My big problem with the way Dems approach this whole debacle is not just the inability to "persuade" Gonzo, et al to step down, but that they aren't reminding the American people, that the business of gov't isn't getting done with these criminals in place.

Her question was not about the program but that trip to the hospital. How could the trip to the hospital be a classified matter? Unless the doctors and nurses there had national security clearance. You know - the Dick Cheney answer (something akin to f*** you) would have been more honest.

It's more original than the McGwire Defense: "I'm not here to talk about the past." Or the Clinton Defense: "I'm here to talk about the issues affecting America's working families." And it sounds better than the truth: "The Vice President hasn't told me what I can say about that."

Kevin Drum >"...How long before they stop bothering to construct verbal excuses at all anymore?"

About the same time they start worrying about dropping the soap in the shower

"The water won't clear up 'til we get the hogs out of the creek." - Jim Hightower

Forget the silent Dems. When is the press going to remember that these are elected officials and they have no business obfuscating the public's business? "I don't want to talk about it" should not be taken as a valid excuse by anybody calling herself a journalist.

Main Entry: per·verse
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'v&rs, 'p&r-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French purvers, pervers, from Latin perversus, from past participle of pervertere
1 a : turned away from what is right or good : CORRUPT b : IMPROPER, INCORRECT c : contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law
2 a : obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : WRONGHEADED b : arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy
3 : marked by peevishness or petulance : CRANKY
4 : marked by perversion : PERVERTED
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Happened upon this word in the dictionary today. There's a picture of Gonzales and Card at Ashcroft's bedside next to the entry.

Her question was not about the program but that trip to the hospital.

It's maddening, isn't it? So obtuse.

Why reporters show these scum so much deference is beyond me. Brow beating one of your own loyalists in critical condition on a hospital bed? That's low, even for this crew.

Ah, Kevin.

The President is trying to run the country, Kevin. He's not here as a source of red meat for your diatrives.

This is classified material, and the President is acting responsible by refusing to move the issue forward.

The President is trying to run the country, Kevin.

And doing a piss-poor job of it too.

egbert: "Hoo-ah, CIC!"

"The President is trying to run the country, Kevin. He's not here as a source of red meat for your diatrives."

Diatrives???

egbert's been peeking over Al's shoulder again; their RNC handlers should either seat them further apart before they go online or fire one of them.

Because of this administration's deeply religious convictions and objectives, what is said and done in the executive branch should be protected by the consitutional right to freedom of relgion. You do believe in freedom of religion, don't you?

The syntactic form of an explanation will never go away, even if it's completely free of content.

There's a cute social pyschology experiment I heard about once. It involved an experimenter cutting in line for some service (this was a while back, it was a copier machine at a library). The experimenter would either say nothing at all, or would give a real reason ("Excuse me, I'm in a huge rush, I've got to get this to the bank by 2 pm" or things like that), or would just say "Excuse me, I need to use the copy machine." Not saying anything got you push-back, but this non-excuse excuse worked pretty much as well as a real excuse.

Ed sez: "The President is trying to run the country..."

Back in the day, conservatives knew that the President only ran the GOVERNMENT.

I am going to be very curious to see what happens when President Hillary says the same thing. I suspect the traditional media will not accept such a statement from her, and will go into full attack mode.

Cranky

Reading egbert reminds me of the calm self-perpetuating logic of seriel murderer testimonies.

For the latest news, key documents, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the NSA domestic surveillance scandal, see:
"The NSA Domestic Spying Documents."

Does anyone else get the sense that Bush did something like order the NSA to spy on political enemies? What did Bush do that made someone like John Ashcroft shit a brick and say "Whoa, you've gone too far?"

What did Bush do that made someone like John Ashcroft shit a brick and say "Whoa, you've gone too far?"

That would be the 64K question.

This is the key - Bush does not deny sending Gonzo and Card to Ashcroft's hospital bed. He DOES NOT DENY IT. Forget the fluff about whether the program is needed. It was a disgusting act, worthy of impeachment, and Bush does not deny it.

And these reporters need some lessons on how to cross examine a hostile witness. Don't journamalism schools teach basic interview techniques?

Old Hat asks the right question. Kevin its the program, not the process. I want to know just what was going on that was so bad all the top Bush appointees at the DoJ were ready to walk if he didn't relent. It had to be impeachable. It was probably so bad we in the American public would shit bricks if we found out.

It had to have been purely domestic wiretapping. No connection to a foreign source, nothing to give it so much as a fig leaf of legality. I'd bet good money on it.

