For much more detail, firedoglake.com is live-blogging Comey's testimony.

Bush's use of nicknames is incredibly juvenille, insulting and non-presidential. Can the usual trolls on this site defend him and pretend that he brings any dignity to the Whitehouse.

"Cuomey"? You're kidding me. That's juvenile. Sad.

I had *so* wished for this administration to self-destruct.

Now that it seems to be happening, I'm getting none of the joy I thought I'd get out of it.

Worse, they're STILL in power.

There was a time at which I thought Ashcroft was the most dangerous person in the administration. That was loooong ago, and boy, was I wrong!

Ashcroft was on drugs when he made the decision. You give him too much credit.

Shorter Comey: we told them the program wouldn't be legal and thus couldn't be approved. They asked us to change it so it would be legal and approved. We did.

Shocking.

What's plainly amazing to me, as an attorney, is that Ashcroft, for whom I felt little respect because I thought he would blur the line between the religion and the law (I believe he teaches at Regent Law School...correct me if I am wrong), in the blur of pain and drugs, felt that the administration was crossing a constitutional line with its program. Take all of those facts and let them sink in, folks.....highly partisan politico as AG, "Christianist," in severe pain, highly medicated.......it boggles the mind that Alberto is the AG, doesn't it?

What is remarkable about the story is the sheer desperation of Bush to get his way on the matter.

The big story, I suspect, is the one that lies behind that furious need.

Yes, you read that right: John Ashcroft was a more serious defender of civil liberties than Alberto Gonzales.

Hasn't this been obvious for a long time now?

Yes, Ashcroft is a rightwing religious nut, but he is not a corrupt hack like AG. Corrupt hacks are much more dangerous.

"...Mario Cuomo, who was notorious for his Hamlet-like indecision over whether to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in the 1980s."

Yeah, I'm really sure Bush had Hamlet on his mind when he coined that clever nickname. So sure that I find it completely appropriate that Newsweek would include this bit of context for me.

OT

Hallelujah!

The Rev. Jerry Falwell Has Died at 73

An aide to the Rev. Jerry Falwell says he has died. "CPR efforts were unsuccessful," said Ron Godwin, the executive vice president for Falwell's Liberty University, who did not have any additional information on time or cause of death.

Too bad he couldn't take Robertson and Dobson with him. Make it a trifecta.

It's not surprising that there was disagreement among the Justice Dept. lawyers. Bush made no secret of his intention to resolve any legal or constitutional ambiguity in favor of using more power to protect the American people from another terrorist attack.

If Bush had abused his power for personal or political gain, I'd condemn him. But, I support using his full Presidential power to protect us from another terrorist attack like 9/11.

BTW I pointed out yesterday that Dems had demonized various Republican Presidents while they were in office, but after they left office, Dems saw them in a more positive light. Note that the same thing has now happened with John Ashcroft.

I had Jack Goldsmith for several classes in law school. Subsequently, I attended several social occasions that he hosted, or that others hosted where he was also in attendance. I would even call him a friend, at least insofar as the law school professor-student relationship allows. He is one of the more brilliant lawyers who I've met, and a deeply honorable man.

He is also a firm proponent of a strong executive branch, and very conservative. If he had a problem with the program, they really were doing something blatantly illegal--and not just in a technical sense. There's more going on here than we know about.

Ex-liberal,

How can you seriously say Bush has not abused his power for political gain? Do you read the papers or watch the news?

Earlier I asked if anyone can defend Bush's juvenille use of nicknames. How about it?

Dems had demonized various Republican Presidents while they were in office, but after they left office, Dems saw them in a more positive light. Note that the same thing has now happened with John Ashcroft.

The "positive light" is a relative illumination only, given the total darkness of the current administration and current crop of Republicans, not an absolute reflection that Ashcroft and others weren't so bad, after all.

Ah, Kevin.

So it's your opinion that Cuomey is juvenal, huh?

How about when Bush came up with a negative nickname for Rove (t***blossom.) THen all you guys were laughing, right? RIGHT?

egbert, if you can't spell you name right, I can't ignore you.

Ebert,
I wasn't laughing at Rove's nickname. It is a stupid nickname.

Additionally, I don't take it as a negative nickname. It is basically saying Rove is a good thing coming out of negative environment. If he just called him a turd, that would be negative (but deserved.)

Ashcroft chose Patrick Fitzgerald for the Plame leak case. I think he knew what he was doing when he did it.

I disagree with some of Ashcroft's fundamental values, and about other things; but I've never seen any evidence that he's corrupt.

Here is a couple of Bush's nicknames for foreign leaders according to Wikipedia:

Pootie-Poot - Vladimir Putin,
Dino (short for Dinosaur) - Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada

Real class act. I certainly hope I never face a time when I look back fondly to his presidency.

