Man about Murfreesboro

I attended my friend's annual Solstice Party last night. They built a fire and we painted ourselves blue, guzzled mulled wine and danced naked around it for most of the night, so if I'm a little sluggish today that's why.

Actually, I saw several people whom I haven't seen in years. I avoided some political arguments, caught up with an old co-worker and watched my kids trash someone else's house for a change. So it was a good night.

This morning on the Bill Press Show, I heard Bob Barr, former Republican congressman from Georgia, former Clinton impeachment manager and one of the most conservative members ever to grace the floor of congress say that Bush broke the law and there needs to be vigorous public hearings on the matter.

Salon's lead story is a roundup of opinions from Constitutional scholars, intelligence officers and politicians all saying Bush broke the law, but there is no political will to impeach him.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank) said in a recent interview "I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," [George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan] Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

So here's the question of the day: if Bush can just do what he wants in the name of protecting us from the terrorists, then why do we need a Patriot Act? Why is the Senate wasting time debating over 3-month or 6-month extension? If Bush has the legal authority to go beyond what even the Patriot Act allows, then why bother with it?

There is virtually no chance Bush will be impeached. I'm not kidding myself here. Unless the Democrats take back one or both houses in November, Bush will continue to consolidate power in the executive branch and leech it away from the other two. You'd think some politicians in the other branches would have the will to stop it, but I don't see it happening.

Meanwhile, with the resignation of one of the 11 judges on the secret FISA court, the other ten want some answers. Specifically, they want the president to explain why it was necessary to go around the court to get his wiretaps. Also, they want to know if any of the evidence gathered in these illegal wiretaps were used to get legitimate warrants (which would be illegal and taint the work of the FISA court).

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

So there you have it, folks. The FISA court wants to know why they should bother meeting at all if the president can just do what he wants.

Q: The President has publicly acknowledged that we went to war under false information, mistaken information. Why does he insist on staying there if we were there falsely, and continue to kill Iraqis?

McClellan: Well, maybe you missed some of his recent speeches and his remarks, but the President said it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power --

Q: And a right decision to move in and to tell the people, the American people, that it was all a mistake, and stay there?

McClellan: I don't think he said that. He said that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing force in a dangerous region of the world --

Q: That isn't true. We had a choke-hold on him.

McClellan: It is true. He was a threat. And the threat has been removed.

Q: We had sanctions, we had satellites, we were bombing.

McClellan: Let's talk about why it's so important, what we're working to accomplish in Iraq --

Q: I want to know why we're still there killing people, when we went in by mistake.

McClellan: We are liberating people and freeing people to live in a democracy. And why we're still there --

Q: Do you think we're spreading democracy when you spy and put out disinformation and do all the things that -- secret prisons, and torture?

McClellan: I reject your characterizations wholly. I reject your characterizations wholly. The United States is helping to advance freedom in a dangerous region of the world.

Q: -- recognize this kind of --

McClellan: For too long we thought we had stability by ignoring freedom in the Middle East. Well, we showed -- we saw on September 11th --

Q: -- 30,000 plus?

McClellan: Well, Helen, we can have a debate, or you can let me respond to your questions. I think this is an important subject for the American people to talk about. By advancing freedom and democracy in the Middle East we're helping to protect our own security. It's a dangerous region --

Q: By killing people in their own country?

McClellan: Well, I reject that. We're liberating and freeing people and we're targeting the enemy. We're killing the terrorists and we're going after the Saddam loyalists.

The right wing punditry are coming up with examples of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter spying on Americans without a warrant. They are lying to you.

They claim that Clinton's "super-secret" program called Echelon spied on Americans without a warrant or judicial oversight. This is a lie. Echelon complied with FISA. George Tennant, then-CIA director, testified to this before Congress in 2000:

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.

O'Reilly has retreated ever so slightly in his bogus "War on Christmas." Up until very recently, he claimed that the phrase "Happy Holidays" was offensive to "millions of Christians" and "insulting to Christian America." But recently, he backed down saying:

Giving credit where credit is due, congratulations Bill O'Reilly for not being quite so big a moron.

Dollie went to a thespian party for her students last night, so I took the kids to pick out her Christmas present.

ME:
"Okay, people, we're going to get mama somthing for Christmas, what should it be?"

ROZZY:
"A present!"

MAX:
"I diamond ring!"

ME:
"Oy."

MAX:
"A pet goldfish!"

ME:
"Mama doesn't want a goldfish."

MAX:
"A pet guinea pig!"

ME:
"Mama has two kids and three cats. She doesn't want any more pets."

ROZZY:
"Jamamanas!"

ME:
"My mom already gave Dollie some pajamas."

And on it went. We eventually settled on a few things and I got the kids to bed and the gifts wrapped before she made it home from her party. Christmas shopping is done.

Again.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 judges who sit on the secret FISA court resigned yesterday in protest of Bush's domestic spying program. He said that Bush's actions tainted the work of the FISA court.

At yesterday's press gaggle, someone pointed out to McClellan a Bush quote from earlier in the year:

At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan was asked to explain why Bush last year said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." McClellan said the quote referred only to the USA Patriot Act.

So, when Bush said "any time" he meant "any time when we're discussing the Patriot Act." That clears things up nicely.

