Shakesville

Was the NSA Spying on Journalists?

That’s what AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis thinks, and, although it’s pure conjecture, I think it’s a good theory, specifically because it answers the question I raised earlier regarding how, exactly, the public being made aware that the government is evading official oversight of its spying alerts terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. John muses:

Bush says that revealing the details of his spy program would tell Al Qaeda what we were doing and stop the program from being effective. ... Al Qaeda already knows we're monitoring phone calls and emails, we've been doing that for years. They also know that the Patriot Act lets Bush spy on Americans (with the appropriate court orders). So what about the revelation of this domestic spying program could possibly tip off Al Qaeda to something they already know we're doing? There has to be a new wrinkle to the program, something Al Qaeda never thought we'd do. Spy on US journalists.

If terrorists knew that Bush was monitoring every communication US journalists were having a lot of their foreign sources would dry up. As much as "the terrorists" think that the US is monitoring everything, they'd be more willing to trust a US journalist since they know we don't spy on our journalists in this country. Until now.

…Bush spying on US journalists would explain everything UNEXPLAINED about this entire story. Bush refusing to follow the law, Bush refusing to go to court, Bush refusing to tell more members of Congress, Bush's concern that the terrorists, if they knew we were doing this, would be tipped off, and Bush's desire to keep this from the public. It all makes sense that the target of the domestic spying could be US journalists.

Considering this administration’s (and Bush’s quite personal) contempt for the media, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable guess at all, and it most certainly does answer some nagging questions. Granted, this theory is, in part, predicated on assuming the White House’s statements about the program are remotely truthful, which I admit is a big leap of faith. Nonetheless, it’s an angle worth pursuing.

What do you think?

War on Christmas: Mad Kane Style

Check out Mad Kane’s latest song parody—Bill O'Reilly's Faux War On Christmas (to the tune of Get Me To The Church On Time). Funny stuff.

Also, vote for Mad Kane (and some of your other favorites, including The Daily Show, which is sweeping the competition in the Best Late-Night TV Comedy category) in the 2005 Political Dot-Comedy Awards here.

Spy Vs. All the Rest of Us: Recap and New Stuff

For anyone who may have spent his or her weekend having a life, thereby missing all the excitement about the Bush administration’s latest meltdown, here’s the short version: The NY Times published a story which revealed the existence of a secret NSA domestic spying program, which acted outwith the bounds of official oversight, as eavesdropping was done without warrants. The president acknowledged the program in his Saturday radio address, and noted it’s an integral tool in the neverending war on terror, and accused the Times of threatening the nation’s security by publishing the story. Interestingly, the Times had sat on the story for over a year.

The big issue here is not the spying, but the evasion of official oversight. It’s not legal to spy without a warrant, and any argument about the necessity to circumvent official channels because of immediacy are pure bunk: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically provides for the government to start eavesdropping at any time, as long as they secure a warrant within 72 hours of starting. (Josh Marshall has a good post here on how such warrants are almost never denied.) No one is arguing that the government shouldn’t be allowed to do surveillance; they just shouldn’t be allowed to do it without following the rule of law, which requires a warrant.

The administration is arguing that they were not breaking the law. Essentially, this assertion rests within the definition of the war on terror being an actual war. It’s sort of like if the cops decided they could go around randomly searching homes without cause because the extraordinary circumstance of the war on drugs necessitated it.

Atty. General Alberto Gonzales and Sec. of State Condi Rice are also defending the legality and essentialness of the program today, and VP Dick Cheney will appear on ABC’s “Nightline” tonight, where he will reportedly defend the program and reassert that Congress was made fully aware of its specifics, a claim former Senator and Senate Intelligence Chair Bob Graham disputes.

The most up-to-date defense was provided by Gonzo:

He acknowledged that such eavesdropping would be illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But that act, he said, makes an exception for eavesdropping when "otherwise authorized" by statute. That authorizing statute, he argued, was the 2001 resolution, known as the "Authorization to use Military Force."

