the general public has no idea what he is talking about.  Number two is that there is no one there to contradict and explain what stuff like this means. The consequences of their actions.

no one is stopping him from expressing his opinion and he get's to do it as much as he wants in the Weekly Standard (btw - owned by Ruperty Murdoch and has never made a profit - yet somehow still continues to exist).

The problem I have is that he gets some level of credibility by just by appearing network television.  Why don't "reporters" ask him why, given he track record, should anyone even care what he has to say.   Why don't they point out all the things he's been wrong about.   When everything you predict turns out to be wrong at some point you must forfeit your credibility......either that or the joke is on us

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
It exists because its gets a point of view out. I'm sure there are plenty of Soros backed mags here and in Europe that don't turn a profit but get his message out. I don't like Kristol....he sits there and grins all the time..if ur voluntering to send me overseas u better make me feel like I'm not getting fucked. I'd like to buttstroke him.
L

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
no one is stopping him from expressing his opinion and he get's to do it as much as he wants in the Weekly Standard (btw - owned by Ruperty Murdoch and has never made a profit - yet somehow still continues to exist).

The problem I have is that he gets some level of credibility by just by appearing network television.  Why don't "reporters" ask him why, given he track record, should anyone even care what he has to say.   Why don't they point out all the things he's been wrong about.   When everything you predict turns out to be wrong at some point you must forfeit your credibility......either that or the joke is on us

exactly the joke is on us.

Nobody asks why.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
It exists because its gets a point of view out. I'm sure there are plenty of Soros backed mags here and in Europe that don't turn a profit but get his message out. I don't like Kristol....he sits there and grins all the time..if ur voluntering to send me overseas u better make me feel like I'm not getting fucked. I'd like to buttstroke him.

The Weekly Standard exists because they need a place for neocon shills to spew out their propaganda and Murdoch (who now has admitted he didn't report the news on Iraq but rather tried to form public opinion) has enough $$$ to absorb the loss. He obviously doesn't own it for the money making potential

Please feel free to point out the Progressive/Left Wing analog that's fully funded by Soros and has operated at a loss for the past 13 years

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
The Soros media connections include:

An investor in the Times Mirror Company, Soros funded the Project on Media Ownership, headed by Professor Mark Crispin Miller at New York University. Whose purpose was expose "media concentration." A total of $300,000 over several years came from George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI). In 1999, a survey commissioned by the Project on Media Ownership and the Benton Foundation and paid for by OSI  found that seventy-nine percent of adults would favor a law requiring commercial broadcasters to pay 5 percent of their revenues into a fund for public broadcasting.

Eric Alterman of The Nation has hailed Soros for spending millions on "education campaigns with America Coming Together, voter mobilization drives with MoveOn.org and research activities with the Center for American Progress (CAP)--where I am a senior fellow…" Alterman says his own magazine, The Nation, is viewed as out of the mainstream in part because of "the continued appearance in its pages of a long-time Stalinist communist, Alexander Cockburn, whose unabashed hatred for both America and Israel ... tarnish the reputation of its otherwise serious contributors." Alterman's mentor, I.F. Stone, was a paid agent of the KGB and a Stalinist.

In the Los Angeles Times Book Review, Orville Schell said that Soros had written a "succinct and well-reasoned book," The Bubble of American Supremacy, which ought "to provide a welcome template for how the candidates might begin to think their way through to a more coherent view of America's place in the world." Soros had spoken on March 3 at the Goldman Forum on the Press and Foreign Affairs, sponsored by UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism.  The event was a conversation between Soros and Journalism Dean Orville Schell.

OSI gave $60,000 to the Independent Media Institute , whose executive director, Don Hazen, is a former publisher of Mother Jones.  Hazen has called Soros a "progressive philanthropist." A story carried by the Independent Media Institute on its AlterNet project says Soros "believes in democracy, positive international relations and effective strategies to reduce poverty, among other things."

OSI gave a $75,000 grant to the Center for Investigative Reporting. The group's board of advisers includes prominent journalists.

OSI gave $246,528 to the Center for Public Integrity, headed by former CBS News producer Charles Lewis, "to support the continuing expansion of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists."  A total of $1 million went for "the Global Access Project." In total, it is estimated that the group has received $1.7 from Soros.

OSI gave $200,000 to the Fund for Investigative Journalism.  This group, too, features prominent journalists on its board.

