Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 1, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

SOTU FOLLOWUP....I was a little surprised this morning to see so many newspapers highlighting George Bush's "addicted to oil" phrase, as though maybe this meant some sort of actual change of heart. My advice: don't believe it until you see it. WiredOpinion trawled through all of Bush's previous SOTU speeches and notes that he's said essentially the same thing every single year since 2002. Result so far: nada.

In a similar vein, a fact-checking article in the LA Times notes that Bush's call to reduce our Middle East oil imports by 75% is a little less dramatic than it seemed last night: "Experts point out that the U.S. gets only a fraction about 10% of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them." In other words, he called for reducing our use of imported oil by about 7% in 20 years. Yee haw!

Elsewhere, Grist does some number crunching on a question I asked about last night: just how impressive is a 22% increase in clean energy research? David Roberts figures it comes to $264 million. [UPDATE: Actually, it's more like $660 million.] As he says, it's not chump change, but it's not exactly the Manhattan Project either.

Finally, you may recall that last night I commented that Bush's defense of the NSA's domestic spying program included "lies about previous presidents doing the same thing and federal courts having approved it." I left it at that, but the LA Times fact checker did a little more legwork:

Bush Stretches to Defend Surveillance

Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

Bush did not name names, but was apparently reiterating the argument offered earlier this month by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, who invoked Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt for their use of executive authority.

However, warrantless surveillance within the United States for national security purposes was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 long after Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt stopped issuing orders. That led to the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Bush essentially bypassed in authorizing the program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since the surveillance law was enacted, establishing secret courts to approve surveillance, "the Supreme Court has not touched this issue in the area of national security," said William Banks, a national security expert at Syracuse Law School.

"He might be speaking in the broadest possible sense about the president exercising his authority as commander-in-chief to conduct a war, which of course federal courts have upheld since the beginning of the nation," Banks said. "If he was talking more particularly about the use of warrantless surveillance, then he is wrong."

Come on guys. Give up on "stretches" and "wrong." He lied.

Kevin Drum 12:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

But he is so hunky! He gave tbroz a few extra bucks, and told Al, contrary to the facts, the truthy, feel-good soundbit that abortions are down.

Kevin, expecting the truth from a Republican is just so uncivil. They are far too busy protecting us from the brown people trying to get us!

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on February 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Come on guys. Give up on "stretches" and "wrong." He lied.

Of course he lied Kev. His lips were moving.

Posted by: ckelly on February 1, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

The president is desperate to lump himself in with the likes of Lincoln, Wilson and FDR in order to appear grander than he actually is. He can be compared to each president in his desire for unchecked power. Wilson shoved through the Sedition Act, FDR interred Japanese Americans and Lincoln suspended habeus corpes. Bush only wishes to continue the tradition of unchecked power in the name of "war."

Posted by: greg wirth on February 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush is a proven serial liar, so what's the big surprise?

Posted by: puffin on February 1, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

Which of course is completely true. Wilson during WWI used warrantless searches to spy on imperial Germans. FDR during WWII used it spy on Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

Also as exposed by the Byron York of the National Review Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick under Bill Clinton said in 1994 ""The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Liberals are being hypocrites by attacking Bush for using warrantless searches when three Democrats have already done so.

Posted by: Al on February 1, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Oh come on, it was a bold move. Everything he says and does his bold. His boldness is truly awe-inspiring. Stop being such a boldness-hater.

Posted by: Ringo on February 1, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Lincoln, Wilson and FDR. Weren't those guys engaged in real wars? I want to get al qaeda as much as anybody, (it would seem after 4.5 years more than GWB) but 9/11 doesn't equal the first world war as a threat to America, let alone the Civil War and WWII which were very real threats to the nation's existence.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 1, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, he probably didn't actually lie. Lying implies that you know what you say is not true. All this fool knows is he read something off a teleprompter. He didn't bother to think about any of it any longer than it took to read it. If you asked him today what he'd said, he couldn't tell you unless one of his aides told him what to say.