That resolution makes no reference to eavesdropping or detention policies. The administration has cited it in justification of both, however.

In a briefing for reporters after his television appearances, Gonzales said his position was bolstered by the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In that decision, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court said the resolution constituted "explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals" in the narrow category of terrorism related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. At the same time, the court said the legality of any individual detention could not be determined by the government alone, but required a judgment by some neutral third party.

If you’re getting the feeling that they’re grasping at straws, you’re not alone. Surveillance is not military force, and it’s not detention. The only way it can remotely be construed as either is by suggesting that any activity related to fighting the war on terror constitutes a use of military force. A scary precedent, if it’s allowed to stand.

Speechifizing

Well, Bush gave a speech tonight (Think Progress has the full transcript here). In case you don’t feel like reading the whole thing, here’s a summary:

Good evening…landmark day in the history of liberty…democracy at the heart of the Middle East…I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war (but I’m not going to answer them—quick, over there, look at the sparkly freedom!)…weapons of mass destruction…mass graves…global terrorist movement…perpetual war against America…9/11…(do they look scared again yet, Dick?)…stay the course…fight them over there…only two options before our country—victory or defeat…we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: “God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, good-will to men.”

Amen, brother.

Dr. Demento

This story is just outrageous. A gynecologist has been convicted of two counts of rape and two counts of indecent liberties, and faces up to 23 years in prison, after he (and possibly his twin) abused what may be hundreds of women. On Friday, eight women sued the Washington State Health Department, alleging that the doctor, Charles Momah, was allowed to practice for eight years after the Health Department was made aware of his scumbaggery. The suit also alleges he never should have been licensed to practice medicine in Washington State, having been accused multiple times of malpractice in his former home of New York State.

Another article on Momah clarifies that the state Health Department has been receiving complaints about him since 1995, but did not suspend his license until 2003, which is when they claim they fist had “indication of any boundary violations by Dr. Momah.” However:

[Daleena Rollins] became concerned about Momah's sexual touching, and switched doctors in early 1995. With the help of the new doctor, she filed a written complaint with the commission that April. The commission assigned a case number but apparently never followed up, the lawsuit said.

And in 1997, the Health Department sent a letter to Momah, indicating he was the target of an investigation for "unprofessional conduct." Further investigations against Momah were launched by the Washington state medical quality assurance commission in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002, and he was censured and reprimanded by the New York State Department of Health in 1999, paying $500,000 to settle civil fraud charges. Still no disciplinary action was taken against him in Washington.

What the hell went so tragically wrong here? I can’t imagine why on earth it took so long to stop this nutjob in his tracks. Often, in cases like this, abusive doctors act with impunity for so long because patients are embarrassed to come forward, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here. Women were identifying that he was touching and treating them inappropriately and filing complaints—complaints that were never investigated. I’m really at a loss. I never understood the job of state Health Departments to be abetting sex offenders and providing yet more disincentive, by way of indifference, to victims of sex abuse from coming forward.

(Crossposted at Political Animal.)

Talking Point: Dems Knew and Approved

I was emailed by a reader who wrote: “About an hour ago on Fox News, some ‘media analyst’ claimed ‘the Senators who are up in arms’ about this program were actually briefed about the program before it started. Have you heard anything similar to this and do you know if anyone, especially US Senators, were actually briefed on this program either before it started or while it was ongoing over the past three years?”

Well, yes—I’ve heard something similar. The WaPo article to which I also linked below includes, in part, reaction from former senator and Senate intelligence committee chair Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who asserts that he recalls no discussion about

expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said…

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

In return, yet another in the endless stream of anonymous high-ranking intelligence officials, who “spoke with White House permission,” accused Graham of “misremembering the briefings” and

said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."

By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"

Very clever. Except we all know that after Colonel Jessup ordered that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, Lieutenant Kendrick told Dawson and Downey in secret to give him the code red. Aaron Sorkin should totally sue.

