If you go back and read again, you might notice that my criticism was of all the posts *except* the ones that consisted of mere links. It’s hard to include vacuous editorials with mere links.

But since everyone seems tired of playing, I’ll cut to the chase: You don’t get to say something such as, “illegal, domestic spying,” — then not back it up with any reason why the spying is illegal or domestic. Or rather, you might get to say that once, but then when someone says the syping is legal and international, and explains why, you are best to drop the “illegal, domestic” cracks until you have something to back them up.

It was explained here well before York’s column, if not that comprehensively. That is, it was explained well enough that someone ought to think twice before making unsupported accusations of “illegal, domestic spying”. Otherwise, people are free to assume that the comments are partisan sniping. Given that these particular comments are objective aids to our current wartime enemies, don’t be surprised that they are ill-received. That they happen in a topic about a Senator acting pretty much the same way makes them more illustrative and amusing than annoying.

I’m too perplexed to say much about who is to blame for what’s going on in Iraq.
I see a lot of invasion supporters piling on Don Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks, like David Brooks does in today’s the NY Times.

Of course I acknowledge you have the right to say what you will. But…as with many things in life, just because a right exists doesn’t mean it should necessarily be exercised. And, no, I don’t believe you intentionally welcome harm to our troops. But IMO, the left side of the coin (of which Feingold is a perfect illustration) in this country has unnecessarily prolonged the war in Iraq. It caused us to lose in SVN and is hoping for the same in Iraq. I was with some of the men named on Maya Lin’s wall when they met their end, and, believe it or not, they died in an effort to make the world a better place. And, had they been given the proper support from their countrymen would have succeeded in doing so. Just one last thing, I don’t believe anyone who has/does post here has ever lost focus of the sacrifices we have asked of our military. The focus on that Memorial Day thread was exactly in appreciation for those sacrifices. Sorry for the harshness of my first post, but you have an unique ability to piss me off on occasion.

Unless, of course, it happens to be New Haven….

The point I was trying to make back then was that we should NEVER lose focus on the death and permanent injury that is the incalculable cost of war. Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial doesn’t flinch from this, which is why it is the most powerful monument in Washington, in my opinion, more powerful even than the Lincoln Memorial.

If you said that I didn’t make this argument very well back then, and was more interested being provokative than persuasive, I’m afraid I’d have to agree. However, there is no basis for thinking based on what I wrote that I welcome the death or injury of American soldiers.

My prayer today is to stop wasting my time with blogging, at least for the next week. If you don’t hear from me, you can surmise that God exists.

Which, regardless of spin, you, essentially are, marcus, seditionist that is.

Clever, intelligent and o so nuanced. Staunch defender of the “Constitution.” “Ultimate arbiter of the “American Way.” The most patriotic of patriots. Yes, you to a tee.

A comment from Roger’s 05 Memorial Day post;

“You’re missing a photo of some 20 year old missing a limb after a tour of duty in Iraq.

You’re also missing a photo of Bush attending a funeral of one of the soldiers who perished under his command in Iraq.

The first type of photo exists and is easy to find.

The second type doesn’t exist: Bush hasn’t attended any funerals for Americans killed in Iraq.”

Your first post here marcus. Tells me everything I need to know. You can dress it up in all the intellectualism you like, all the links you like, but in the end, I wouldn’t trust you, nor your opinions, beyond a spit in the wind.

Byron York’s article is the first substantive response to Feingold’s allegations that I have seen. ANYWHERE. I missed it in last month’s National Review, and it appears to have been posted on the web for the first time TEN HOURS AGO. Thank you, Senator Feingold, for moving the debate forward, and forcing the Administration’s supporters to say more than “under the Constitution, the Commander in Chief can do whatever he thinks he needs to do.”

I note that according to York the Administration’s appeal to the FISA Court of Review was prompted by the main FISA court’s attempt to block expanded surveillance that was authorized by the Patriot Act. This contrasts with the program that is the subject of current controversy, which was not authorized by that Act or by any other act. In any case, I will study In re: Sealed Case closely, as well as any responses to it from those patriotic Americans that Rick Ballard labels “seditionists”

Just a minor point but it was the FISA Court of Review which, per statute, acts as an appeals court, if necessary, for FISA court decisions.

The Court of Review’s decision regarding ‘In re: Sealed Case’ can be found here.

The seditionist blather concering the NSA surveillance of contacts between terrorists and their potential allies within the US has not had a shred of legal authority since day one.

Feingold damn well knows it, too. It’s not “a matter of opinion”, it’s a matter of settled law.

Glad to know someone else missed it, too.

I appreciate the link to the Byron York article, which I will be reading. I am utterly perplexed by Steven Mitchell’s criticism of posts where I say “hey look at this link” Linking to a relevant document on another site is the major way of supporting ones argument in an Internet-based discussion. So, thank you for your “hey look at this link” post.

I wish I had seen this earlier. It looks like the Special FISA court has already ruled in the President’s favor in 2002 and the SCOTUS declined to hear the case. The Special FISA court affiremed the President inherent right to conduct Foreign Intelligence collection without securing a warrant.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603150741.asp