Posted by: CN on February 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

All the blathering about what the Democrats need to do to win will amount to nada until our leadership grows some balls and starts to hammer Bush and repub policies.

Every day the lies need to be called out and the liars identified by name. It doesnt have to vulgar, but it must be ruthlessly persistent and aggressive.

By nature I am not a bomb thrower, but watching the same train wreck over and over again is too, too much.

Posted by: Keith G on February 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

The President can never lie. By virtue of the power vested in him as the President, whatever he says is ipso-facto true.

Posted by: lib on February 1, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Also as exposed by the Byron York of the National Review

well, there's a completely reliable and non-biased source!

Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick under Bill Clinton said in 1994 ""The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Yes, that is what a deputy AG believed, because FISA didn't cover physical searches. However, it doesn't mean that they actually engaged in warrantless searches--in fact the FISA was amended soon after that to cover physical searches.
Why are you such a dishonest sack of shit? You should scurry back to NRO where people actually believe your lies.

Posted by: Ringo on February 1, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK
Bush did not name names, but was apparently reiterating the argument offered earlier this month by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, who invoked Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt for their use of executive authority.

By this reasoning, Bush could legitimately deny women the right to vote and then exclaim that the first 28 presidents did exactly the same thing!

Posted by: Dug Steen on February 1, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

The question is if the current Democratic leadership has as much courage as Bill Clinton's first election campaign had when it showed the video of GWB I saying, 'read my lips, no new taxes'.

Even an in-experienced person can come up with ample number of such videos of the son to have the same affect, although Kerry's campaign inexplicably refrained from doing so. Perhaps Dean is smarter than that.

Posted by: nut on February 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Al...Clinton also thought that using cigar as a sex toy in in the oval office made it a more flavorful smoke. Does that make it right?

Some things are just wrong no matter how many angels swear otherwise.

Posted by: Keith G on February 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Come on guys. Give up on "stretches" and "wrong." He lied.

Right on. This is the Kevin Drum we love. Stand tall; call 'em as they are.

Ringo, you are cracking me up with the recurring boldness motif.

Posted by: shortstop on February 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Aaaaaaarghhhhh! The gravitational field from all the spinning on this matter will create a black hole right in the middle of your Constitution!

Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 1, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Elsewhere, Grist does some number crunching on a question I asked about last night: just how impressive is a 22% increase in clean energy research? David Roberts figures it comes to $264 million. As he says, it's not chump change, but it's not exactly the Manhattan Project either.

Actually - it is "chump change". The war in Iraq is costing - conservatively estimated - between $1 and $2 billion per week. Maybe more, when all elements are factored in. Billions for 'defense', but a lousy $264 mil for breathing. Figures.

Posted by: Cynical on February 1, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, he called for reducing our use of imported oil by about 7% in 20 years. Yee haw!

Actually, he didn't even do that. He didn't rule out importing more from Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Canada, Nigeria, etc. He just called for reducing how much we get from the Middle East.

Posted by: NAR on February 1, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Give up on "stretches" and "wrong." He lied.

no no no. Kev, you have it all wrong. In America only literary figures (James Frey) are called out on their "lies." You should know that by now...

Posted by: Mitch on February 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

No, No. Kevin.

Democrats lie.

Republicans "stretch" or at worse "mislead".

Posted by: Samuel Knight on February 1, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Addicted to oil, eh?

"Come on, Alaska, give me my fix. You know I'm good for it. Just a taste, baby!"

Posted by: Royko on February 1, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, he called for reducing our use of imported oil by about 7% in 20 years

Not exactly. If we were to import a lot more oil from (say) Venezuela and Nigeria (both members of OPEC, by the way), and less from Middle East countries, that would meet the President's goals, yet not affect TOTAL imports. Reducing Middle East imports, in other words, is a ridiculous way to measure "progress". Oil is a world-wide market; oil is fungible; it doesn't matter to the economy if we're paying $100 a barrel for Venezulan oil, or paying $100 a barrel for Saudi oil - the money is still flowing out.

