Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Disingenuous Jimmy Carter
Posted by: McQ on Monday, July 03, 2006

Itry like the devil to give Jimmy Carter the benefit of the doubt when he writes something (and as QandO's resident Georgian, I've been relegated that duty by fiat) but then, as usual, I end up running right smack into disingenuousness in his arguments.

Today he's moaning about FOIA, secrecy and how, while nations such as Jamaica, India, South Africa, Mali and Shanghai are becoming more transparent societies, this administration is becoming more secretive.

Here's what he bases his criticism of the US government on:
This is understandable when the U.S. government uses at least 50 designations to restrict unclassified information and created 81 percent more "secrets" in 2005 than in 2000, according to the watchdog coalition OpenTheGovernment.org.
Question: What happened between 2000 and 2005 which might require more secrets be kept?

Anyone?

Hint: what happened between 1941 and 1945 that probably required the same sort of thing?

So on it's face, this is a rather suspect statistic, isn't it? War, secrets, go figure. Might drive that percentage up a tad, eh?

Look Mr. Carter, if you want amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which is supposedly what your piece is about, great. Lay out your argument. Give us the pros and cons. Reasonable people will gladly weigh them.

But please, save your cheesy, poorly crafted and completely obvious partisan political innuendo for the next time you and Michael Moore have a chance to sit together and trade ideas.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Question: What happened between 2000 and 2005 which might require more secrets be kept?
Eeeeeevil GeorgeWMcHilterHalliburtonNeoconWarmongerOilStealing Bush took office due to his stolen election of course!!

Thus further reinforcing my belief that the only enemy the Dems ever really cared about fighting wasn’t the terrorists....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Happy Independance Day, McQ, Jon and Dale.

Thanks for what you do, guys.
Same to you, Shark.
-S
 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
I’m not seeing what secrets we should have held that would have made 9/11 not happen. And I’m not seeing what secrets that we are keeping now that are making us safer from another 9/11 attack.

I get the gist of the argument, I just don’t understand the connection.
 
Written By: Swede And Czech
URL: http://swedeandczech.blogspot.com
But please, save your cheesy, poorly crafted and completely obvious partisan political innuendo for the next time you and Michael Moore have a chance to sit together and trade ideas.

I can’t tell if this is satire or actual commentary, hopefully the former.
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
It’s not all about 9/11.
I just don’t understand the connection.
So you can’t connect a state of war with a probable rise in those things a government might want to keep secret?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I can’t tell if this is satire or actual commentary, hopefully the former.
Well all I can say to that is "ugh".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ...tsk...and tut-tut

I missed the 72 pt headline: US DECLARES WAR AGAINST _____!!

Got a link?

I missed the part where Congress declared a war on the verb ’terror’. Or any country, come to think of it.

War? Hmmm..war is a legal term, with specific criteria or procedure and documentation. What we have here is conflict. Not the historic and legal entity known as war.

Please stop using the non sequitir’war’ as an excuse to erode liberties, until such time formal war is declared, and special valid and recognized war powers are enforced.

Do you think it now prudent for the Republican controlled Congress to declare a formal state of war and address this issue of making every document in the government secret?

Until then, there may be battle, carnage and death of military and civilian casualty, but there is no war here, folks. Only strife and arrogant mayhem. Like...oh...Korea/Vietnam/panama/kuwait/Iraq 1/lebannon/that little island Reagan invaded.. Grenada?

Yeah we got attacked on 9/11. That just changes EVERYTHING huh? We also got attacked in OKC and I didn’t see the rush by the Republicans or Demcrats to delcare war on crew cut christian men.

Body count does not define war. Congress solely has the power to declare war. You guys can’t have it both ways.

Bat about with the word ’war’ all you want, McQ but there is no war. This country has not formally declared war since Dec 8, 1941.

So, no go. There is no war, ergo no reason to have all this wartime secrecy, ergo no more valid reason to take one more opportunity bash Mr. Carter over valid arguement.

I tend to trust a man with Top Secret Clearance over a blogger who gets his boner over liberal statesman.

But I am sure you will have some witty dismissive remark to yuck it with. After all, this IS your world here, eh?
 
Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://
"M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged
approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee
the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which
the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered
Laughter)

J[oe]B[iden]: The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of
Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal
that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House.
I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the
Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and
others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal
declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force
.
There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined
in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were
moving, and what authority was granted to the President."
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229598&&
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
I missed the 72 pt headline: US DECLARES WAR AGAINST _____!!
As is obvious, you’ve missed a lot of things in your life.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ok, though I agree with Rick D., Let’s grant that there is a current War on Terror that we should fight just like we did in WWII. (The favorite analogy of conservatives... exceeded only by the liberal facination with calling Iraq the next Vietnam.)

Ok, in WWII, our goal was "the complete and unconditional surrender" of Germany and Japan. The Allies, through much blood, sweat and sacrafice earned the victory, and the war ended.

