Bitter II

I'm going to count myself as bitter about this new not-really-legal spying initiative as well: "Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators could review the office's operating procedures and safeguards. The department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly said the response was inadequate."

At the end of the day, Jane Harman is a pretty hawkish Democrat -- usually a bit too hawkish for my taste -- but she's saying once bitter twice shy about what she calls her "firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration" and wants a fuller account. Seems like a good idea.

Comments

"once bitter twice shy"?

won't get fooled again!

Posted by Doh | April 13, 2008 3:27 PM

If it's too Big Brother for the submitter of US House Resolution 1955, it's too Big Brother.

Posted by Kyle | April 13, 2008 3:43 PM

"Once bitter twice shy" is kind of a brilliant typo in the context.`

Posted by Brodysattva | April 13, 2008 3:57 PM

Matt (+ others at the Atlantic)

You may want to see this video. How come the Atlantic does not break stories when Democrats are race baiting? Why is your focus only on GOP?

Can you be fair? Please keep up (24/7) repeating the out-of-context McCain 100-years in Iraq. You will be a hero. You will get a Pulitzer Prize.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Video_from_San_Francisco.html

Posted by eorse | April 13, 2008 4:35 PM

I will tell you what I am "bitter" about. For 4 days, there has not been a single word written in the so-called newspaper of record, the New York Times, about the fact that the highest level administration officials sat in the White House and talked about how to torture people. Can this possibly be considered normal behavior by government officials? Instead the traditional media is spending countless hours of air time and print manufacturing the proverbial mountain out of a molehill over Obama's comments.

Posted by CMR | April 13, 2008 4:35 PM

"whose funding and size are classified"

This seems pretty odd for a purely domestic program aimed to help law enforcement, as it claims to be. I understand some of the capabilities (military satellites) might be, but how does this translate to cloaking the whole thing?

Posted by DCA | April 13, 2008 4:57 PM

Many trust fund scumbags are bitter.

They didn't receive large enough inheritances to buy magazines like their role model, Marty Peretz. And it's not surprising then they get bitter. They cling to calling poor people racists or attacking universal healthcare or antipathy to people who actually have to work for a living as a way to explain their frustrations.

Posted by Petey | April 13, 2008 9:07 PM

It's really astonishing how many trust fund scumbags are bitter.

They don't like that 50%+ of the Democratic electorate is motivated by their own economic interests like universal healthcare and Social Security. And it's not surprising that they get bitter. They cling to supporting Democratic candidates likely to lose the general election or attacking economic policies that don't benefit the rich or antipathy to those preparing their food or cleaning their offices.

I think it's important we seek to understand and show sympathy for trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias. They were born on third base, think they've hit a triple, and have little conniption fits when American political life isn't oriented towards their further advancement.

Posted by Petey | April 13, 2008 9:24 PM

Am I the only one who suspects that Petey has a trust fund and is projecting? Considering how he doesn't actually engage anyone anymore, his bitterness over Obama not forcing poor people to pay money to big insurance companies is just amusing.

Posted by Reality Man | April 14, 2008 1:40 AM

Also, Petey, are African-Americans just too stupid to vote for their economic interests?

Posted by Reality Man | April 14, 2008 1:42 AM

Just so Matthew gets the point: "once bitten twice shy" is the expression. I don't think "bitter" was meant as a pun, given that it appears in the title of the post too.

Posted by bobbo | April 14, 2008 12:43 PM