Reducing oil dependency should be defined as reducing TOTAL (net) oil imports, not the imports from any given country or area of the world.

Posted by: Close Reader on February 1, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Wilson during WWI used warrantless searches to spy on imperial Germans."

The Wilson administration sold out American citizens' civil right too.

He gave out junior g-man badges to members of private vigilante groups (American Protective League). He then condone their actions and those of other vigilante groups as they confiscated peoples property to pay for Liberty bonds. Innocent people exercising their free speech were tarred and feathered, otherwise assaulted or murdered.

Al and his fellow travellers just don't get that it is nothing to be made light of. By comparison the Bush Administration are pikers when it comes to the authoritarian tactics used by Wilson, or FDR for that matter.

IMO I could care less if the Greens, the Repubicans or the Dems are promoting it, it is a morally wrong. It would seem that the law and order, family values, self-responsibility and accountability party would understand that but I guess the immoral use of racist fearmongering to impose your political will is not beneath the sanctimonious Republican party.

Spare me the everyone does it, bullshit, didn't you outgrow that excuse in highschool?

Posted by: j swift on February 1, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

For those of you who are not calendar-challenged and citizen-challenged...like our friendly bot Al

-------
Relevant Information:Irrelevant Blivits

FISA - 1978:WWII - 1940s

American Citizen:Japanese Citizen

American Citizen:German Citizen

---------
That is all.

Posted by: justmy2 on February 1, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Wilson during WWI used warrantless searches to spy on imperial Germans. FDR during WWII used it spy on Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

Where these fellas (imperial Germans, and Nazis and Imperial Japanese) US citizens? I'm not being ironic - I know who they are, but is Al talking about them in the case they are these and US citizens?

Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 1, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

"Experts point out that the U.S. gets only a fraction about 10% of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them."


And yet Exxon used this opportunity to raise prices so much they made the greatest profit of any corporation in history.

Has Iran ever done as much damage to America as Exxon just did?

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Two points here:

1) Do not talk about how much or little oil the US imports from the Middle East. This is just aiding and abetting in the deception here. For those who talk about reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East, I have one word: markets. Remember those guys? You see, if Bush passed a law tomorrow saying that we couldn't import a drop of oil from the Middle East then it wouldn't matter a damn. We'd demand more oil from other sources and people currently relying on those sources would switch to importing more oil from the Middle East as prices change. Okay, it would matter a small damn since oil doesn't simply teleport around the globe but that doesn't really matter anyway for a very simple reason: our dependence on Middle East oil does not arise from how much oil we import from there, but from how much of the world's supply they control. As long as they control a large part of the world's supply of oil, events in the Middle East will have a large effect on your oil prices whether you buy your oil from them or not. Markets. Maybe Bush can find an economist somewhere who can explain these things to him.

2) In the context of scientific research, $264 million is a pretty large chunk of cash. So yay for more scientific funding. But that's not really the point here. Yes, if this $264 million were being used to feed poor people, Republicans would act like eliminating it was the key to closing the budget gap and thereby saving the Republic until the next tax cut rolls around. But in reality, they know full well that in the context of government spending (and in the context of this problem and proposals like the Kyoto Protocol), $264 million is nothing. Seriously, they spend that much on literal bridges to figurative nowhere. Regardless of what Bush thinks about clean energy, the goal of this proposal is not clean energy research but rather to allow the Republicans to look warm and fuzzy while they take no actual action on climate change.

Plus: George W. Bush looooves research. Don't you all remember this exchange?

GWB: Hey National Academy of Science, what does the research say about whether climate change is caused by human activities?
NAS: Well, research indicates that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing temperatures to rise.
GWB: Hmm, sounds like more research is needed! Thanks bunches!

Posted by: Nick on February 1, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

And yet Exxon used this opportunity to raise prices so much they made the greatest profit of any corporation in history.