That fucking wood tick Jerry Falwell died.

Objective Dem: As far as I know, when the Bush Administration wiretapped international calls and reviewed e-mails and international financial transactions, their only purpose was to try to get information on potential terrorists. I've heard no accusation that these powers were used to get information on Democratic candidates, as was done in Watergate. Nor have I heard accusations that anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan were monitored.

Bush's use of nicknames seems to me like a juvenile habit. Bush might say it's a way of putting people at ease. While that may be true to a degree, I think it's also a way of dominating people in a minor way.

Ah ... yes. As ex-liberal helpfully points out, this is really all about Democrats demonizing a Republican President. The rule of law is, after all, just a partisan concept.

Yuppers. Right. So pay no attention. Move along. Nothing here at all. No abuses of power, nope. Don't see nothing so long as it is a Republican administration, and it is your guy violating the law and spying on the public.

-- Bokonon

As far as I know, when the Bush Administration wiretapped international calls and reviewed e-mails and international financial transactions, their only purpose was to try to get information on potential terrorists.Posted by: ex-liberal on May 15, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

"potential terrorists" - in other words, "Democrats"

or "Journalists"
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/

So ... ex-liberal, if I understand you right, it is OK to violate the law if the subjects of the illegal surveillance are accused of being bad guys?

That's a nice ends-means justification -- sounds sort of like Stalin, in fact, when he was justifying some excess or some political murder. But it isn't what the Constitution says, and it isn't what over 200 years of legal decisions say.

-- Bokonon

I'm still amused by the fact that by his own admission, the last time "ex-liberal" was still liberal was back when there were still Ford Edsels driving around the streets. And man hadn't yet landed on the moon.

What a trollish farce.

Also, it's been clear for a long time that, given their incredibly short response times to new posts, most of the trolls on Political Animal are getting paid to be disruptive.

Ex-liberal,

As far as I know at this time, you are correct in saying the wiretapping was not used for political purposes. But the extent of the wiretapping is not known and the acceptable checks and balances were removed.

The politicalization was categorizing everyone who opposed the expansion of wiretapping as "soft on" terrorism and supporting the enemy.

"ex-liberal" wrote: If Bush had abused his power for personal or political gain, I'd condemn him.

Bullshit -- you're here defending the President after every revelation of his abusing his power for political gain.

You aren't even trying to lie plausibly any mroe, "ex-liberal." Why do you bother? What motivates you to post such transparent lies in defnese of such a mendacious, corrupt, and incompetenct political movement? Have you no shame at all?

"Yes, you read that right: John Ashcroft was a more serious defender of civil liberties than Alberto Gonzales. It's a very concrete demonstation of the old saying: "When you think things can't get any worse, they do."'

Why's this a surprise? Weird as Ashcroft was, you at least got the impression the man had some principles, as opposed to fawning loyalty to power like Gonzales.

"ex-liberal" wrote: BTW I pointed out yesterday that Dems had demonized various Republican Presidents while they were in office, but after they left office, Dems saw them in a more positive light.

And it was pointed out in rebuttal that unlike conservatives, liberals don't seem to suffer cognitive dissonance in acknowledging their opponents' (few) virtues along with their vices. That must seem strange to you, of course, lacking as you do any evident virtue -- for example, that you brazenly repeat your bullshit despite having been corrected yesterday.

Note that the same thing has now happened with John Ashcroft.

And again, it's only in light of even greater mendacity, incompetence and corruption. You should hardly take pride in noting that the Bush Administration is so mendacious, corrupt and incompetent that even John Ashcroft, for all his many, many flaws, looks better in comparison. What gives?

I've heard no accusation that these powers were used to get information on Democratic candidates, as was done in Watergate. Nor have I heard accusations that anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan were monitored.

Since, of course, the whole point of such monitoring would be that it be done in secret, there'd be no way to know if such monitoring was done barring an independent investigation or someone on the inside admitting it and/or getting caught, a la Watergate.

Weird as Ashcroft was, you at least got the impression the man had some principles, as opposed to fawning loyalty to power like Gonzales.

True. Gonzalez would fuck a goat if Bush told him to -- he's the apotheosis of the snivelling yes man. Whereas not only would Ashcroft not fuck the goat, he'd also cover up its offending teats with a blue cloth.

What I don't get is why they deliberatly avoided the FISA court to get the warrants for the wiretapping. There was no reason to avoid the court. It's as if they have a compulsion to violate the constitution in the pursuit of Presidential autonomy. That's Dick Cheney's obsession, he really never got over Nixon did he?

There was no reason to avoid the court.

There was if what they were doing was so blatantly illegal that even the rubber-stamp FISA court wouldn't sign off on it.