When does the "War on Terror" end? There isn’t anyone who can surrender for "the terrorists". "Terrorism" didn’t begin on 9/11 either (one set of examples). And the reason I use scare quotes around terrorism is that we can’t even come up with a specific definition. Not to say it doesn’t exist, but granting all sorts of extra-constitutional powers should be done hesitantly, and if we can’t come up with a solid, legally binding definition of what qualifies, then we have a serious problem.

The more I think about it, the "War on Terror" is like the "Wars" on Drugs, Poverty, or any other abstract idea. Yes, there are differences, say for example, I’m for ending the War on Drugs. But the common thread, and one that concerns me is the continuous, never ending nature.

Another is the abuse of the term to encompass just about anything. The "anti-terror" laws are already being used against a wide swath of crimes. If we want to increase the enforcement and penalties of other various crimes, that’s fine, but let’s have an honest discussion, and not some bullsh*t cover story about it being "terrorism".

Is there anything we shouldn’t give up, or that we should at least hesistate on giving up in this indefinite "war"? "Give me liberty or give me death"?
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
When does the "War on Terror" end?
That’s really irrelevant to the point, isn’t it Tito? I really don’t disagree with your point, I just don’t see how it’s germane to the point being argued.

Of course Rick D’s is simply semantics and I think Anonymous answered that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"...where Congress declared a war on the verb ’terror’"

My dictionary says that terror is a noun.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
And again, Tito proves my point about the only enemy the left really cares about fighting.
The more I think about it, the "War on Terror" is like the "Wars" on Drugs, Poverty, or any other abstract idea
Ask those who died on 9/11 if a plane flying into a skyscraper is an "abstract idea"

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I’m not seeing what secrets we should have held that would have made 9/11 not happen. And I’m not seeing what secrets that we are keeping now that are making us safer from another 9/11 attack.

I get the gist of the argument, I just don’t understand the connection.

Written By: Swede And Czech
Well, for starters, we had broken bin Ladens satellite phone system and were regularly monitoring his calls before a Republican Senator (Shelby) stupidly bragged to the press that we were doing so in 1998. The press of course did not save him from his leak, but ran to the airwaves and presses. Within 5 days, Al Qaeda shut down it’s satellite phone network and went "dark".

Another good one was the CIA could not informally tell the FBI intelligence in secret, thanks to the "Wall" - but had to go through a formal process where the FBI ahead of time had to know what they were not allowed to know and only then ask the CIA more details if it wouldn’t hurt "enemy criminal rights".

Al Qaeda also benefited from it’s observers and sympathetic ACLU lawyers what sort of security measures were in place at the WTC and the African embassies from the open courtroom trials and discovery documents. There are clearly legal professionals in the USA and UK that are an integral part of the Al Qaeda team relaying vital info to the enemy from revelations or hints of sources and methods.

We also lost tactical secrecy on several cruise missile attacks pre-9/11. And secrecy on some of our high-tech bugging gear and some satellite intel from Americans or other nations in the loop selling those secrets to the Saudis or others who passed it on to Al Qaeda.

Others can add more on how media, leakers, lawyers betrayed other secrets that might have stopped 9/11 or allowed us to nail the Islamoids post-9/11.

————————————————————
Rick D - Yeah we got attacked on 9/11. That just changes EVERYTHING huh? We also got attacked in OKC and I didn’t see the rush by the Republicans or Demcrats to delcare war on crew cut christian men.

Body count does not define war. Congress solely has the power to declare war. You guys can’t have it both ways.
Libertarian/Liberal drivel. The "Magic Words" some people anally fixate on in the Constitution, which they claim if uttered are the only words that make a "real war" - ignore that declarations of war have been diplomatically illegal by treaty since 1945. Nor was the US much concerned about the sanctity of saying the "Magic Words" in the large majority of wars pre-1945. In the meantime, "Congressional Authorization For the Use of Military Force" makes a pretty darn good substitute for divining Congressional Intent. Want the precious Magic Words to be said again after 60 years? Fine! Have the US withdraw from using diplomacy in all treaties that bind us to modern norms to salvage the archaic "Magic Words". Otherwise, fix the Constitution to reflect the way the world is today, not 230 years ago. PS "Letters of Marque" as the only authorized way to deal with pirates or pirate-like groups is also obsolete and barred, and has been for over 170 years. Another thing in our Constitution that has not been repaired.

As for your "moral equivalency case" that the threat is just as much from white Americans (and always with the Lefty- reviled CHRISTIAN gratuitously thrown in though McVeigh was not a church-goer) as it is from radical Muslims who have killed tens millions of infidels in Jihad in the last 100 years - more Lefty/Libertarian drivel.
————————————————
Tito - The more I think about it, the "War on Terror" is like the "Wars" on Drugs, Poverty, or any other abstract idea.
Tito, while Bush was exceptionally stupid to cast it as a War on the Tactic of Terror being used by an enemy or set of enemies he refused to name, the fact that the enemy has killed thousands and wants to butcher millions of Americans is hardly an abstract idea. It is simply the reality you refuse to face. Everyone outside the Left and their Muslim supporters knows who the enemy is, and has the guts to say it. Even Bush, recently. Radical Islamists.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider