Although I love slapstick comedy, I sadly wasn't able to watch the "Yes, We Have No Dictators" song and dance routine from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this afternoon. But I've had the pleasure of looking over some of his statements, and it's clear just how much he has in common with our
At times, Gonzales echoed the president's tried-and-true method of talking to his critics as though they're severely retarded six-year-olds:
"Our enemy is listening," he said. "I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place."That's right, Timmy. Old Osama didn't even dream that we were using this new-fangled "eavesdropping" technology -- until some sad sack Democrats and Al Qaeda lovers let the secret slip. Let's hope they don't spill the beans about our new "aeroplane" either.
But at other times, Gonzales shifted gear, and spoke to the senators as though they were only mildly-retarded eight-year-olds:
President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.If the first statement didn't make it obvious, this one sure did -- President Bush wrote this speech himself. The logic is bad enough, but the grasp of American history is even worse.
First of all, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps Presidents Washington and Lincoln didn't do electronic anything while they were in office. Second, in his fuller statement, Gonzales smirkingly invoked General Washington's interception of British communications. Hmmm. Didn't that come during the Revolution and before the Constitution? (The Constitution? You know, the guiding legal document of this country? The one you're in charge of?) And third, if you think anything electronic was done on a wider scale in the Victrola era of Woodrow Wilson or the radio days of FDR than it can be now with all of our internets and such, you're insane.
This is the best they've got? Take One: "The terrorists are so relentless and diabolical that we have to destroy our Constitution to stop them, but at the same time, they're so stupid and lazy that they didn't think we'd be eavesdropping." Take Two: "We didn't break the law because other presidents broke it first, even though it hadn't been passed yet."
Right. Again, I sleep the sleep of angels knowing these functional illiterates are in charge.
(* They're not really twins.)
9 comments:
I don't understand why this is even an issue. Congress authorized wiretaps without a warrant period.
To Wiretap or Not to Wiretap
Get over it!
No, they didn't. The Patriot Act relaxed the conditions of wiretap surveillance, but still required a warrant. Under FISA, the president has the ability to get wiretaps immediately and only has to go back to get a retroactive warrant within 72 hours.
And if you think this is somehow liberal grumbling, you might want to check out what hard-core conservatives like former Clinton impeachment manager Bob Barr, Reagan Revolution architects Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and others are saying about this. These are long-time conservative activists, and they have all condemned this in no uncertain terms. Arlen Specter has even said impeachment is a possibility here.
So, no, I won't get over it. This country has operated under a system of checks and balances and law and order for over two centuries. If you'd rather live in a dictatorship, feel free to move.
I read that Arlen Specter didn't even feel it necessary to put Gonzales under oath. That tells me right there that nothing useful would come of his testimony. Remember the oil execs?
"Don't kid yourself, Jimmy, if a cow (evil-doer) ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about."
Love the "aeroplane" reference, OM.
Feel free to pop on over and validate the excessive amount of time I wasted posting on this stuff yesterday and last night...
Nice catch on the Troy McClure voice, Furious.
On the off chance rightwing comes back here, let me add that the choice isn't "to wiretap or not to wiretap." That's a false either-or set up byb the president. Democrats have always been for wiretapping al Qaeda, and have worked with Republicans to make that easier (Patriot Act, FISA alterations, etc.)
The problem here is that Bush is wiretapping without warrants in clear violation of several laws, countless court precendents and the 4th Amendment. He did all this in secret, while insisting that he was still getting warrants for all wiretaps. (See "Liar" post below.)
He broke the law and lied about it. And worse, he's insisting that he has the right to keep breaking this law and anything else he wants to break, because he's somehow above the law. That's what this is about.
Go read this excellent piece at slate.com. Here's a snippet:
The Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 not only does not authorize Bush's warrant-less snooping but clearly and specifically prohibits it by prescribing the FISA court system as the "exclusive" method for authorizing electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes. With a little help from the white paper, however, that protection goes aumf as well; Gonzales proposes that ... King Zenith can wiretap whomever he wants ... or, alternatively, [FISA] be dismissed as an unconstitutional irrelevancy.
Bush's message to the courts, like his message to Congress, is: Make way, subjects. ... In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1 ... wrote "a state of war is not a blank check for the President." The Justice Department memo, however, cites Hamdi as ballast for its stance that when it comes to spying domestically, Bush has not only a blank check but a wallet full of no-limit platinum cards.
Go read the whole thing.
Great Slate piece. Weisburg has been on fire with this.
I'd be lying if I said my men weren't committing crimes...
Well ... touché.
Post a Comment