Redstate

if that article you cited is correct.

I don't think her political views on military policy are well-considered (whoever decides when they'll leave BEFORE fighting the war?), but she sure shows admirable spirit in facing her physical injuries.

I like this quote in particular:

"This is not so bad. There is always somebody worse off than you are. I'm just glad it was me and not one of my guys out there."

As has become my wont I was dissatisfied with Russert.

Rice on MTP.

Yup, Russert virtually ignored the historic vote in Iraq and the Sunni participation (the previous negative bellwether) and kept up the gotcha for `illegal spying on Americans' for nearly the whole interview.

Levin on MTP

 Russert passed up a clear gotcha moment on Levin. After Levin vouched for his intial vote for the Patriot Act; After they established that the version on the block was more restrictive on the government; After Levin proclaimed it had to be filitbustered because it violates Civil Liberties; Russert asked him why he voted for it in the first place. Levin changed the subject and Russert moved on. Contrast to the way he repeatedly reset the trap for Rice.

 I wondered why Russert didn't ask Levin if it was really appropriate to ORDER a democratically elected government to change their constitution. Of course, Levin's entire diatribe on Iraq policy was based on the administration's failure to do just that, as the Senate bill had INSTRUCTED them to do.

 And for the linguistic benefit of both gentlemen:

ha*ven [háyvən]

(plural ha*vens)

n

1.  sheltered place: a place sought for rest, shelter, or protection. As in: a haven for wildlife

Hmm... do words matter Tim? So nice of you to set the Senator up for this. Iraq, a place that terrorists seek for rest, shelter and protection. I guess I learned something new today from a great reporter. I wonder if our troops know about this? Maybe they can catch them all sipping pina coladas at the beach.

Tammy Duckworth is in fact a courageous officer and a fine example. She's had national exposure before, on the Ingraham show and possibly others. The NY Times ran a puff piece on her yesterday, probably to help reinforce the impression she would create this morning as a highly credible Democratic candidate.

I was struck by a quote from her in the Times piece, to the effect that having no legs gives her the visibility and the attention to run for Congress, and "get her ideas heard." Duckworth's opponent, suddenly stuck with the problem of running against a national hero, had to mumble something about being glad that the race will now receive national attention.

It got me to thinking about that long thread on RedState the other night with a soldier (Big Red) recently returned from Iraq. A lot of serious people on this site got into a long discussion with a guy whose ideas (and the way he expressed them) would have disqualified him immediately had he not been a war hero.

As much as we may admire Tammy Duckworth's fortitude and honor her sacrifice, is this the right way to pick people for Congress?

I've been away from the `net for a few days and I thought I would log-on to RedState and find a bunch of conservatives up in arms over the President's authorization of the NSA to spy on Americans.  But what I mostly find is silence and white-washing.

What happened to limited government, enumerated powers and the rest of our principals?  Are we going to just accept a "functional" argument that this was done because it was needed?

Rice's defense was weak because there is no defense.  She said that time pressures required these warrantless searches.  BS.  FISAm the controlling law, allows the authorities to get a warrant 72 hours after the tap has been placed.

She asserted - as has Bush - that the CinC power in the Constitution authorizes this activity.  Huh?  If this is true then there is nothing the President cannot do simply by claiming that it is needed for the war.  The Supreme Court shredded this argument in the Steel Seizure Case during the Truman Administration.

There is plenty of blame to go around.  Congress - once again - has been found wanting.  Even the Democrats bowed to unlimited Presidential power.

Okay, so you trust Bush and think that he has our best interests at heart and that allows him to break the law, but, what about the next guy?  Would you be so sanguine if it was Clinton who was using the intelligence apparatus to spy on Americans?

The ability to lead and make good judgements politically, do not follow directly from military experience and courage on the battlefield.  Politics is almost an entirely different game.  To take one example: weathering national unpopularity is not something one can learn from fighting a war.  Unpopularity among troops is one thing; it's quite another when it's on the front page of the major newspapers, and continues for weeks or months.

On the other hand, military experience, especially distinguished military experience, tells us more about a candidate's character than, say, fame from a career in sports, or from a spouse or parent who happens to be a celebrity.