The president is trying to run the country (into the ground), Kevin.

there, fixed it for you (sorry, don't have the keys on the crackberry to make it look pretty)

If those woeful journalists want to keep their jobs they won't be cross examining the pres. Those are good jobs after all.

Here is something else to ponder. Ashcroft, Comey, and all the rest of the "good guys" in hospital story are gone. They have been replaced by Gonzales, McNulty, Sampson, Monica Goodling and all the rest of the well known political operatives over at the DoJ. Any reason to assume the bad old days haven't returned?

AH umm aa ahha a um never mind.

Since the establishment media more-or-less blessed the illegal wiretapping don't expect them to show much enthusiasm for digging into the story.

The question was really about sending Gonzo and Card. Not about the program. Bush just kept saying that the program is sensitive and necessary. It was a non-answer. Telling us about the program's reauthorization reveals nothing about the program.

He could have said "This is a necessary, very important program, which was in danger, so of course I did what it took to keep this program running and protect the American people. Yes, I sent them."

But that would have been the answer of an honest man who believed in the legality of what he was doing. Bush is not honest, and he doesn't believe that he's been following the law, and he knows that harassing a man in intensive care reveals the truth about his debased, pathetic administration.

It doesn't matter what Bush thinks anymore. This issue will be "pushed forward" regardless of whether Bush wants it or not. The investigations have just begun!

Let the games begin!

Of course I'm not going to move the issue forward. I only play gotcha when I'm winning.

Now I know where all those bricks came from...

I would also like to hear Dubya's answer to this question: Who in the White House called Mrs. Ashcroft to tell her that Mssrs Gonzales and Card were going to visit the A.G. in the hospital? Was it you, Mr. President?

Please visit the Schapira blog, "What we know so far ..." at http://schapira.blogspot.com

"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

Carl, I don't think the establishment media knew just how close we came to a revolt among the top staff at the DoJ. If they did, and didn't push the story, maybe they should all retire to Arizona or someplace warm.

Did Bush actually, therefore, kinda sorta admit to being the one who sent Card and Gonzo? Who would have thought six years ago that John Ashcroft would emerge as one of the few sane, reasonable, moderate adults?

What the president meant, of course, is that he wants to move the country in the opposite direction of the liberals. Since he was speaking to the press, a liberal audience, he said "move forward". From a conservative point of view, of course, that would be moving backwards.

que es "diatrives"?

Welcome to America. "Speak English."

It seems to me that the Bush administration was constructed to be impeachment-proof. At the apparent top here ia a doofus of a president who obviously could not plan his way out of a wet paper bag. The question is, where does the real power of analysis and decision rest? Is that person or persons in positions that are accountable to the American public? I suspect not. Can a president be imeached for simply being incompetent, or having bad judgement in who he appoints? Does he sit around making Dephic grunts, where they are interpreted as intelligent direction (ala Chauncey Gardener)? Is it like a wire-tapped Mafia operation where silent winks and nods provide enough impetus for the dirty deeds? Or is it simply an amoeba of similarily inclined people who work in loose concert toward their ideal of crony capitalism? The satirical Onion article saying Bush was looking for country czar to run the country might not have been far off the mark. I think our dear leader is getting tired of sitting at an empty desk everyday drumming on the desk with a pencil and playing hoops with the wastebasket. As a person who can't even begin the National Prayer Breakfast without a heavily marked-up 3 line intro, I suspect most of the time is spent learning the lines for the next public appearance.

Al's really phoning it in now.

Well, despite Ashcroft's stance on some issues, and his association with the Bush administration, the fact is, that he is a man who comes from a truly humble background (his father was a traveling missionary/minister), who worked hard and brought himself up by his bootstraps, and who has a genuine, strong, religious conviction.

The only problem I have with Ashcroft, is that he's eager to push that conviction onto all Americans, and bought into the Dominionist philosophy.

But the Bushies; (Cheney, Rummy, Karl, George) I think it's been shown, are not actually religious people. They are good at talking the talk, to get the backing of the evangelicals, but to them, the religious vote is just another bunch of rubes they need to con in order to get into office.

John Ashcroft is probably actually an honorable man with deep convictions, who got caught up in the power politics of the neocon movement. Similar to Powell. Ashcroft was smug at first, but after a while, once he realized who he was dealing with, he bowed out, and then resigned altogether.

Does anyone else get the sense that Bush did something like order the NSA to spy on political enemies?

Of course. That was my assumption since we first heard about GWB illegally skipping out on getting FISA warrants. Nothing else explains it.

> and who has a genuine, strong, religious
> conviction.

In both 2000 and 2004 Ashcroft managed the Missouri Republican Party's efforts to disenfranchise poor black voters in St. Louis and Kansas City - exactly the program under which Rove fired the Attorney Generals. I have a hard time reconciling that kind of action with sincere religious belief.

Cranky

The press is a "liberal audience", Al? And the president "wants to move the country in the opposite direction" that most of its citizens want.

Let me put this to you gently, in terms you could possible understand:

HE WORKS FOR US, MOTHERFUCKER!

If you want a country where the press serves no function, and there is zero congressional oversight, move to North Korea, you piece of treasonous garbage. Seriously. Pack up and go. Maybe you can continue your dream of killing Arabs at the same time.

Oh, and egbert, Bush is indeed "here as a source of red meat" for our "diatrives". So good on toast points with mayo.

PREEMPTIVE TROLL REPELLANT: Note that O'Donnell's question had nothing to do with the nature of the NSA program. It was solely about whether Bush personally ordered Gonzales and Card to visit Ashcroft in the hospital. There's nothing even colorably classified about that.

I don't see how this is knowably true. While certainly there is no conceivable valid reason for that to be classified, there is no way of knowing whether or not it is, nevertheless, classified. Certainly, its hardly as if this administration seems averse to making classification/declassification decisions on purely political bases with no consideration of national security.

Ah, Kevin.

The President is trying to run the country, Kevin. He's not here as a source of red meat for your diatrives.

This is classified material, and the President is acting responsible by refusing to move the issue forward.

Posted by: egbert

You wouldn't want to upset the boy king, now would you? So, according to you, even criminality can now be classified? Why don't you just come right out and say it: "I want bush in power forever!" It's what all your written words seem to indicate.

Does anyone else get the sense that Bush did something like order the NSA to spy on political enemies?

I think its more likely the administration was using surveillance to identify and catalog political enemies, not merely monitor known political enemies. Essentially, I think its likely that, everything they claimed it was to do to terrorists, it was to do to political opponents as well. Of course, given that the administration was fond of characterizing any political opposition as support for terrorism, its quite conceivable that the true believers didn't even recognize a distinction.

I'm still trying to understand why this is a scandal. It isn't illegal to consult the AG when he's in the hospital. In fact, it's appropriate to consult him when a vital legal decision is being made.

And, this was potentially a life-and-death decision. This matter came up at the time of the Madrid bombing. It was quite possible that interrupting the spy program might have allowed a similarly horrendous terrorist attack in an American city. So, I think it was quite right for the Administration to see if there was a legal basis to maintain the program.

I have a hard time reconciling that kind of action with sincere religious belief.

There are plenty of sincerely religious racists.

As I said before, Ashcroft may be a rightwing Xian nut, but at least he is not a corrupt amoral hack. The latter is much more dangerous.

I'm still trying to understand why this is a scandal.

For the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME Bush BROKE THE LAW. FISA. Heard of it? FISA. He broke the law. Illegal wiretapping. Spying on Americans without a warrant. No oversight, no Congressional approval, no court orders. No warrant. BROKE THE LAW. Get it through your thick skull.

Ex-liberal: "I'm still trying to understand why this is a scandal."

Are you? Are you really? Can you grasp anything at all about the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us from any one party or claque trying to use various wings of the government -- not to mention the military -- to advance their own political agenda?

Can you understand that the press is supposed to provide transparency, so that corrupt or corruptible officials don't feel they can easily get away with exploiting their offices for personal or group gain? What evidence do you think you have given that you can comprehend even the most -- especially the most -- basic principles of democracy? Well?

For the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME Bush BROKE THE LAW.

Come on... it's just a third rate burglary.... let it go....

I'm glad we have Al to explain for us, exactly what the President of the United Effing States means. Because the President of the United Effing States apparently isn't articulate enough to explain his actions to us without Al's help anymore.

ex liberal: "I'm still trying to understand why this is a scandal. It isn't illegal to consult the AG when he's in the hospital. In fact, it's appropriate to consult him when a vital legal decision is being made."

Ashcroft lacked the mental capacity at the time to make 'vital legal decision[s]' because he was in the hospital, recovering from an operation. Comey had been duly appointed Acting Attorney General, and was the top decision maker at DoJ as a result. Comey had said no to the WH and these mendacious weasels tried to obviate the rule of law and get a mentally incompetent individual who was not at the time acting as Attorney General to sign off on a law that was unconstitutional.