Anyway, welcome to the new talking point. The Dems knew this was going on all along, so they can’t cry foul now. The White House is going to claim it briefed people fully, and those people are going to claim the abandonment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was never addressed. It appears to be a game of he said/he said at this point, and so I'm not about to make the call either way (irrespective of my suspicions).

I’m shocked—shocked!—that Fox would not have the same standards.

(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)

Worrisome Pattern

The WaPo reminds us that the Times’ revelation of the Bushies’ secret spy program is only the latest in a troubling trend.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

Defiant in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has portrayed each surveillance initiative as a defense of American freedom.

Well, now that depends on one’s notion of freedom, doesn’t it? If you’re one of the peaceful civilian protesters who was caught up in the dragnet launched by the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), or one of the tens of thousands of ordinary Americans, most of whom were not suspected of wrongdoing, whose telephone calls, correspondence, and finances were screened (and the information dumped into a government database) after the FBI issued a “national security letter” on you, you might reasonably feel that your freedom was being rather limited, and not so much defended.

Of course, you (and I and everyone else) have no way of knowing if we’re one of the people whose freedom has been encroached upon, or if we’re one of the citizens being told we should be thankful that others’ freedom is limited so that ours may be defended. The question each American, irrespective of political leanings, has to ask her- or himself is whether the circumvention of checks and balances, the evasion of official oversight, the subversion of civil liberties—including, possibly, your own—is, in the end, a bigger threat to freedom than the threats (of terrorism? of peaceful demonstration?) used to justify an abandonment of the rule of law in the first place.

(Crossposted at Political Animal.)

Funny

What do the giant panda and Paris Hilton have in common? August explains.

(Via The Green Knight.)

Criminal Complicity

One aspect of secret—and illegal—domestic spying program which I haven’t yet mentioned is that the NY Times, who broke the story, had known about the program for over a year, but held off its publication of the administration’s criminality at the request of the White House.

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

[…]

In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller … wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."

I admit, I’m no criminal mastermind, but I fail to see how the public being made aware that the government is evading official oversight of its spying would alert terrorists that they may be spied on. Don’t most people up to no good try to hide their schemes, specifically because they assume (and rightfully so) that the government has a pretty easy time securing warrants for eavesdropping under FISA? The government’s assertions are absurd, and hardly justification for the Times’ decision to withhold this damning information from the public. The Times is blowing as much smoke up our asses as the dirtbag Bushies who ran the scam in the first place.

Seriously, between the Judith Miller debacle and this bit of heinous criminal complicity, stick a fork in the Gray Lady. She’s one done turkey.

And hopefully, so is the Bush administration, at long last. This is, as said Hilzoy, “something that no American should tolerate. We claim to have a government of laws, not of men. That claim means nothing if we are not prepared to act when a President (or anyone else) places himself above the law. If the New York Times report is true, then Bush should be impeached.” Amen to that. Tom Watson deems it the Bush embolism, and I wish with all due gravity that he is right when he suggests it will

drain the Administration of its last twitches of legitimacy… Bush is now grievously wounded, and Congress - Republican or not - will not rescue him this time. The bleeding will grow, the stain will spread, and no one in the Administration (including the soon-to-be-indicted Karl Rove) will be able to close the artery. And that is terrible, because what is hemorraghing away in the dark night of this criminal administration is precious American freedom.

Yeah, I think Bush is an odious turd with some of the most appalling policy prescriptions ever to come down the pike, but this is beyond partisan bickering. An administration that places itself above the law, and convinces the media into keeping their sinister machinations locked in the safety of murkiness, is precisely why we have the system of checks and balances we do. Subverting them is to subvert the very foundations of America, and that, quite frankly, scares me more than any terrorist threat used to justify such repugnant actions.