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2006 at 12:43 PM

I'm no expert on the oil market, and I don't know the specifics of this case - but I wouldn't draw my gun so fast for the oil industry in this case. Oil is a scarce and non-renewable good which is in high demand, so whoever goes over the risks of producing it (which are high) will reap some compensation. In Brazil, we are close to the point where we can produce all the oil we need by ourselves. Petrobras, which is a state-owned company that has the monopoly in oil exploration for Brazil, extracts oil at low costs (I think less than US$10 a barrel). Yet they sell it internally by the international price. Why do they do that? Because if they sold it at US$15, to get a 33% margin, which is not bad, there would be a explosion in demand, and also huge losses regarded to opportunity costs, which is something that no sensible economic agent should ignore. So they indeed reap a huge profit in the process, but the price of a commodity is defined by supply-demand, not by how much it costs to make it.

Is US$ 60 or 70 too much for a barrel of crude oil? I don't have the foggiest idea. But selling a commodity for the market price is how economics work - if you can produce it cheaply, good for you.

Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

I expect to hear Bush's strategy for fighting the War on Oil soon. We can hold no quarter to these pushers of addiction, of mental slavery, just as we hold no quarter in the War on Drugs.

I expect to see hearings before Congress, with executives from the likes of Exxon legally summoned to explain how they will either change their behavior or join in the War on Oil.

Posted by: Jimm on February 1, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Nick,

So the American company Exxon's profit was made, how?

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Forget OffCenter, the key to Republican domination is the ability and willingness to lie freely without effective accountability.

Posted by: The Fool on February 1, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I can't look at the sumbitch - so I watched a science program about the arctic. And all you got ulcers....

Why do that to yourselves?

And who cares? -- it's not as though anything he said meant anything...

I did catch the eye twitching response -- they played it on the news later...

what a joke. THAT was the democratic response...

a motivational speaker on the Norwegian Cruise Line to St Martin.... with an eye twitch...

WE ARE DOOMED if this is the best opposition money can buy...

but then...

THE MONEY backs bush

Posted by: Tj on February 1, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Craig Roberts on the economy. Scary.

Posted by: Cynical on February 1, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Bush should seek the true path to peace, which is by seeking peace, instead of thnking that by killing and killing and killing and killing and killing and killing and killing and killing and killing - he is going to get to peace.

Accept bin Laden's offer of a truce, and declare victory in the mythical "War on Terror", before an American city becomes a nuclear blast zone.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 1, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Accept bin Laden's offer of a truce

But what conditions did Bin Laden put for this truce?

Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 1, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Who gives a fuck about this whining about the NSA, let's get with the program and sanction (and then bomb) Iran:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran defiantly insists U.N. economic sanctions would hurt industrialized Western economies more than they would incapacitate Tehran, but diplomats and economists believe this bravado could prove ill-placed.

No sanctions "game plan" has emerged yet, but Iran's economy looks vulnerable to embargoes on petrol imports, industrial components and banking facilities, diplomats and analysts said.

...

One EU diplomat said Iran's Achilles' heel was its huge need for imported petrol. Short of refining capacity, Iran imports 40 to 50 percent of the 60 to 70 million liters it burns each day.

Subsidized petrol sells for a meager 10 U.S. cents a liter and cheap fuel is regarded as a national right. Fuel price hikes have an instant inflationary impact on food and household goods.

...

"Iran is unusually dependent on trade finance," said a London-based economist who surveys the Iranian economy.

Iran's carmaking and shipbuilding sectors are growing quicker than domestic banks can keep up with. In order to function, these industries rely on European loans.

Banks providing them include HSBC, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank, Standard Chartered and Royal Bank of Scotland.

Some, however, have begun to show caution. Swiss bank UBS has said it was stopping business in Iran because the commercial climate looked unattractive. Credit Suisse has said it will not offer loans to new Iranian clients.

"Even if the EU acts unilaterally on finance, that could carry weight," added the economist, who declined to be named.