Do you make it a habit to steal candy from babies, ex-l? Because it seems that your comfort level with this scurrilous type of behaviour has to have some sort of antecedent.

the President of the United Effing States apparently isn't articulate enough to explain his actions to us without Al's help anymore.

and how frightening is that?

But what I want to know is, are we moving the issue a new way forward?

As I said before, Ashcroft may be a rightwing Xian nut, but at least he is not a corrupt amoral hack. The latter is much more dangerous.
Posted by: Disputo on May 17, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ashcroft is pure as the driven snow. I admire his religious convictions. I detest his racism. And I do believe that he was led astray by the Bush Cult.

But what I'm saying is that; despite his contempt for the 1st amendment, at least he still had some respect for the 4th, and overall, the rule-of-law. Which is more than one can say for the rest of the Cult of Bush.

egbert: "Ah, Kevin. The President is trying to run the country, Kevin. He's not here as a source of red meat for your diatrives."

That's really great pre-emptive troll repellant you're using here, Kevin.

But then again, there's apparently very little that repels an utter fool like egbert, who lives only to wallow in the rancid stench of the Bush administration, like some disease-laden parasite.

How long before they stop bothering to construct verbal excuses at all anymore?

Are you suggesting they'll start grunting, or did you mean Scalia-type gestures?

As I said before, Ashcroft may be a rightwing Xian nut, but at least he is not a corrupt amoral hack.

Well, at least not so much of one as many others that have served or are serving in this administration.

But then, that sets the bar pretty low.

Are you suggesting they'll start grunting, or did you mean Scalia-type gestures?

What if he just sticks his fingers in his ears, closes his eyes and shakes his head while stamping his feet whenever he's asked a question he doesn't like?

ex-lib: I'm still trying to understand why this is a scandal. It isn't illegal to consult the AG when he's in the hospital. In fact, it's appropriate to consult him when a vital legal decision is being made.

Ashcroft had ceded his powers to Asst.AG Comey before he went into surgery. Comey was the active AG at the time and Card and Gonzalez were trying to circumvent that by going to Ashcroft's hospital bed, where he was under heavy sedation. Presumably to get him to sign off on the warrentless wiretaps of domestic citizens. Immoral, illeagal and unethical. Get it?

OT but worth discussion:

The entire conservative blogosphere is having rabid conniptions right now about the new amnesty bill for foreign workers, authored by Kennedy and backed by Bush; even at this distance, the ripples of quavering rage are almost making my monitor shake.

At least in this one respect, it is a good day for my country, and a good day for my party.

Yes, but it's important to note that The Enemy still wants to do The Harm to Us. Let's just drop the subject before we upset Them even Furthur.

... it's appropriate to consult him when a vital legal decision is being made....ex-lax at 5:25 PM

...what was the program like before that -- when it was illegal even in the opinion of Bush's own Justice Department? What was the government doing for two and a half years -- starting soon after September 11, 2001, through the spring of 2004?
That is -- or at least should be -- the question of the day in Washington....

Not that the Constitution or the rule of law means anything to Republicans

Which is more than one can say for the rest of the Cult of Bush.
osama_been_forgotten at 5:46 PM

...Attorneys for Cheney and the other officials said any conversations they had about Plame with each other and reporters were part of their normal job duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went farther, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit....

Here's my wager: Gonzales resigns. Bush replaces him in a recess appointment. Congress gets pissed. Investigations trudge on to no conclusion, unless a whistleblower steps up.

Or, Bush allows Congress its right to vet replacements for Gonzales, and thus a reasonable person gets the AG job, and all hell breaks loose when he/she learns how fucked up Bush has made the DOJ.

The entire conservative blogosphere is having rabid conniptions right now about the new amnesty bill for foreign workers, authored by Kennedy and backed by Bush;. . . .
Posted by: lampwick on May 17, 2007 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

heh.

Suckers.

Too bad NOBODY is getting this issue right.
The solution isn't Amnesty, nor is it a Guest Worker Program, nor is it A WALL. All of those are simply band-aids, aimed at pleasing voters.

The solution to the problem, of course, is to invade Mexico. Make that nation adhere to US labor laws (and accountability for public officials). They'll stop crossing the border; because there will be no more border. And there will be decent jobs for them in Mexico.

But then we'll just have to build a wall at the Guatemala border.

Do you suppose "Al" is just a state of mind, with rotating folks claiming the moniker, all in the quest to give us comic relief?

