JURY SELECTION
Re: Jed Babbin’s All the
President’s Spies:
Mr. Babbin’s article is right on with one exception: He fails to
call our domestic enemies what they are — traitors — and they
should be tried and executed if found guilty. I volunteer for the
jury!
— John Sorg
Indianapolis, Indiana
Thanks to Jed, some Americans finally have an intelligent and
detailed review of Bush’s actions with the NSA that provides the
vital context and facts the MSM used to do themselves provide
before it declared jihad on President Bush. Of course, Jed’s
analysis will go unnoticed by the biased, sloppy, and superficial
MSM that is only interested in beating the drums of Bush’s
illegality on behalf of the Dems. Notice that on the Sunday talk
shows, the Democrat’s twins of deceit, Levin on Meet The
Press and Reid on Fox News Sunday, did a vaudeville
act worthy of Abbott and Costello. Reid refused twice to answer
Chris Wallace’s questions as to whether Reid was briefed on this
program by the President. Levin, taking a preemptive tact with
Russert, declared that presidential briefings with Senate leaders
did not constitute constitutional authority. Oh, really, how often
has executive policy been enacted in D.C. with the knowledge and
approval of Congressional leaders? It’s good that the Bush White
House has not been caught flatfooted on this because the MSM and
the Dems once again smell the blood of impeachment in the air. Bush
should be prepared to name names, times, and dates of these
briefings to keep Reid et al. from their usual prevarications. Once
again, no matter what actions Bush takes, the MSM and the Democrats
will always spin the negative. He is either inattentive and
unresponsive or dangerously provocative and rash. The MSM and the
Democrats are playing a deadly game of chicken with America’s
security. The other half of America had better wake up to this fact
and quick.
— A. DiPentima
Jed Babbin clearly explains why the NSA did not need warrants.
Furthermore, the President’s critics seem to have forgotten a
Clinton era program that eavesdropped on all communication in the
entire world. Key words like “bomb” would trigger a further
investigation. But most important, shouldn’t the leak be
investigated? If Valerie Plame deserved an investigation, a leak of
this magnitude certainly deserves one.
— David Moshinsky
Jed Babbin’s citation of portions of Sec. 4 of USSID 18 is
confusing, and it’s not obvious that his excerpts support his
thesis. Thus, while the Attorney General can approve interception
of “communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United
States…international communications,” this does not appear to
address the interception of communications to or from U.S. persons
inside the United States. So while the directive provides “a lot of
swinging room,” that room is limited to extra-territorial
intercepts. I’d dearly love to argue this issue with my liberal
friends, but I’m afraid Babbin’s piece doesn’t provide me with any
usable ammo. They won’t accept, “Because Jed Babbin says so,” and I
won’t either. And by the way, what’s the authority for a regulation
that permits an end-run around FISA because complying with the
statute would be ineffective in catching terrorists?
— Michael Hertzberg
New York, New York
Jed Babbin replies:
Dear Mr. Hertzberg: You are entirely wrong, but I can see how you
could be confused. The law provides that the USAG can act on more
than just that, and — under FISA, not any reg — the AG can
authorize intel gathering on anyone here or abroad if the
communications are international. It’s just as the president said
this morning: communications between someone in the U.S. and
someone abroad are the subject of the NSA program, and that’s
entirely legal. And if you need more convincing, just read the law
yourself. It’s easy to find. 50 USC Sections 1801 et seq. Best,
Jed.
When the President says he has authorized covert signals intercepts
involving “U.S. Persons” (apparently a term of art) “more than 30
times” since 9/11, one can only hope that it was a lot more than 30
times. Somewhere around 30 gazillion times sounds better.
There must be some good reason the Almighty has made us suffer
the ubiquity of these diabolical inventions called cell phones and
e-mail.
So, what exactly is a “U.S. Person,” anyway?
— Paul Kotik
Plantation, Florida
Jed Babbin replies:
Dear Paul: An excellent question. A “U.S. person” under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act is: (a) a U.S. citizen; or (b) an
alien who has been granted permanent residence status. So, as I
read it, anyone who is an illegal alien, on a student or work visa
or otherwise here on a temporary status can be
subjected to intelligence surveillance without court order of any
sort.
The president’s program at NSA is, as far as I can see (which is
without having seen his classified executive order) is entirely
legal. And if those in Congress want to whine about it, let them.
The Congress, and the Senate especially given the filibuster of the
PATRIOT Act extension, the McCain “al-Qaeda bill of rights” and so
many other things, are acting irresponsibly with respect to the war
we’re in. And in 2006, we’ll do our best to defeat as many of them
as we can.
DIFFERENT ATTACK LEAGUES
Re: Paul Kengor’s The Vast
Left-Wing Conspiracy:
I have no quibble with the excellent analogy put forth by Mr.
Kengor to explain the machinations of the America hating, vast left
wing conspiracy led and orchestrated by the NYT and its
ilk. Fortunately, there are other means of obtaining news and the
power of such useful idiots is on the wane.
I do, however, have to point out that there is neither moral
equivalence nor need for the comment about even a few folks who,
supposedly, were intent on “dancing on the grave” of Mr. Clinton.
There is no comparison. He brought the impeachment on himself, did
not do his job (much of the responsibility for 9-11 is properly his
and his defenders’), and used the government, particularly the IRS,
in highly questionable ways (to no citing by the hate America
crowd). Witness the attempted national healthcare coup, the
cover-up of nefarious dealings (making RMN and his handlers look
like rank amateurs by comparison), and bald-faced lies for
political advantage that has become the hallmark of the Democrats,
owing to Clinton’s so-called third way.
Moreover, I did not see any references to wishing that the
perpetual adolescent die, or that he was like Hitler, or that he
was, in effect, a moron at any time, not to mention during the
impeachment process. No, there is no valid comparison between the
attacks on George W. Bush and the impeachment of William Jefferson
Clinton.
— P.A. Melita
Charlottesville, Virginia
This was an incredible piece to read. I was buckling a little
because I did not have all the facts. After reading this editorial
I feel comfortable and well informed. Indeed the President is
within his rights to continue on the path he has taken to protect
our country. I hope this message gets out to the masses. Enough is
enough with the hypocrisy we have to listen too. Sometimes I wonder
if the NYT and the leakers have any kind of conscience.
How do they sleep at night?
— Rev. David Hernandez
LOOSE LIPPED POLS?
Re: Jed Babbin’s All the
President’s Spies and Paul Kengor’s The Vast
Left-Wing Conspiracy:
The squealing from the left over the NSA listening in on calls
to 1-800-alQaeda makes me wonder how many on that side of the aisle
are worried that they have had a “Memorex Moment.”
— Geoff Bowden
Battle Creek, Michigan
TAKE AS LONG AS YOU WANT
Re: Michael Presley’s letter in Reader Mail’s All That
Jazz (under “Take it from the Top”) and John C’s letter in
Readermail’s So Mad, Too
Bad, and Christopher Orlet’s Take 85:
John C. writes that my response was predictable. This seems
strange to me inasmuch as I do not know John C. and, as far as I
know, he does not know me. How he can predict my response is a bit
of a mystery.
He is right, though, about one thing. It is just my opinion. And
perhaps I wrote hastily. If I had to do it again I would not say
that Brubeck is the Velveeta cheese of jazz. That moniker would
have to more rightly apply to whatever happens to be playing on
those ubiquitous “smooth jazz” stations, these days. In the world
of cheeses, Brubeck is more like a generic, shrink-wrapped, sharp
Wisconsin cheddar. Great (maybe) for casual snacking, but not
something you’d wish to share over a glass of Lafite-Rothschild. In
matters of aesthetic judgment it is difficult to arbitrate among
listeners. These things are personal, and must necessarily remain
so.
One final comment. Is Dave Brubeck “bad,” and Sun Ra “good”? All
I know is that, as a kid, I bought the Brubeck records. Over the
years, and as I learned to discriminate, his records all left the
collection. Now, names like Parker, Davis, Mingus, Sanders and,
yes, Ra, remain. With this in mind, there are those who now
proclaim that, if jazz is not dead, it is at least starting to
smell a little funny. Whatever. For me, the best jazz today may
well be the smooth bossa sounds deriving from the Antonio Jobim
Brazilian school.
— Michael Presley
Orlando, Florida
Mikey Presley probably thinks Hip-Hop and Rap are jazz. Humph. If
Brubeck is Velveeta, then Rap is Limburger.
Just a thought in passing: There are doubtless many readers who
don’t quite understand how “Take 5” got its name. It’s written in
5/4 time. Most jazz music is written in 4/4 time with four beats to
a measure, each beat written as a quarter-note. Waltz music is 3/4
time, and 5/4 time is sometimes referred to as “a waltz for a
three-legged dancer.” (Close your eyes and imagine a couple of
three-legged dancers doing a waltz!)
Consequently, a listener is constantly waiting for a beat that
isn’t there and it’s a delicious way to keep involved in the music.
It’s also quite intellectual, as is much jazz, and therein lies the
reason Mike Presley just doesn’t “get it.”
— Bob Johnson
Bedford, Texas
A CLINTON CONNECTION
Re: David Holman’s Romney’s
“Mormon Problem” and Reader Mail’s Mormonism
Spelled Out:
Mr. Tyrrell: Last week I read David Holman’s article on Mitt
Romney’s “Mormon Problem,” as well as the letters to TAS following
up on it. This reminded me of a letter that I have wanted to write
you since pre-internet days. Back in the 90s I read Boy
Clinton and it struck me at the time how much the book
reminded me of another biography I had recently read, No Man
Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie,
first published in 1945 and revised in 1971.
The appendix to the revised edition, which interprets Smith’s
behavior in terms of a psychological type known as “The Imposter,”
could just as have easily been written about Clinton and appended
to your book. I think you would find a comparison between the two
men of the highest interest — their inexhaustible energy and
appetites, the curious amorality, the chronic lying that amounts to
fantasizing, the flexible and pragmatic pursuit of self-interest,
the ability to hoodwink their followers, the women, the partying,
more women, the wife in denial, etc. The excerpts from Henry
Adams’s account of his visit with Smith are comic and
priceless.
I know that Fawn Brodie is controversial because in her
biography of Jefferson she came up with the Sally Hemmings theory.
But the Smith book was written earlier and was a piece of totally
original research that is still the basic work on its subject. The
Mormons have since developed all kinds of arguments against it. But
one might ask in comparison: Overall, which presents a clearer
picture of the Big Creep, Boy Clinton or My
Life?
I love TAS, but still wish you hadn’t shrunk the paper
version down to mortal size back in the early '90s
— Will Pickering
Sure. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Mormonism is
marginally “Christian” — marginally in the sense that Unitarians
are “Christian.” As Martin Luther once said, “I’d rather be ruled
by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian.”
I’d rather have a conservative Mormon than a liberal Christian
any day.
— Michael Wm. Dooley
Indianapolis, Indiana