Big Times

Here’s something kind of cool. The NY Times’ Sunday Book Review includes an article about authors checking the blogosphere to find out what’s being said about their books. One of the examples they cite is the mini-salon, started by Mannion and picked up by Lawyers, Guns & Money and myself, about Joshua Wolf Shenk’s Lincoln's Melancholy. Nifty.

Next stop: Op-ed pages!

Bob Barr’s on Bush’s Case

Ouch. Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) was on CNN yesterday, debating Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) on the merits of the secret domestic spying program, and he is not pleased:

…Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don’t really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us…

…Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there’s something after the fact that justifies it…

…The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf…

Barr is no left-winger, he’s a fire-breathing conservative who tried the case Clinton, strongly supports the Second Amendment, drafted the Defense of Marriage Act, staunchly apposes abortion, and has been a speaker before the Council of Conservative Citizens, which has been noted as becoming increasingly “radical and racist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who classifies the CCC as a hate group. Certainly not the credentials of a left wing wacko like me.

The problem isn’t the spying; it’s the secrecy. Surely that’s something conservatives can wrap their heads around, as Bob Barr seems to have done. All they have to do is substitute “sex” for spying, and “lying” for secrecy, and they’ll come up with a phrase that’s bound to ring rather familiar.

(Hat tips to Pam and Pensito Review. Crossposted at Political Animal.)

Crap FEC Nominee

Lost among the din of (well-placed) outrage over the revelation that Bush authorized a secret domestic spy program is his decision to choose two controversial nominees for the FEC yesterday. Of particular concern is nominee Hans von Spakovsky, an attorney who assisted with Georgia’s passing of a “disputed” (some might say unconstitutional) voter-identification law.

Career Justice Department lawyers involved in a Georgia case said von Spakovsky pushed strongly for approval of a state program requiring voters to have photo identification. A team of staff lawyers that examined the case recommended 4 to 1 that the Georgia plan should be rejected because it would harm black voters; the recommendation was overruled by von Spakovsky and other senior officials in the Civil Rights Division.

Before working in the Justice Department, von Spakovsky was the Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Ga., and served on the board of the Voter Integrity Project, which advocated regular purging of voter roles to prevent felons from casting ballots.

Voter Integrity Project. Orwell would be so proud.

The WaPo doesn’t mention, but LeMew does, that voter purges are slightly more controversial—and complicated—than simply “preventing felons from casting ballots.”

von Spakovsky was also a strong advocate of the practice, famous from Florida 2000, of "regular purges" of felons, people who have the same name as felons, people who have vaguely similar names to felons, black people who once received a ticket for jaywalking, etc., from the rolls.

So von Spakovsky endorses both a state law and a practice that disproportionately disenfranchise black voters. Curious. Do you think that has anything to do with blacks’ traditional strong support of Democrats?

It couldn’t be, because just in July, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman promised that the GOP would start reaching out to black voters.

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

I guess when the president’s approval rating among blacks fell to an abysmal 2% in November, maybe that plan started to seem a bit futile.

So bring on von Spakovsky! Time to spread some democracy, bitches!

(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)

Right On

Ezra nails it. This is Bush’s “fuck you” moment.

Brokeass Mountain II

Great post from LeMew on Hollywood’s revenue “problem,” which is, in reality, not a problem at all. People may not be going to the movies as much, but any money lost from that revenue stream is picked up on the back end.

I also feel like a splendid little scammer, since I neither “pay 20 bucks to see a movie in the theater or pay 20 bucks to buy the DVD.” We wait until our local video store has a buy 2 get 2 free sale, and then we buy used copies of new films, which generally works out to be about $7 a DVD or less. Often, we can get a new release within a week of its coming out, as they very quickly don’t have use for the eight bazillion copies they made available for rental.

Saturday Musings

I’m continually fascinated by president’s (and his supporters’) insistence on rightness, and their predilection for equating it with goodness. So it was of interest that, as I mentioned earlier, the president used his weekly radio address to reassert not only the necessity, but the rightness, of his decision to authorize a secret domestic spying program, and cast those who exposed it to the light of day as putting American citizens at risk and endangering the country. There seems, at this point, little chance that Bush will be any more likely to admit error after this revelation than with any other that has come before. Being wrong is not an option. It never is.