What gets me is that everyone here claims to be a republican but I'm beginning to wonder.  What on earth ever happened to the Republican values and the Republican platform.  Sure we support each other and the party comes first but when the party has been seemingly hijacked isn't it time to support our country first and rid ourselves of the imposters.  Granted, the Dems would never be a better choice even over these imposters but the republican party is starting to disappoint me as these guys repeatedly prove over and over again that their values are not in line with the traditional republican values.

A posting with about 240 comments in it about this very thing. It pretty much covers all this.

You're speaking to political talent and tenacity. Even more important is ideas. Duckworth is going to get spotted quite a few points before her prospective constituents even get around to evaluating what she thinks.

And to the Democrats' credit, they've figured this out and are planning to run perhaps a dozen of this kind of candidate. It's the Paul Hackett strategy, and it's dangerous for us because Republicans tend to pull our punches when arguing against war heroes. That's what happened here the other night with Big Red.

war is the plan.

She certainly served her country well, and that can't be taken from her, but she sounds like she was spouting democratic talking points.

Is your premise based upon ignorance or just hoping that the people you are trying to put down here are ignorant?

Is your position that it is OK for Americans to engage in international terrorist conspiracies as long as they do it quickly enough that a warrant to listen in cannot be obtained?

The assumptions you make - about the GWOT and conservatives- are fairly insulting.

to show the utmost respect and gratitude for her military conduct, while at the same time criticizing her ideas as hard as possible.

It won't be helpful to say she has no political experience because the public at large doesn't hold a distinguished veteran to the same standard in that regard.

When the Democrats respond that attacking her ideas is attacking her character, as they almost certainly will in order to try to avoid losing the argument, Republicans should reply with the same points: we have the utmost respect for her military service, but we disagree with her ideas.

If we force the Dems to engage in a battle of ideas over military policy, they are much more likely to lose the race (depending somewhat on the district, of course).

in the opinion of some defeatocrats, but Iraq is no longer run by a terrorist. And the terrorists who are making haven there now seem to be dying at ever increasing rates.

The argument trotting out the allegdly terrorist-friendly nature of modern Iraq requires ignoring the facts to an amusing degree.

Then we can kill them all in one place.

But we are talking about defeatocrat talking points,a nd sensible has nothing to do with the DNC position these days.

are having a field day dumping on the President about breaking the law, obeying the law, blah blah blah.

I honor Major Duckworth's service but she is not long a soldier, she's now a politician. How can she legally run for office in the 6th CD when she lives in the 8th CD?

Move to the 6th CD, run in the 8th CD, frankly I don't care, just do what you are supposed to do; live in the district that you are running to represent. Why is this so difficult?

"And the terrorists who are making haven there now seem to be dying at ever increasing rates."

They are? I haven't seen any data to support this.

Can you link to an article or data set that indicates the terrorists are "dying at ever increasing rates"? I think it would be interesting to see some analysis on that.

Thanks in advance.

Let's see, you've given me the choice of calling myself ignorant or calling the readers ignorant.  You have, I think, sufficiently established the case for the latter - a difficult trick at Redstate where most of the posters are obviously from Lake Woebegone (above average).

Were you reading my post quickly and inattentively, or do you willfully seek to misunderstand?  

My general point is that we conservatives should be appalled at the Bush administration's assertion of power and its exercise of that power.  Besides authorizing the NSA to spy on Americans the current administration has let the FBI send out tens of thousands of National Security Letters.  The FBI has admitted that the majority of the letters covered individuals who were not targets of investigation.  That is, there was no probable cause or basis for suspicion.  The Administration has also let the DoD collect information on citizens who have done nothing worse than protest the war.  One may not agree with these protestors, but they have the right to say what they want.

Where in the heck do you get the idea that I am offering any opinion about it being okay to engage in terrorism - quick or otherwise?  Sec. Rice defended the Administrations actions by claiming that they were needed because the authorities had to move quickly.  I countered this lame justification by noting the fact that the FISA procedures allow the authorities to get a warrant 72 hours after they have installed the tap.  Let me draw it out for you:  There was no need to break the law because suspects were moving quickly.

There was a legal way to conduct these operations.  Bush chose not to.  He is setting a dangerous precedent.  He has broken the law.  As a conservative I am appalled and think other conservatives should be as well.  I worry that too many conservatives think of themselves as Republicans first.

I also worry that too many people - like you, fried - will accept the functional argument be advanced by the Administration.