Saeed Leylaz, an analyst who has worked for a branch of Iran's biggest carmaker, said the car industry, which employs tens of thousand of Iranians, could be hit hard by parts embargo.

"The impact of sanctions on the car industry would be very damaging," he said. "Under sanctions, the car industry would have to return to old models."

The hallmark domestically built car, the Paykan, ended production last year. Iran has now turned into a production hub for international carmakers including Peugeot, Renault, Hyundai and Volkswagen.

International oil companies have relatively small exposure in Iran compared to the rest of their global operations.

Posted by: GBH on February 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

persia delenda est

Posted by: GBH on February 1, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Damn! I've had my eye on a sweet red Paykan 300 for months now. Bummer.

Posted by: foof on February 1, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Grist does some number crunching on a question I asked about last night: just how impressive is a 22% increase in clean energy research? David Roberts figures it comes to $264 million.

$264 million is .011% of the federal budget. One hundreth of one percent.

Posted by: luci on February 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

$264 million is a 136th of Exxon's $36 billion profit last year.

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Being addictied to oil in the 21st century is OK is you believe that the rapture will shortly arrive. Those left-behind Saudis can pound that oil...

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 1, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Great article on biofuel,

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=5077

Posted by: cld on February 1, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Ringo, BINGO!

Clinton amended FISA to cover physical searches. Amended FISA, worked through congress to make an important part of NS legal. Get it!

Bush didn't do that, did he, Al? Why not? Did he even attempt to "bring FISA in line" for a post 911 world? No?

To me, there must be much more to this story. Its not Bush arrogance that kept them from amended FISA. Why did he not amend FISA, redstater?

Your head is in the sand on this one, or someplace else.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on February 1, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

And where exactly was the vulnerable 'er venerable Tom Delay last night for the SOTU you ask? Why hiding 'er standing in the back out of sight out of mind you know. Fucktard.

Posted by: ckelly on February 1, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, maybe President Bush did us all a favor by using the term "addicted to oil" in his SOTU speech: just think of all the new opportunities for bloggers and commenters to drag out all sorts of inappropriate metaphors and similes!
Anyway, I'll start by pointing out that Dubya IS right in his characterization of this country's consumption of oil as an "addiction": the only problem is what to do about it. Like most addicts, given the choice of dealing with one's habit by:

A) Long, expensive and painful rehab; or
B) Finding a cheaper, better-supplied connection

What do you think the more popular choice is likely to be?

Posted by: Jay C on February 1, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK
Democrats lie. Republicans "stretch" or at worse "mislead". Posted by: Samuel Knight
No, Republicans create their own reality. Everything they says is truthiful and bold. Posted by: Mike on February 1, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

"My advice: don't believe it until you see it."

That advice must come with the following caveat: "except for weapons of mass destruction."

Posted by: dick tuck on February 1, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

I thought it was significant that bush mentioned oil only because it shows that the prospect of a future oil shortage is so dire that even someone as extreme as he is actually commented on it. I'm very pessimistic; it comes under the title too little too late. We should have begun an effort of conservation and conversion back in the 70's.

--Rick Taylor

Posted by: Rick Taylor on February 1, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Mark,

What's your point? Do nothing, or do everything? Not exactly sure who you are addressing your post to, but expressing an opinion advocating sustainability without living within a 100% sustainable lifestyle is not being hypocritical, its being realistic. Lets be real here. I burn oil, but that doesnt mean I dont want society to seriously consider the damages this might create and act responsibly to mitigate them.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on February 1, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK
FDR during WWII used it spy on Nazis and the Imperial Japanese.

FDR, one might note, got Congress to approve authority for universal surveillance of overseas communication during WWII. He didn't try to exert some kind of mystical "inherent executive power" to violate an express statutory prohibition to do it.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 1, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

I was a little surprised this morning to see so many newspapers highlighting George Bush's "addicted to oil" phrase, as though maybe this meant some sort of actual change of heart. My advice: don't believe it until you see it. WiredOpinion trawled through all of Bush's previous SOTU speeches and notes that he's said essentially the same thing every single year since 2002. Result so far: nada.