I always find it particularly curious when a self-identified born-again Christian seems so patently incapable of admitting being wrong, as forgiveness is such a significant part of Christian doctrine. When a Messiah has died for your sins, surely it indicates an expectation that you’ll commit some.

Back in July, Mannion penned (so to speak) a brilliant post on why (certain) conservatives feel free to cast the first stone, which included one of my favorite lines of all time:

[I]f Jesus were around today and a woman taken in adultery ran to him for protection and he said to the crowd, Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone, forty-six Republican adulterers would bean her with rocks.

His post, in turn, inspired a post of my own, adding to his thoughts mine about the nature of born-again conservatives in the Bush mold. An excerpt:

Born-agains, like Bush, have a different attitude about this stuff than, say, traditional guilt-ridden Catholics or Lutherans, or even your average atheist. There's a sense of accumulation among the latter—the feeling that life is a continuing thread, and bad behavior may be past, but hasn't disappeared. Believers in souls might suggest that each sin leaves an indelible mark; absolution may wash the soul clean, but its shape is forever changed by the dings and dents of living a mortal, and hence imperfect, life. Non-believers might say that your mistakes stay with you, even after you have made amends, and leave a mark on your psyche, in your memory, on a strand of time. Whatever the language, the principle is the same—our flaws are a part of us, and it's usually considered a good thing. You’ve learned. Built character. When we fall in love and find ourselves, on a lazy weekend morning, investigating a new and mysterious naked skin, we ask about the scars our fingertips find. How did you get this one? In the same way, we come to know who a person is by finding out about the bad things that have defined them, as well as the good that’s ever more readily apparent.

Born-agains start with a 'clean slate' somewhere in life, and…they intend to keep those slates clean. They carry around their erasers, fastidiously erasing any sign of a mark on their shining slates and bemoaning the states of ours, messy as they are. The only good slate is a clean slate. They can't see the artwork that the rest of us see, finding beauty in each other's flaws and pain and mistakes and scars.

Inextricably linked with this notion seems to be (for many people, our president among them) the aforementioned unyielding determination to be right. Being wrong isn’t necessarily bad or evil; on most occasions, it’s a neutral situation—an unintentional error that can be easily repaired with a correction, and an apology, if one is required. And yet, all the stay-the-course rhetoric, the unwillingness to apologize (or even admit mistakes), the stubborn refusals to acknowledge disagreements as anything but ill-intentioned…it all stinks of someone who fears more than simply being seen as vulnerable by virtue of error, someone who instead equates being wrong with being bad.

I’m the good guy, so what I think is right. Anyone who disagrees is therefore not only wrong, but the bad guy.

This kind of black-and-white thinking is the vile, festering bog from which swells the impetus behind casting liberals as traitors. Not just opponents with genuine and legitimate disagreements. Not even just plain old wrong. Bad. There’s no room for such rigidity of thought in a healthy, vibrant democracy, which should accommodate a plurality of ideas, and yet we repeatedly find ourselves left with a choice between two extremes—good and bad, proponents of each pole casting themselves as the former, and their rivals as the latter. One side starts throwing stones over the vast wasteland that separates them, devoid of common ground, as the other finds it increasingly difficult to remain reasonable, particularly when affected measure does nothing to discourage the onslaught.

This isn’t an argument for mushy political centrism, which I typically regard with no small amount of disdain. I just wonder if it’s possible for those who only see in black and white to start seeing some grays in the process of political debate, to stop casting their political adversaries as bad. To stop throwing stones long enough to admit a mistake occasionally. Maybe mumble the occasional sorry. It’s not that hard; I do it all the time. I’m a klutz with a mind like a steel sieve and a penchant for occasional bitchiness, the sum total of which provides plenty of occasions which require a fix, an amends, an apology. And, you know, sometimes it is hard to admit a mistake, to apologize—but it’s those times in particular when stepping up is a sign of strength, and staying the course is the coward’s way out.

Clean slates are overrated. Especially the ones that remain so only because mistakes have not been admitted, even though they’ve been made. My slate is a mess, and so are the slates of most people I know, but I’ll take an honest mess over an insincere, chalkless tidiness any day of the week.

I’ve no doubt that Bush will continue to steadfastly assert his rightness on a whole array of issues, no matter how starkly all evidence may point to the contrary. The question I have is why. No one is infallible. (In fact, that’s sort of the whole point of his favorite philosopher.) So who does he think he’s fooling…and why does he try?

(Crossposted at Political Animal.)

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

A Smiths reunion? Can it be true?

The Smiths are reuniting! Obviously, Mike Joyce won't be there, since relationships are a bit fraught, what with him suing his former band mates, then trying to sell unreleased Smiths material on eBay. And, as yet, there is nothing more solid than a rumor that Morrissey might turn up. But, as Billboard reveals, Johnny Marr and Andy Rourke (the bass player) are definitely reuniting! The pair will perform together in January, for the first time since 1987, at a cancer benefit in Manchester, England, with or without their enigmatic frontman. And if a two-fourths Smiths comeback isn't enough of a draw, the concert lineup also reportedly includes New Order, Doves, Badly Drawn Boy, Primal Scream's Mani and Stephen Fretwell.

Heart palpitations! Sweaty palms! Serious swooning!

The thought of seeing Moz and Marr on the same stage is enough to make me faint dead away with happiness! Maybe that’s what all this light-headedness is about—a premonition that soon the boys will be back together, and will, of course, consent to a private show in my living room.

Please let it be so! Please let there be a world reunion tour! Please let me have the chance to see Marr grinding away at those soul-shaking riffs on How Soon Is Now? while Moz contorts his body and twirls the microphone cord. Oh lordy, let it be.

Many thanks to Brother Kenya for passing along what is possibly the best news ever of all time.

Bush Defends Secret Program

The President used his weekly radio address to justify the secret program which allowed the NSA to spy on US citizens and foreign nationals without a warrant. He also added that revelation of the secret program has hurt US security.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations.

Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.

Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

As the 9/11 commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad.

[…]

This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States.

So it was the media that broke the law by revealing this classified program, not his administration by authorizing it. But hey—even if they did, it’s the 9/11 commission’s fault for criticizing their ability to uncover terrorist activity. Just a thought here, but maybe paying attention to briefs with titles like “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” was a better start than a criminal enterprise to illegally eavesdrop.

As for his doing everything in his power under the laws…yeah, not so much.

(Crossposted at Political Animal.)

Question of the Day

On Tuesday, Misty posted about the Mr. Hetero contest, which sure sounds like a lot of fun. Who can deny the manly, hetero appeal of such events as Oprah Magazine Tearing, Duct Tape Dissertation, Name That Food, and Random Q&A, with gems like, “Who’s your favorite heterosexual role model?” Right now, it’s just a series of local competitions, but it’s sure to go national in no time.

So, what manly specimen of heterosexual glory would you nominate to compete for the Mr. Hetero national title? I’m kind of torn between Ken Mehlman and Jeff Gannon myself.

RIP: John Spencer

The actor John Spencer, probably most well known for his roles on The West Wing and L.A. Law, died of a heart attack today.

Having never seen The West Wing, I remember him best from Forget Paris, playing Billy Crystal’s odious chauvinist pal who referred to his wives as the first and second “Mrs. Jack,” and Presumed Innocent, playing a cop who remains loyal to Harrison Ford.

Get Back To Work, You Goddamned Idiots

We have enough time-wasters "running" this country.