Bokonon: So ... ex-liberal, if I understand you right, it is OK to violate the law if the subjects of the illegal surveillance are accused of being bad guys?

I'm saying that many laws and many Constitutional provisions are ambiguous. That's why we seldom see unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court. In ordinary circumstance, one can argue that the Executive Branch should bend over backwards to be legal. If it's unclear whether certain conduct is allowed, they shouldn't do it.

However, after 9/11 I think Bush was correct to switch the default and interpret ambiguous provisions so as to give the Executive Branch greater ability to prevent another massive terrorist attack. YMMV.

I do agree with you that Bush should not commit clear violations of laws or of the Constitution, even if he thinks such violation is useful for preventing terrorism.

I liked the part where they only got Bush to allow them to make the program legal after they finally managed to get him alone to discuss it.

I liked the part where they only got Bush to allow them to make the program legal after they finally managed to get him alone to discuss it.

Hey, spend a little face time with The Decider, and you can get any law you want.

He and Cheney have concluded he has a line item veto on the Constitution.

More and more this group in DC is starting to look like the scum who pimped for Henry VIII.

Ashcroft is Cardinal Wolsey, Rove is Thomas Cromwell and Gonzo is Richard Rich.

But, for Wales?

"Ah, Kevin. So it's your opinion that Cuomey is juvenal, huh?" - egbert

Juvenal, an Anglicized form derived from the Latin (Decimus Iunius) Iuvenalis, was a Roman poet active in the late 1st and early 2nd century AD, author of the Satires.

Juvenal is the source of many well-known maxims, including:

* that the common people - rather than caring about their freedom - are only interested in “bread and circuses” (panem et circenses 10.81; i.e. food and entertainment),

* that - rather than for wealth, power, or children - men should pray for a “sound mind in a sound body” (mens sana in corpore sano 10.356),

* that a (truly good) person is a “rare bird” (rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cycno 6.165; a rare bird in the earth and most similar to a black swan)

* and the troubling question of who can be trusted with power - “who will watch the watchers?” or "who will guard the guardians themselves?" (quis custodiet ipsos custodes 6.347-48).

--Wikipedia

Egbert, your intellect and humor are sublime.

Ashcroft was the main player in Washington in opposing various Clinton admin schemes which were designed to prevent public access to cryptographic technologies. He did this on civil liberties and privacy grounds.

The fact that Ashcroft is failing to conform to Kevin's cartoon-like caricatures is a reflection upon Kevin, not upon Ashcroft.

I'm having a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

Wasn't Ashcroft one of the architects of the Patriot Act? Why would he oppose domestic spying at this point but not in the Patriot Act?

As I understand it, the Patriot Act allowed the FBI to force ISPs (and public libraries, counted as ISPs under the law) to allow them to monitor suspects. The ISP's and libraries were not allowed to tell anyone about the monitoring under penalty of law, except maybe to retain legal counsel. And although Ashcroft and his underlings claimed libraries were not affected, at least one library had the FBI come a callin'.

Ah, mhr,

All teary-eyed about the rights of mass murderers, pedophiles and illegal aliens.

Just what one would expect from a crininal-coddling left-loon like you.

I see the mhr is still hustling for the pedophile and deadbeat dad demos.

Ashcroft wasn't protecting civil liberties. He was protecting the perogatives of Congress, which had passed a law requiring periodic AG approval. Remember that he had been a Senator. He had some residual concern about protecting the power of his former institution.

For the Bushies, it's not enough to be a crazy reactionary. You have to be a lickspittle with no loyalty other than to Bush personally and no power base other than the president's favor.

Interesting testimony today. To bad it didn't come up during the confirmation hearings for AG AG. Maybe next time...

ex-liberal thinks it is okay to:

1) ignore the lawful chain of command at the DOJ;

2) harass a very ill individual with no legal authority;

3) pressure that very ill individual to make a decision which the individual has no legal authority to make;

4) ignore the advice of the majority of high-ranking lawyers in the DOJ in favor of an incompetent, immoral, and criminal lawyer and partisan political operatives in the White House (just like Bush ignored the vast majority of military commanders in favor of suck-ups who were willing to parrot the recommendations of Bush's non-military and purely partisan staff);

5) rewrite the Constitution because it is convenient to a mad grab for executive power that conservatives have always craved and have not been shy about saying they crave;

6) and lie about it all.

Did these arse-lickers actually watch Comey's testimony?

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/16/illegal-domest ic-wiretapping-bush-just-did-it-again/#comments

Abu went in to twist a sick man's arm, and then got furious when Ashcroft fought back. Who knew we'd end up missing the old eagle soaring?

Hey, Al, ex-lib and your bastard love child, egbert, kill any islamofascists today? We won't accept anything less than three notches a day on your rifle stocks. The three fuckin' mouseketeers...