Maybe Gonzo can be brought in for his next Senate testimony naked and shackled.

Another one bites the dust: Wolfowitz gone

Ask a Tancredo American if they think Americans should speak good English. If they agree, they should be deported.

Wolfowitz gone

Yeah, but what is this shit?:

"He assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution and we accept that," the board said in its announcement of his resignation.

The Board accepts that he acted ethically, or they accept that he claims that he acted ethically?

Ron Byers: "I don't think the establishment media knew just how close we came to a revolt among the top staff at the DoJ."

Well, did they *ask*? They didn't *want* to know.

We accept that he assured us that he acted ethically and in good faith in what he believed were the best interests of the institution.

Of course we know he was full of crap when he assured us. But we accept that he assured us.

The Board accepts that he acted ethically, or they accept that he claims that he acted ethically?

Reading the statement literally, the latter. I would assume that if they had wanted to say the former, they would have clearly done so.

The solution to the problem, of course, is to invade Mexico. Make that nation adhere to US labor laws (and accountability for public officials). They'll stop crossing the border; because there will be no more border. And there will be decent jobs for them in Mexico.

But then we'll just have to build a wall at the Guatemala border.

Its a shorter border, though. Of course, if you take the argument to its logical conclusion (reductio ad argentinium, you might say), the need for a wall is eliminated.

Drive the Mexicans all the way down to Panama, and use the canal as a moat!

That'll teach 'em.

Or something like that.

we could invade them and force them to convert to Christianity. no, wait...

egbert: "Ah, Kevin. The President is trying to ruin [sic] the country, Kevin. He's not here as a source of red meat for your diatrives."

Nice.

Time has a good article up on this, which notes particularly why the "highly classified" nature of the substantive subject (not the "who sent them" issue) might be problematic for Gonzales.

Old Hat; For the MILLIONTH FUCKING TIME Bush BROKE THE LAW. FISA. Heard of it? FISA. He broke the law. Illegal wiretapping. Spying on Americans without a warrant. No oversight, no Congressional approval, no court orders. No warrant. BROKE THE LAW. Get it through your thick skull.

What Bush did was deemed legal by lawyers in the Justice Dept. So, he had reason to believe he had legal authority to spy on calls to terrorist suspects abroad.

Now that some of the details of the programs have been made public, other lawyers have suggested that it was probably illegal. However, their opinions are limited since they don't know the full details of the program.

When lawyers differ, courts must decide. To date no court has ruled one way or the other. So there's no definitive answer to whether Bush's actions were legal or not.

You know, I bet Clinton is just kicking himself now for not having come up with this line during the Lewinsky affair, or any of the other faux scandals that the wingers plagued him with. I'm sure they would have been completely placated with such answers, just as they urge us to be with Bush's.

What Bush did was deemed legal by lawyers in the Justice Dept

When my wife asks me if I like her haircut, I have the same freedom to say 'no' as the Department of Justice under the stipulated circumstances.

I'm starting to think ex-liberal was kicked out of the club by the other liberals for being willfully obtuse.

What Bush did was deemed legal by lawyers in the Justice Dept.

Which lawyers? The career experienced lawyers in Justice didn't. Must have been one of the 150 lawyers from Pat Robertson's fourth-tier, fifth-rate, barely accredited law school.

Once again, Bush demands that the world gets dumbed down to his level, and the rest of us suffer.

They are completely lawless, and refuse to be accountable. And they hide their misdeeds under the cover of national security.

Our national security requires the impeachment of Gonzales, Cheney and Bush. After that we can talk about who needs to go to jail for the felonies.

Ex-liberal: What Bush did was deemed legal by lawyers in the Justice Dept. So, he had reason to believe he had legal authority to spy on calls to terrorist suspects abroad.

Now that some of the details of the programs have been made public, other lawyers have suggested that it was probably illegal. However, their opinions are limited since they don't know the full details of the program.

The DoJ approval that was expiring and needed immediate renewal was approved by DoJ officials who were not allowed to know the details of the program - they had no clearance. When Comey took the job, he insisted on the details and the clearance, and started an internal investigation that led to Comey telling Ashcroft (supposedly for the first time) what the programs really involved and recommended they not be approved because they were illegal. Ashcroft concurred before he became ill.

Bottom Line: the Atty Gen and Deputy AG (and other top staff - now in the know for the first time - said the program was illegal. Gonzales and Card tried to end-around Comey (the fully authorized Acting AG when Ashcroft became ill) by going to Ashcroft on his sick bed in intensive care ward. Ashcroft again said 'no', and then said he wasn't authorized to make a decision, but Comey was.