BTW: If you look in a dictionary you will find that there is a difference between assumption and premise.

I'll try and find it again.  I wonder, however, if it really does cover all this if the post that leads this thread can still so dimissively treat the topic.

By that I mean that all we have is the NYTimes article, and followups, and Bush's statement on Saturday, plus Rice today.

I don't know if the intercepts were only on foreign to US and US to foriegn calls - if so, this is probably covered by the NSA authorizations.

I don't know if FISA warrants were issued on some or all of the domestic targets.

I don't know how many targets there were, when and where.

I don't know what the "law" is specifically - are there holes that allow the executive to do this in time of war?

I don't know what the executive order said - did it have legal authorities?

Maybe somebody really "knows" all these things and more - I'm sure it will get discussed and infinitum and behind closed doors in Congress.

And maybe Bush is playing rope-a-dope again - I hope so...

I also hope that he calls on the Justice Dept to find the leakers of the NSA intercepts, the CIA planes, etc.  Certainly these leaks did more damage to national security than the so-called Plame leak did.

The Constitution only requires that you live in the state, not the district, and it would take an activist reading to force otherwise.

Posted 12/17 by Nick Danger

substance on this matter.  The Secretary of State said that the President was permitted to this, John McCain said that he was permitted to do this, and Feingold, Levin, and Reid were ready to frogmarch based on hysteria.

I want to hear the real story, not some NY Times version, before I react poorly and positively.  We've two competing lines.  I want to know what exactly happened and could have happened before I join the angry mob looking for something to burn at the stake.

How can any conservative jump to such outrage based on a NY Times article? Have we learned nothing of the MSM? In his radio address, Bush said individuals involved were connected to terrorist groups. If that is the case, some legal types (which I am certainly not), Mark Levin for example, have said warrants may not have been necessary.

Moreover, the Times article says that the judge overseeing FISA questioned the issuance of warrants based on NSA data. That being said, how is it a mere formality to get warrants within 72 hours of the tap?

Finally, I wouldn't confuse conservative with libertarian. Not everyone here will agree, but personally, if the government is spying on terrorist groups and communications involving those groups leads to the US, I hope surveillance is continued, with or without a warrant.

There was a legal way to conduct these operations. Bush chose not to.

You don't know that. You have bought the New York Times' characterization of events hook, line, and sinker. You have the NSA "spying on Americans," as if they were listening to everybody to see if anything was happening.

Suppose one of our guys in Iraq takes a cell phone off the body of a dead insurgent, and they copy down the guy's phone book. To help our friends, we provide these numbers to our allies. Later, one of them passes us a tip that they happened to catch a call in which some guy in Toledo is talking to Zarkawi.

Which law was broken?

Let's wait and see what really happened here before declaring the Constitution dead. This is the New York Times we're talking about. If this had been in the National Inquirer I could understand your concern, but right now we have no idea how the facts were twisted to create the best possible shaped charge. All we know is that if the New York Times had their hand in it, that was done.

I would like to see some data too!  I would like to keep a list of the proof we need to keep up these arguments.  This is not looking good for republicans in general.  I don't like the way these guys are turning our party around on us.  

McCain thinks the President "has the right to do this," but he
doesn't know why the President didn't go through the FISA court.

Maybe the President was worried that the court stenographer would leak the
proceedings to the New York Times and it would be splattered on the from page
the next day. As it is, the "secret" wire taps are headlines around
the world anyway. The only difference is it took a little longer.

Steph insisted that this was the same kind of circumvention as the Administration
used to torture people...

I would love for Democrats to give us a list of effective interrogation techniques. Maybe Dr. Phil could design them:

• Strapping detainees into Lay-Z-Boy recliners with cool drinks and ethnically
  appropriate snacks and making them watch their favorite DVDs until they scream
  for mercy.
• Tickling them with long ostrich feathers until they collapse on the floor
  in a quivering, compliant mass of flesh.
• Using rendition to take them to the Riviera and making them lay on the beach,
  swim, play volley ball and participate in endless beach blanket picnics until they're reduced to sobbing out the exact
  locations of all bomb making factories.

they'll attack them for attacking her character if, like with Hackett, and Kerry, and Cleland, and even McCain, they attack their service record, which were to a man exemplary.

Otherwise, probably not.

I am am a consevative first and then a Republican though only a fool would think you could particpate in politics and not get one with the other. I couls care less about who does the spying. Put any 3 letters together you want. I want every means used to intercept terrorists, find them and kill them. This is war.

He's making a list

with Clayton's device.

Gonna find out

Who registered twice.

Tossing them on top of the pile.

Okay, you don't want the NYT version.  How about the president's version?  I bet you can find a transcript of his Saturday radio broadcast.  In it he verified the basic outline of the NYT story.  Rice did as well on MTP.

What the President and Rice added was the Administration's justification.

1. The President has an implied power as CinC to authorize the NSA to spy on American citizens.  He has this power despite specific legislation to the contrary.  He has the authority to abrogate the law despite provisions in the law that would have allowed him to do this legally.
   
2.  The President and Rice claimed statutory authority to do this based upon Congressional authorization to use force against A.Q.  You can read the authorizing resolution for yourself and see that it does it no such thing.

Now, you can wait around if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that the President is asserting new and broad powers.  Does this fit with your conservative philosophy, or is that philosophy just a convenient set of things to say at cocktail parties and to beat the Democrats with over their head.

Don't try to gloss his sorry, traitorous record.

you may be right. But if you were right then redistricting wouldn't matter because you could never force two incumbents into the same district. They could just run from wherever they wished.

Indeed you seem to be claiming, against all facts, that what we really have is the equivalent of parliamentary elections at the state level where your residence doesn't matter. You could live in Manhattan and run for office in Utica.

So you aren't right in any meaningful way.

always your friend.

Of course, there have been empirical analyses on this subject here and on other sites.

You're welcome. In advance.

Kerry clearly didn't have an "exemplary" service record. Cleland didn't serve long enough to merit that description. Hackett? Hackett? And John McCain's record pre-POW was undistinguished and greatly benefitted from being the son and grandson of admirals. My hat's off to him for his conduct in the PW cage but his career before and after Vietnam were competent but hardly exemplary.

Yes....

Conversely better than the dysfunctional blather of they that curl up warmly at night under the blanket of protection given by those who have chosen to take a determined course to protect.

God save us all from the Party that wishes to endow rights upon those who mean to kill us.

the smell of burning moby in the morning.

Reviewed your short but undistinguished posting history. Go play your "we Republicans" schtick elsewhere.

but then I'd be wasting my time.

You know if there was a single fact stated here, or even things that were not baldfaced lies (to wit: He has this power despite specific legislation to the contrary.  He has the authority to abrogate the law despite provisions in the law that would have allowed him to do this legally.) and were I in a more charitable mood I'd let this slide.

But it isn't and I'm not. This pathetic crap has been asked and answered on at least two different threads. The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean that you have the right to make up your own peculiar set of facts.

I've had it. I'm tired. You're gone.

And we know some of the things that concern you.

Bush and Rice both confirmed that the NSA tapped into the communications of people in the US.  We can assume that some of these were with US citizens.  But, if you want, let's stay only with known facts.  The NSA is expressly forbidden to tap into the communications of anyone in the US unless it is specifically allowed to be a special warrant from the FISC (the court set-up by FISA).

How many?  Well, sure, 5000 is worse than 50, but 50 is still pretty bad and should be of concern.  It is not how many the NSA spied on that worries me, but the assertion by the President that he can choose which laws to obey.  Doesn't that assertion - clearly made in his radio address - bother you?  Let your imagination wander just a little and think about what future Presidents will do.  Consider what past Presidents have done and how they have build on precedent.

Okay, you don't know what the law is.  But isn't it enough that the President is saying that he can void it?  He is not arguing that there was a loophole or a difference of interpretation.  He has argued that he had the authority to disregard the law.

I think it's a fact that Democrats routinely resond to foreign policy arguments by saying "you're questioning my patriotism".  It helps them avoid the argument.  We saw this again and again in the last presidential campaign, well before the Swift Boaters entered the contest.

The other thread is recent enough that folks are still checking it and posting on it.  

He [Bush] has argued that he had the authority to disregard the law

You sure about that?

For what it's worth

I think DonSF is fine (so long as he picks the right thread).

• But, if you want, let's stay only with known facts.
• the assertion by the President that he can choose which laws to obey

Are you a rhetoritician or a serious participant? Choose wisely.

As always I leave it to Mark to cover these shows -- however I did hear part of LE when I was driving around today.  Wolfie was interviewing Jack Murtha -- or rather allowing Murtha to rant on the topic of Iraq.  It was the same rant we have heard before -- we've become the enemy, 80 per cent of Iraqis want us to leave, they won't do their own fighting as long as we're there.  When Murtha ame back from Vietnam in 1967 (did you know he served in Vietnam?) there was an election in Vietnam a month later and did it affect the situation?  Not at all, Wolf.  

Wolfie asked Murtha to clarify his own plan, as in some circles it was being misrepresented (as "cut n run" you know).  Murtha clarified, he wants all our troops redeployed out of Iraq as soon as possible..

Wolfie:  To Kuwait?

Murtha:  To Kuwait, yeah, or Okinawa...

Okinawa?  Japan?  squeaked Wolfie

Murtha:  Yeah, all our forces could be redeployed to Okinawa or (here I picture Murtha giving an insouciant wave of the hand) they could all be redeployed back to the United States...

Hmmm...

"Redeployed back to the US"  sounds like a very fancy way of saying "cut n run" to me.

Wolfie followed this by saying he had an Iraqi who had written a piece in the NY Slimes last week saying there were many problems with the Iraqi election & we should anticipate all kinds of terrible developments, lest we take a day or two to feel pretty good about the whole thing.

Whn Iraqi Guy came on, however (can't remember his name) he was fantastic -- he said the elections were a watershed event in the Middle East and Iraq, a turning point, great event and a total vindication of the Bush administration policy in the Middle East.  Furthermore he said Murtha was full of it and everything Murtha said on Iraq was wrong.  

Wolfie:  But-but...that's not what you said in the New York Slimes!...

Iraqi Guy explained that his piece was about some aspects of the elections but not the whole story and you have to look at the whole story, which is overwhelmingly positive....

Pretty amusing.

patriotism meme will still be banded about.

Essentiallyt he democratic position is that if they run a war hero, any criticism, even of ideas is equal to a questioning of patriotism.  But the dems have no qualms about digging into the records and attacking GOP members who have served.

you could be right if you think arguing from the basis of a blatant lie is acceptable.

that whole Maureen Dowd-Mother Sheehan-absolute-moral-authority-meme.

God, family, country

Schieffer asked Biden about Iraq, and he started listing one or two word answers he'd memorized. He thinks the Iraqis have six months to draft a Constitution....

Again I call for a 6 month(tm) for Biden. There is hardly an interview when he doesn't trot out the 6 months time frame - often more than a year after the first offering.

Schieffer wanted to know about the box.

ROTF. Great.

Mark, thanks again for your hard work making these Sunday Morning yap shows a joy to read about.

he's reinstated.

If you think he's going to repay the courtesy you have shown him in any small way, you are sadly mistaken.

You can read the requirements to appear BEFORE the FISA court to apply for a warrant.

It's online at Cornell.edu, google is your friend.

There are ELEVEN major steps and several show-stoppers, including certification by the National Security advisor that the information can be obtained in no other fashion, that it is indeed foreign intelligence, and that measures will be taken to minimize surveillance.

Among other things this requires extensive review by the legal staff of the National Security Advisor. Min is likely 2 months.

It also requires by LAW a personal review by the AG. That's basically 2 months of lawyering and review by AG legal staff.

FISA was built from the ground up to restrict the ability of the government to do ANY surveillaince; if for example a FISA warrant target wanders into an internet cafe or visits a friend and uses a computer there to IM a terrorist controller in Pakistan, the FISA warrant FORBIDS eavesdropping on that IM exchange.

ONLY very specific and identified "facilities" can be targeted for surveillance; this is not a "roving" wiretap targetting a person. FISA was written to limit it's use; yes FISA warrants are approved when presented to the Court because the requirements BY LAW are so strict as to make the application before the judge a formality.

Bill Clinton was not a stupid man. During his tenure we had the 1993 WTC bombing by foreign terrorists, the 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 Embassy Bombings, the 2000 Cole bombing, and much threats against America (the failed LA Millenium plot for example).

Almost NO FISA warrants were applied for because it was useless; the requirements basically drown the effort in paperwork. Go read it yourself it's about ELEVEN major documentation steps with detailed statements of facts required for each means or method of wiretapping, target, facilities, and places. Major "minimization" efforts to protect the privacy of people not connected to the target are required, and the application must PROVE that the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Simply having the phone number show up in the laptop of say, 9/11 and 1993 WTC architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not enough; so you're looking at about six months if you really push it to get before a judge.

72 hours is laughable for anyone who's taken the trouble to use Google and read the law itself. It's written to kill wiretapping in almost every case by mountains of paperwork and documentation.

Read it yourself.

States can't add on requirements to Congressional eligibility within the constitutional scheme.

My Congressman, Bob Brady, does not live within this district.  It's one of those things that the Constitution trusts the voters to sort out -- because, yes, you can live in Manhattan and run for office in Utica.

This power was cleared by lawyers at the Justice Department, I assume, so let's hear their brief.  If I cannot understand it, I know several damn good lawyers who can explain it to me.

I heard Condi Rice this morning struggling, and I relected that it my writeup.  She seemed to me almost to be saying that the President derived the power from the emanations of the penumbra, and we've already paid to see that movie.

And I want to know how broad and how limited this power was.

Then I'll comment.  I'm not going to take a drunken leap with an Old, Gray Liquored-up Lady.

you know that is BS even as you write it. Living in a district is not an "eligibiity" requirement, but, for the record, the constitution does not forbid former felons from running but a lot of states do forbid them from holding office. So, yes, they can add to requirements.

Virgnia has that requirement, that is, BTW, how George Allen ended up governor. Nebraska has that requirement. Lack of interest prevented me from enumerating the others.

Lucky you are, my man, that your daddy finds you amusing and insightful enough to put up with.

He thinks the Iraqis have six months to draft a Constitution....

That's odd, I thought the Iraqis voted on that already.

Because if they didn't I can't figure out what Levin says we should demands the new sovereign Iraqi government must change to suit the Democrats views; oil revenues, super-minority status for the Sunnis, free access to abortion ... oh, wait, he just wants "women's rights" which is of course Demo-code for free abortions.

-------------

the three elections in which not one pro-terrorist group won anything?

The fact that Iraqis are turning in more and more Al Qeada goons?

That Zarqawi's big assault on Jordan was done with some of his top level people.

Your so-called request is simply evidence you don't want to be informed or discuss this in good faith.

Shove off.

well, just read the law.

Your psuedo patriotism only helps the enemy and does not protect any American.

Try reading the law, and try using critical thinking skills instead of just being a sock puppet for anti-American bigots....unless that shoe fits you.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-
.html

This one does not need facts to declare defeat.

I read Bush's statement and watched Rice on MTP earlier today.

They confirmed the NYT story in its basics: the President authorized the NSA to tap into communications that originated or terminated in the US.  The NSA is specifically prohibited from doing this unless they get a warrant from the FISC (the court set up by the FISA).

Both Bush and Rice said that warrants were not obtained.  They did nt say that FISA had a loophole or that the law was unconstitutional.  They justified the action by citing Presidential authority stemming from the Constituion (CinC power) and statute (I assume the Congressional resolution authorizing war against AQ)

The point is that they are justifying the President's disregard of a law.  There is historical precedent for this.  Lincoln, for example, took several actions at the outbreak of the Civil War that were not within his powers.  He then went to Congress and asked for retroactive authority for his actions (ratification).  Lincoln explained that he took the actions out of neccessity and in the belief that COngress woul later agree.  Congress ratified all but one.

Bush has not taken this action in extremis.  He has not sought ratifivation.  What is worde, he could have gone and gotten a warrant for all of these actions.  Why didm't he?  I don't know and I don't care.

What I do care about is a President who asserts new powers not granted to him by the Constituion or by statute.  These assertions always lead to trouble.

What I am further concerned about is conservatives' apparent willingness to let Bush make these assertions because he is one of us.  Whatever party a person is from I call em as I see em and this is not a conservative.

Just saw his latest post below.

. . . can a state prevent a former felon from sitting in Congress?  Of course they can do what they want with their own offices.

And I have always been careful on this site to stick with the facts and the law, and not to be overly partisan.  I know I'm just a guest here.

What is this so-called "Google" of which you speak? I wasn't aware that you could "search" for things online.

So, anyways, I took your advice and did a "Google" search under "terrorists dying" and "increasing rates".  Unfortunately, I got a "did not match any documents" response back.