All right, we've all heard the "War on Christmas" insanity being thrown around. We've listened to the whining, self-pitying, completely deluded religious right shrieking that Christmas, faith, and yes, Christianity itself are all under attack. We've heard that lunatic Michael Savage scream about it. We've doubled over in laughter as we heard that pinhead Medved whinge about it. We've shaken our heads in amazement as we've seen John Gibson's ridiculous book about it. And of course, who could forget Big Bill O'Reilly, the reigning King of Christmas, hero to misfit toys everywhere, more or less creator of the whole stinking mess?

Look folks, your invented "War on Christmas" doesn't exist. For every story that you dig up to wave in our faces as proof- PROOF that the ACLU wants to force all of us to say "Happy Holidays" at gunpoint, someone toddles along and debunks it with a five minute google search or a few phone calls. Look, I can't say I blame you. It's great for rallying the ~~easily deluded~~ troops, and it certainly fills your coffers. So what if you're a hypocrite? Just yell it loud enough and sooner or later, it's almost true.

It's worth a few laughs and it's easy to dismiss.

Until some goddamn idiot in congress decides to get into the act.

Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis introduces sense of Congress supporting references to Christmas

Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis today introduced H. Res. 579, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected, and that references to Christmas should be supported. This measure, which is non-binding and does not carry the force of law, simply states Congressional support for traditional references to Christmas that are being eradicated from the public dialogue.

"There has been an ongoing effort by retailers and many media outlets to slowly eradicate references to Christmas and the symbols and traditions that come along with it from public dialogue," said Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. "Common sense has been hijacked by political correctness, and the Christmas Season has become a vague, generic `holiday season' spanning from Thanksgiving to New Year's Day, representing nothing and celebrating anything. December 25th is the federally recognized day known as Christmas, but retail chains across the country have banned their employees from wishing people a Merry Christmas. As if it could not get more ridiculous, the Christmas tree has now become a holiday tree. This is political correctness run amok. No one should feel like they have done something wrong for wishing someone a Merry Christmas," added Davis.

Oh, no. Oh no no no no no.

NO.

Jo Ann Davis, you amazing bonehead. Have you noticed we're in the middle of a fucking useless, meaningless war that even Bush has finally had to admit was a complete mistake? Are you aware that there are over nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance, including 8.4 million children? Has it penetrated your thick skull that we face a global warming crisis that the U.S. has chosen to ignore? 37 million people in the United States are living below the poverty level, and this is the resolution that you come up with?

Stop this bullshit right now and get back to work. Say it with me: There is no War on Christmas. Political Correctness run amok? Don't make me laugh. This completely fabricated anti-Christmas movement lie is what has run amok. This is as stupid as congress debating steroid use in baseball. "As if it could not get more ridiculous" is right, only you haven't the foggiest idea that you're talking about yourself.

This is USELESS, this is a WASTE OF TIME, and any member of congress that gives this the slightest serious thought deserves the same amount of scorn and ridicule that you should be receiving. This should and hopefully will be laughed out of congress before the ink is dry. Non-binding and does not carry the force of law? Then why fucking bother? This is warm-fuzzy legislature, and it's fucking pointless.

You're worried you might feel bad because you say "Merry Christmas?" Tough fucking titty. Boo-hoo. There are other holidays (holy days, you dingbat) celebrated at this time of the year, and just because someone says "Happy Holidays" doesn't mean they're trying to stop you from celebrating Christmas. You get upset when retail stores use generic holiday statements? Tough shit. It's business, and if you don't like it, sit at home in your Grinch footie pajamas and shop online. Good luck finding an online store that doens't use the dreaded "Happy Holidays" line, though.

So put up your fucking tree, drink your fucking eggnogg, sing about Good King Wenceslas, open your fucking presents, wear your goddamn ass-ugly Christmas sweater, celebrate the Christ in Christmas to your heart's content, and do please SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Stop with this ridiculous puffery and get back to work. I'm sure you've got some real problems in Virginia that could stand some work and legislation.

Ass.

(Oh dreidel, dreidel, dreidel, I made you out of cross-posts... )