It wasn't until 2005 that his energy plan got passed by congress. Actual results will take awhile.

Bush set modest goals so that they can be achieved. As we achieve those goals, we'll set new goals to achieve. If the Democrats block even these modest proposals -- well, blocking the president has gotten them where they are today. Not all are obstructionist: half voted for cloture, for the bankruptcy reform and tort reform. Probably they'll split about the measures that Bush proposed last night.

We don't need any Manhattan projects. We need some new nuclear power plants, new PV panels, new coal fired plants, new wind generators.

Posted by: contentious on February 1, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Accept bin Laden's offer of a truce, and declare victory in the mythical "War on Terror", before an American city becomes a nuclear blast zone.

OBM is, in all likelihood, not in charge of whats going on in Iraq.

Influence, yes - control, no. Just like GWB, he is full of bluster. In a sick way these two deserve each other. I just wish that we regular folk could withdraw from the equation.

Posted by: Keith G on February 1, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Keith G:

I'm assuming you meant OBL, not OBM. In any case, there is a deep moral lesson that we should have learned from 9-11 and apparently did not - namely, that in trying to destroy one perceived enemy (communism), we created another (radical Islamists). God must be shaking his head over our (Bush's really) foolishness. We should sue for peace and be done with it.

Of course, I am a Christian first and an American second. Bush is neither.

Stephen Kriz

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 1, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

If Bush believes he has the authority to disregard statutes when he feels it is in the national interest to do so, I wonder if he also believes he has the authority to disregard court decisions, even Supreme Court decisions, for example regarding detainees in Guantanamo, or future court decisions on whether he can disregard the prohibition on torture or the requirement for a warrant for wiretaps. It wouldn't be surprising.

Maybe some enterprising reporter will ask Scotty McClelland.

I also wonder what John Woo or Alberto Gonzalez would say about it.

Posted by: Michael Cargal on February 1, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

I love the banter back and forth about warrantless wiretaps. Its legal, no its not legal.

Its like eating the slice of cake first and saving the icing of impeachment for last.

Posted by: Sideline on February 1, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

First I haven't seen where any evidence has been shown that domestic communications within the US have been monitored without a warrant. Any links to such evidence?
Second, the FISA court has itself stated that monitoring of foreign communications originating outside the US to a US address is under the pervue of the president based on his constituional powers. This case has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, so there has been no chance for their review.
Why hasn't any members of Congress asked for the program to be stopped? Many such as Kerry have called it illegal, but stop short of calling for it's cessation? Why?
Is it because if we did have another domestic attack, and it was discovered later we could have had intelligence prior to the attack, but it was denied due to restrictions being attached to programs like the one under discussion, that the party that caused the restrictions would get their collective asses handed to them?
Look how much publicity the "Gorelick Wall" got during the 9/11 hearings. It prevented intelligence from being passed on to law enforcement agencies. Now you are advocating shutting down a program that is trying to acquire similar information. Why?
In another post on the site, the Plame affair is still getting notice, now about some allegedly missing emails.
How about getting Woodward and Bernstein to look into the unauthorized release of national security documents published by a major newspaper that may actually lead to people being killed? Where's the call for a Justice dept. investigation? Just wondering.

Posted by: Meatss on February 2, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

saving the icing of impeachment for last.

Posted by: Sideline on February 1, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Like that's going to happen. Another stupid far left delusion. What happened to Fitzmas? What happened to a filibuster for Scalito? To Cindy Sheehan's absolute moral authority?

Posted by: McA on February 2, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

act,poesy,design,tech
act,poesy,design,tech
artist,song

Posted by: good on February 2, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Come on guys. Give up on "stretches" and "wrong." He lied.

"Media Once Again Lies To Cover Bush's Sorry Ass"

"In Other News, Sun Rises In East"

Posted by: tam1MI on February 2, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly