So the president has come out swinging against critics of his plan that allows phone taps and other spying on people in the US without any oversight by a court. No Oversight. Not even by the incredibly accommodating and secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved all 1,758 applications for secret surveillance in 2004 according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Imagine--not a single applications for secret surveillance was denied in 2004. Now that's a tough sell for intelligence people trying to get approval.
Doesn't matter. The prez today was angry, boy, real angry. Adamant and angry. As he spoke, you could almost hear the behind the scenes handlers explaining that initial public reaction to the revelations of the secret program were "bad, Mr. President, real bad. Your best hope is to not only acknowledge it, but come across as indignant that anyone would deny you such authority in a time of war." And they gave him lots of things to say, too, did a real good job of arming him with defenses, explanations, and justifications. So he proudly declared, with all the conviction he could muster, "I`ve reauthorized this program more than 30 times since September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens." It's almost as in-your-face as the old "Yeah? Well, your mamma."
If only they had a few explanations & justifications that could actually fly. All the ones the prez dredged up seem to be wingless creatures, and heavy ones at that. The kind that just might make good anchors as time goes by. They just don't make a bit of sense. Not a bit.
The prez offered up the following main claims:
I'm authorized by Article II of the Constitution.
I'm authorized by the joint congressional resolution that authorized me to use military force against Iraq.
We only spy on bad guys we've already come to suspect are connected to terrorists.
Things in the intelligence field move too quickly for us to always be able to go get a court authorization.
So lets take a closer peek at each.
Dearest Santa-
It's that time of year again, and I am penning you with my wish of things I would dearly love to have under my tree....
It's hard to miss the contrast between the attitudes of Republicans toward Iraq, and toward America. There's always been a divide between the way we treat "us" and the way we treat "them" but, come on, aren't we supposed to treat us BETTER than them?
That's not the way it's going so far. In fact, a Houston Chronicle columnist recently looked at Republican concern for fair elections in Iraq and mused that "it's time for a little of that concern at home."
We can look at the Iraqi parliamentary elections this week in any of several ways. And no one can say for certain how Iraq will "come out." But here's somethings to think about in trying to make your own prediction on Iraq's future.
The Economist, the leading world magazine of capitalists and free marketers everywhere, and a big fan of the Iraq invasion, had this to say about Iraq in its 12/17 issue (page 11):
"IRAQ is a bloody mess and will stay that way for quite some time....The chances of a broad, tolerant, multi-sectarian coalition government emerging are not brilliant."
Not to beat the flip flop theme to death--serious injury will do fine--but have you been keeping up with the string of Bush versus Bush statements? You know, the ones where Bush was against something before he was for it?
Recent examples follow.
Since posting the piece about Tom DeLay's support of the House budget Reconciliation bill being contradictory to his professed concern for abused and neglected kids, someone told me offline that I was being unfair to him. The reason? I didn't mention a report by Truthout that Mr. DeLay and his wife have "helped raise three foster kids themselves." Point taken. That should be known.
However, my original post also didn't get into other thing, like the fact that Mr. DeLay seems to use his two foundations "devoted" to helping kids to...well, to help Tom DeLay in his never-ending efforts to raise money. And more money. Did I mention it's about money?
Our now-deposed House whip, Mr. Tom DeLay has always made much of his Christianity and specifically of his concern for kids who are neglected, abused, destitute. In fact, his official web site front page has a link titled "All About the Kids" which takes you to a separate page detailing DeLay's love for and activities on behalf of "kids."
So if this concern for children is sincere, he must vote in their interests, right? Consistently. Must strenuously resist legislation that would hurt not just children, but specifically hurt the ones most at risk. Right?
Let's take a look at Mr. DeLay's public persona, and his position on the recently passed House budget reconciliation bill.
This gets boring after a while, but the Mouth of the Lout has struck again. A Michigan television station is reportingthat a statement O'Reilly made on his radio show, again pushing the idea that there is some secular "war on Christmas" appears to have not a speck of truth to it.
Boy howdy, does poor old Diebold ever get a break? More after the usual...
So not only has the Army changed advertising firms for its annual quarter of a billion dollar ad budget, but the Air Force suddenly felt the need to update its mission statement.
Both the timing and the content of the new mission statement trouble me.
