What's wrong with making a comparison to the Soviet Union? Wasn't one of the reasons the U.S. was superior to the Soviet Union was that it didn't spy on its own citizens?

For the record, the "leaker" has not leaked any classified information. What exactly has he leaked? He has simply said that he "believes" that the NSA is breaking the law.

Finally, when in your vast experience has your employer ever given you a psychology test? To point fingers at one who has "failed" his test is pretty petty if you don't subject yourself to the same test. Let's not have double standards.

"the "leaker" has not leaked any classified information"

That's why there's an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department? Because they suspect somebody did NOT commit a crime?

"What's wrong with making a comparison to the Soviet Union?"

I thought comparisons to the Soviet Union made you one of the worst people in the world. OlbyLogic, it's so confusing.

Keith would have been the ultimate news reader in the USSR. Imagine the ratings he might pull as the only source of news!!! It would be heaven---he could bash America, continue to portray spin as fact, and be the toast of Socialists everywhere. Ob, but for cruel fate Keith could be number one in Primez Timze.

> That's why there's an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department? Because they suspect somebody did NOT commit a crime?

It's called political retribution. It's employed incessantly against people who have done nothing but expose evidence unfavorable to the administration. It's why jesus was crucified. If you reveal the illusion to the masses, the oligarchy destroys you.

Obi-Wan,

I hate to break it to you... but generally investigation are made into situations and people who leak information that is labeled classified. Even when it a Clinton official sneaking classified documents out in ths clothing...

Believe it or not it's seldom that such matters are just written off, assumed to be the little guy being beaten down by The Man....and immediately dismissed...

If you have difficulty with the concept of looking into leaks of classified info, you might try reading up on Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald...

Maybe THAT will make it easier for you, brother...

Peace out, man...

On Hardball with Norah O'Donnell, James Risen acknowledged that he didn't know if the NSA spying was illegal. Can you have a "whistleblower" when no crime was committed?

Hey Dopey-One,

The terrorists are NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW that we are spying on them. You see, they stop using the phone when that happens, and then things like this stop happening:

http://www.aina.org/news/20060106102431.htm

QUOTE: "The mainstream U.S. media outlets have failed to report a major terrorist plot against the U.S. - because it would tend to support President Bush's use of NSA domestic surveillance, according to media watchdog groups.

News of a planned attack masterminded by three Algerians operating out of Italy was widely reported outside the U.S., but went virtually unreported in the American media." ENDQUOTE

If you doubt the story, just check the ENGLISH press. Gee, how come I never heard about this you ask? How come Keith never reported this?

You have to be a jack ass to ignore the threat of terrorism in this country, and a disingenuous jack ass to ignore successful Intel operations.

As for that freak Olby, I tuned by while attempting to boost O'Reilly's numbers last night to see Bush at a "Town Hall" and noticed the Olbysubtitle, "Softballs Down South." What a Dick! I guess Clinton used to walk into the middle of a conservative audience and give his Town Hall discussions.

Keith is an a--hole, plain and simple. I don't like O'Reilly, but I leave the TV tuned to Fox just to give Bill an extra viewer.

If Keith were more popular, it would be great fun to write an expose book on him cataloguing his hypocricy, distortions and smears. But as a non-entity to the American public, no one would publish it because no one would bother to read it. I would give Keith an advance to write a book just for the fun of learning the weekly scans. How bout it Keith? Countdown for Kids! You can focus on voter fraud in OH and Fl, how Indians (casino owning ones not hotel owning ones) had their land stolen by previous generations of the Bush family, a section on how Halliburton controls the US government. I am sure it would outsell O'Reillys. Next stop for Olbermann: A weekly column for media matters.

Cecilia,

There's a difference between theory and reality. In theory, there's left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans. In reality, it's an illusion. We're all the same. The labels are there to divide us, to build distrust and focus on imaginary enemies. Our monetary system is designed for scarcity and competition and central control, but people with imaginations work outside of it with alternative currencies and they are rewarded with abundance instead of scarcity.

If you watch TV, you've already lost the game. It is an addiction no different than drugs. As long as you're watching TV, you're not thinking.

Turn off the TV at home. Turn off the radio in your car. I promise that eventually, you'll see there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. The useless bickering will stop. You'll see that evidence conflicts with the social proof that's guided you into your illusion. Evidence doesn't happen on TV. TV is for manipulation. Always.

Dopey-One,

You scare me.

By the way, why are you socialists so bad at grammar? You wrote:

"In theory, there's left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans"

There's = There IS

So, does this sound right:

"In theory, there IS left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans"

Anyway, you are correct about turning off the TV in your own case. You can't be trusted with outside stimuli.

Thank you for your advice, Obi-Wan.

Some of it had merit.

Leaker vs Whistle Blower

Here's the difference, in case you haven't already figured it out.

Libby revealed the identity of a CIA agent. An agent that was acting within the boundaries of the Constitution (and that little thing called the 4th ammendment).

The NSA whistle-blower revealed a potentially illegal action by the government - actions that are very likely outside of the Constitution and that pesky 4th ammendment.

BTW, just to let you know, since you won't look it up, the 4th ammendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Or, put simply, in deference to you, Kent, the government can't go spying on me, a US citizen, without probable cause and a court saying it's OK.

That's the difference between a leaker and a whistle blower. The leaker committed an illegal act, while the whistle blower revealed an illegal act.

I'm done trolling here.

"The leaker committed an illegal act, while the whistle blower revealed an illegal act."

Ironically, the leaker was not charged with illegal leaking, so the first half of your statement is false.

As for the second part, that is in dispute. What's not in dispute is you cannot be a whistle-blower taking classified info to a newspaper. You have to take it to superiors or to Congress. End result: you are at least 75% wrong. That's about par for Olbermann viewers.

Johnny-

"Ironically, the leaker was not charged with illegal leaking, so the first half of your statement is false."

Again, I don't expect you to do research. But if you actually heard/read the indictments, you'd have read that the reason they didn't charge Libby with leaking the identity directly was because of the obstruction of justice and perjury (which Libby was charged with).

That's ok. It's much easier for you to simply sit and post on your blog than it is to actually have facts.

I'm also curious. If specifically you're supposed to take it to your superiors or to Congress, would that mean that Deep Throat was a leaker and not a whistle blower? I'm just trying to figure out what your definitions are.

And while we're at it, how do we not know that the NSA agent didn't go to his superiors before deciding that his last resort was to go to the Times? (And, yes, I'll spot you the Times will never be the paper it was before Jayson Blair.)

Chris wrote:

"Again, I don't expect you to do research. But if you actually heard/read the indictments, you'd have read that the reason they didn't charge Libby with leaking the identity directly was because of the obstruction of justice and perjury (which Libby was charged with)."

What the Fu@k! That is the dumbest thing I've read at this site from a troll! Congrats!

Usually, prosecutors try to charge people for the crime they have allegedly committed, rather than obstruction or perjury. If a man is put on trial for murder and ends up commiting perjury and obstruction, does he then end up getting off for the murder but being charged with the lesser crimes in your bizarro world Chris? Man you are stupid.

As for "Deep Throat," he was a leaker. In fact, the justice department was investigating the situation and would have brought charges in due time without the self-serving actions of W. Mark Felt, who leaked because he was pissed that he was passed over for FBI Director. It is a liberal media fairytale that Woodward and Bernstein were responsible for Nixon's downfall. Nixon was on his way down before the leaks, and Nixon alone was to blame for his fate.