I don't doubt for a second that we've killed terrorists. That kind of goes without saying. What I wasn't aware of was that we were killing the "terrorists" at "an increasing rate."

But if you have a link to an article (perhaps I'm just searching incorrectly on Google), I'd appreciate the link. It's an interesting question to consider.

Again, thanks in advance.

Perhaps in your rush to accuse someone of not wishing to "discuss this in good faith" or not wating to be informed, you missed my actual question.

I wasn't asking about whether we are "winning", or what the state of the terrorists is, or what the three elections do or do not indicate about the terrorists.

I was simply asking, very specifically, about the claim that the terrorists are "dying at ever increasing rates."

I trust you are always interested in discussing things in good faith, so I can only assume you either misunderstood or misread my question.

The phrase "ever increasing rates" refers to the second moment, i.e. to an acceration in the rate at which the population of terrorists is declining. As the population of terrorists declines, there are in fact going to be fewer dead terrorist bodies to count.

The dead bodies are the only "objective" evidence of anything, because we do not know how many terrorists there are. So you are not going to find an Excel spreadsheet on the web calculating the rate of acceleration in the decline.

Instead you must infer it from other things you see. Such as the fact that Zarqawi's equivalent of mid-level NCOs and officers are increasingly involved personally in carrying out these attacks. There is only one reason that would happen: he doesn't have enough enlisted men to do it.

When your opponents starts putting rifles in the hands of his officers and sends squads of them out to shoot you, he's on his last legs.

"The dead bodies are the only "objective" evidence of anything, because we do not know how many terrorists there are. So you are not going to find an Excel spreadsheet on the web calculating the rate of acceleration in the decline."

I agree with you. This was my sense as well. Without actually knowing how many terrorists there actually are operating in Iraq, it is impossible to know whether we are killing them at an increasing, decreasing, or consistent rate.

This is part of the problem facing the US going forward, but that's a question for another diary.

Anyhow, that's why I asked the question. I thought the original poster might of had some new data on this as opposed to simply guessing or intuiting it.

Without actually knowing how many terrorists there actually are operating in Iraq, it is impossible to know whether we are killing them at an increasing, decreasing, or consistent rate.

Your statement is only true if all terrorists are of equal rank. If they are not of equal rank, then you only need the assumption that the opposing commander is sane to see that an increasing number of enemy officers and NCOs in the bodies you are collecting means that the enemy has few others left. As the number of remaining terrorists declines, each one we kill represents a higher percentage of the remaining terrorists.

No sane commander sends his officers out there to be suicide bombers. If Zarqawi is doing that – and he is – he is down to a fraction of what he had when he started. As the number dwindles, the rate at which we are killing them increases.

What makes you think Zarqawi is sane?

Seems like a credible argument could be made that an Islamofascist bent on taking on the strongest military in the history of the world is decidedly insane, no?

I think the guy is a madman, personally.

Therefore, I'm not particularly confident that we can conclude much of anything about his actions, much less whether they are indicative of whether he's losing men at a faster than he's replacing them.

Article IV, Section II, Paragraph c

To be eligible to serve as a member of the General

Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least

21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or

appointment a resident of the district which he is to

represent. In the general election following a redistricting,

a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any

district which contains a part of the district in which he

resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a

resident of the new district he represents for 18 months

prior to reelection.

Brillig! Can you ever gyre and gymbal!
That is some pretty slithy trolling, Balfour.

So. You seen the vorpal blade? The one that goes snicker-snack? Well, if I ever see you whiffling and burbling like that with any of our members, it's gonna be your frabjous day.

a discussion on Iraq and the elections there, not to be questioned on the whole wiretap thing.  She was being questioned out of her scope of knowledge.  

That's for the state general assembly.  It has nothing to do with the U.S. Congress.

especially troublesome is that you're basing your outrage on a NYT article.

Given the top secret nature of these kinds of operations, I think it foolhardy to assume that anyone not in the know could reach an informed conclusion.  

Unless, that is, you happen to be Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy....is that you?

Cruddy on/off lefty.

....the GOP does in FACT question the patriotism of people who have served, usually during election season. It's pretty disgusting. That you do it ALLOWS Democrats to duck the issue, not that that's helping them any. The patriotism attacks work pretty well, that's why they are used.