OSI's "Network Media Program" gave $22,157 to Investigative Reporters & Editors.

Soros Foundations have provided $160,000 to MediaChannel.org, a so-called "media issues supersite, featuring criticism, breaking news, and investigative reporting from hundreds of organizations worldwide." The executive editor is Danny Schecter, a former news program producer and investigative reporter at CNN and ABC. It was created by Globalvision News Network, whose board includes "Senior executives from the world's leading media firms."

OSI has contributed $70,000 toward the far-left Independent Media Center, or Indymedia, known as an "independent newsgathering collective," whose servers were seized by a federal law enforcement agency on October 7. The action was apparently related to an investigation into international terrorism, kidnapping or money laundering.

OSI provided $600,000 to the Media Access Project, a so-called telecommunications public interest law firm critical of conservative influence in the major media.

OSI provide $30,000 to the Media Awareness Project, a "worldwide network dedicated to drug policy reform" and promoting "balanced media coverage" of the drug issue.

OSI provided $200,000 to the Association for Progressive Communications, "an international network…working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment…"



All left leaning groups or media operations...neither man is much different other then their causes.
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
HH - which of those are weekly magazines (or even monthly) and are fully owned by Soros and run at a loss.

Which of their editors (such as Kristol) get to go on Fox News (or CNN) and constantly offer the progressive perspective/opinion and continues to be invited back in spite of being wrong about almost everything.

I guess I'm wondering who the progressive equivalent of Kristol would be.

BTW - OSI (from what little I know about it) is not publishing a weekly magazine.

Here's what it says about Soros on the OSI website:

"A global financier and philanthropist, George Soros is the founder and chairman of a network of foundations that promote, among other things, the creation of open, democratic societies based upon the rule of law, market economies, transparent and accountable governance, freedom of the press, and respect for human rights"

Which of those issues do you have a problem with?

MB_722

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11173
  • RIP Keith
yea... What Bill Maher said :D

Never knew. Maher kind of bugs me, he acts like he is on the the edge of the mainstream, he isn't even close to the edge. He is part of the mainstream.

nobody mentions RP anymore

 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Soros may be the biggest political fat cat of all time. Convicted in France of insider trading, Soros specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests. He is known as the man who broke the Bank of England. His power is such that his statements alone can cause currencies to go up or down. Other people suffer so he can get rich. But journalists don't want to examine the questionable means by which he achieved his wealth because they share his goal of electing Kerry and the Democrats.  Curiously, once he made his fortune he became a global socialist, endorsing global taxes on the very means he employed to get rich – international currency speculation and manipulation.

The media consistently ignore the fact that this so-called "philanthropist" has had several brushes with the law as he has laid siege to national economies and currencies. Hard-working U.S. businessmen understand how Soros has made his money. In protesting a Soros appearance hosted by the University of Toledo, Edwin J. Nagle III, president and CEO of the Nagle Companies, highlighted "the immoral and unethical means by which he achieved his wealth." He added, "I certainly didn't see included in his bio the stories on how he collapsed whole country's currencies for his own self interests so that many may suffer."

Here, Soros signed a consent decree in United States District Court, in a Securities and Exchange Commission case involving stock manipulation, and was fined $75,000 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission for holding positions "in excess of speculative limits." Stories about Soros rarely, if ever, mention any of his legal problems.

Despite his vision of an "open society," he operates an unregulated "hedge fund," open only to the super-rich, and is currently fighting a proposal from the Bush-appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and monitor these offshore entities.  House Speaker Dennis Hastert said on national television that no one really knows where the Soros money comes from. 

This part....as for ur first question...I don't know the NYT editorial page.....MSNBC.....the list is endless....ur making Kristol bigger then he is. I don't even like the guy. Soros supports tons of Left wing causes....I don't like him either.
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Well, at least we're in agreement on Kristol.

I'm pretty sure Soros' made his money by being a wildly succesful currency and commodities trader.  Nothing mysterious about that and nothing unethical about it either as far as I know.  The 75k fine from the CFTC is peanuts and probably less than meaningless.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Anybody who makes that much money...has skeletons....lets get off this one. We agree Kristol is an asshat
L

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Anybody who makes that much money...has skeletons....lets get off this one. We agree Kristol is an asshat

I don't see anything all that egregious with Soros or the way he makes his $$$. 

Full agreement with you on Kristol