So, please, don't fracture the facts and pretend no one said this was illegal. The AG and his top staff said it was illegal. Whatever it was, it was more than recording overseas calls from the US and vice versa, because that is what it was scaled back to to get Comey to agree to it.

It probably involved completely domestic spying on phone calls, which was never authorized by FISA in any form. It may have involved political spying.

What is wrong with going to someone's bedside with an urgent question? This is another of those sily non-issues the BDS sufferers keep dreaming up. IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW TO VISIT THE SICK, EVEN TO TALK SHOP.
It would be interesting to make list of all the actions the left finds criminality in, and then have Bush issue an executive order just before he leaves office prohibiting those acts.

WEW,
A variety of people have been over this up and down the thread. You are either stupid, being obtuse, or deliberately trying to direct the "conversation" into a nonproductive direction.

There is nothing wrong with visiting the sick. During visiting hours. Without documents and a pen in hand.

Fuck off.

ex-asperater: "To date no court has ruled one way or the other. So there's no definitive answer to whether Bush's actions were legal or not."

Well, that settles it, then, doesn't it?
C'mon, Wally, you should at least watch Comey's testimony before you spout the party line.

"It would be interesting" to have government that actually honored the basic tenets (sorry, George) of the constitution.

"ex-liberal" wrote: To date no court has ruled one way or the other. So there's no definitive answer to whether Bush's actions were legal or not.

It's worth noting at this point that it's the Bush Administration that has taken great pains to avoid legal review of its actions. Says a lot, doesn't it?

Besides, "ex-liberal"s pretense that there's some legitimate question here is, as usual, disingenuous. For one thing, although he claims Bush has some reason to believe the program was legal, we now know that Bush continued the program even after the DOJ told him it wasn't. Rip that one up, "ex-liberal."

For another, it's bullshit to claim that one can't determine that someone has violated a clear legal statute until a court has ruled on the matter. It's up to the court to rule whether criminal penalties should apply, or whether it finds mitigating circumstances that justify violating the law. But that's what "ex-liberal" is really advocating with his bad-faith argument. That Bush violated the FISA law is beyond debate.

Why "ex-liberal" is pressing this bullshit line of defense is something of a mystery, given that here "ex-liberal" stated in no uncertain terms that he/she/it supports the notion of a President -- well, a Republican President -- violating the law in the name of national defense.

Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

Nice one, "ex-liberal"; I almost missed this: he [Bush] had reason to believe he had legal authority to spy on calls to terrorist suspects abroad.

IANAL, but under the terms of the FISA law, Bush always did have he legal authority to spy on calls to terrorist suspects abroad as long as he obtained a warrant from the FISA court. He could even obtain a warrant 72 hours after the fact.

The question is why Bush conducted domestic spying without warrants, and whether the program or programs were in fact limited to "calls to terrorist suspects abroad."

As for Walter E. Wallis, I only wonder which Bush cultist blogs are pushing that lame defense, and marvel at the fact that some are so driven by Bush Derangement Syndrome -- the true derangement of continued blind partisan support for this mendacious, incompetent and corrupt President -- that they not only accept such patently flawed arguments but are willing to repeat them.

It's pretty much like the Beer Baron episode of The Simpsons.
Homer (caught with bowling balls full of bootleg beer): I'm not going to lie to you Marge...So long!

Except of course, that Homer is merely bootlegging, as opposed to violating the freedoms of all Americans.

Worst. President. Ever.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ashcroft is
> pure as the driven snow. I admire his religious
> convictions. I detest his racism. And I do believe
> that he was led astray by the Bush Cult.

I gave up on Christianity around the age of 20, so I lay no special claim to understanding it. But before that I did spend quite a bit of time studying the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Could you point me to where in the Gospels Jesus says it is OK for those who wish to attain the Kingdom of Heaven to lead pogroms against other human beings based on their skin color?

Note that I said "Gospels", not the Letters of Paul. Whether or not he was the Son of God that Jesus dude was a very smart guy with a lot of important things to say about morality. Paul and what came after I have never really cottoned to myself.

Cranky

What is wrong with going to someone's bedside with an urgent question?

You mean, discussing a communications intelligence program that the President describes as "higly classified" with an sedated official whose uncleared wife is present? The Espionage Act says something is wrong with that—to the tune of 10 years in prison plus fines and forfeitures—and who am I to argue with that?