[cough]

Cheney cut short his overseas trip to rush to D.C. and cast the deciding vote in the Senate for cutting funding to medicare, student loans and programs for the poor. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans are getting a break on their capital gains taxes.

I'll be honest. Without the student loan program, I wouldn't have gotten a college education. I wouldn't have gotten a good job and I wouldn't be in a position to complain about my taxes (not that I ever do, Mr. Gonzales). Paying for this tax cut on the backs of the poor is a disgrace.

Merry Christmas Chaney. May the yule log slip from your fire and burn one of your houses down.

Abramhoff is flipping. This may be a Merry Christmas indeed for Democrats.

One of the really great things about this time of year is that Congress takes a long holiday and therefore has less time to mess things up. The House of Representatives closed up shop three days ago and aren't scheduled to come back until Jan. 21.

The Senate, however is still in session thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. The senator is singlehandedly holding the Senate in session over the defense appropriations bill. Coburn put a provision in the bill to allow drilling in ANWAR. The Senate has aleady rejected this, but Coburn thought if he put it in the defense bill, it would go through.

Instead, the Senate could not get cloture on the bill, so they're still in session. It is now clear that the bill won't pass with the ANWAR language in it.

The web is atitter with questions about Bush's decision to subvert judicial oversight and use the NSA to spy on Americans. In Newsweek, we learn that Bush was so desperate not to have word of this progam leaked, he summoned the executive editor and publisher of the New York Times to the White House to try and keep a lid on it. Fortunately for us, they decided that Bush's motivation wasn't national security, but the knowledge that revealing the program proves Bush is a lawbreaker.

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Two things wrong with that statement (at least). Gonzales said the power was implicit in the presidential powers and authorized by congress when they passed the resolution authrizing force in Afghanistan. So, he says it is legal because Congress gave Bush the power. But, they couldn't ask specifically for the power because Congress wouldn't give it to them. The second is that the revelation of the program is not going to kill the program. That's what Bush said yesterday.

The bottom line for me is that, whatever Bush's intentions or motivations were, there were legal ways for Bush to do this and he chose not to bother. Plus, he's lied about his reasons why this was necessary. I don't trust him.

Pat Robertson is taking a new tact in the war on evolution. He's now saying that people who believe in evolution are worshiping atheism, therefore evolution is a "cultish religion" and shouldn't be allowed in the public schools.

Interesting. For one thing it causes him to admit that religion shouldn't be allowed in public schools. That's progress.

Meanwhile, the AP reports that a Pennsylvania judge has decided that the Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when they voted to include Intelligent Design as part of the science curriculum. Here's the money quote:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," [District Judge John E.] Jones wrote. "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

It's dressed up creationism and the Supreme Court has already decided that creationism cannot be taught as science in publc schools. I should also point out that the citzens of Dover voted out the school board members who pushed this agenda.

I slipped up and told Dollie what I have gotten her for Christmas. It was a dumb mistake on my part and, in my defense, I really thought she already knew. So, I made reference to it and she picked up on it and . . . well . . . here I am.

Unlike myself, Dolls likes to be surprised for Christmas. This detail became evident a couple of years back when I told her I had ordered her Christmas present and she started guessing what it was. When she got it right, I told her so. She got mad because she didn't really want to know.

My argument was "well, why were you guessing?" That didn't fly. So, four days out, I've got to come up with a plan B.

Bush help a press conference this morning. I'll save you some time by giving you the short version:

"Spying on Americans without court oversight is legal because I say it is legal. Whoever blabbed committed a shamefull act. We're at war. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. God bless, America. Oh, and I'm not stopping."

For those playing along at home, here's an important bit of information. It's called the Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush says he derives his right to spy on Americans without a court order from the Constitution (which specifically forbids it) and the Congressional resolution authorising the use of force against al Queda (which doesn't mention domestic spying). Does this bother any conservatives out there? I know it's got to be tearing up the libertarians and the liberals, but how do the conservatives feel about a president who is spying on American citizens without oversight or probable cause?

For the record, using the government to secretly spy on American citizens was one of the articles of impeachment for Nixon.

Bush claims that one reason he needs a secret program to spy on Americans is because he needs to "move fast on his feet." He has a need for speed. The problem with that (and the fact that proves it's a lie) is that the current FISA law allows the NSA to get a warrant retroactively -- meaning you can go ahead and spy, then clear up the paperwork later. Now, I'll set aside the Constitutionality of FISA for a later time. But it is clear that Bush didn't need the secret order to speed up the process. You can't get faster than "go ahead and we'll clear the paperwork later." Of course FISA is a law for foreign intelligence gathering and Bush's spying was domestic. Here's what some of the major papers had to say:

The NY Times: "Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant - just as he had earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror."

Saw "King Kong" or as my kids (and Regis) call it, "King-a Kong-a." It was a thrill ride that lasted a little longer than was comfortable for me. The effects were astounding, the story was cool, the references to the earlier film were a nice touch and there's virtually no chance for a sequel.

Celebrated Christmas with my Mom on Saturday morning. Both my brothers came with their families. It was nice to see everyone. What was especially appreciated was that my brothers and I are able to spend the time together without arguing politics or religion. There were plenty of little jabs here and there, but that's the way it's always been and a gathering without them would have been . . . uncomfortable.

The first photo is Dan with his son, Will. Right before that photo was taken, Dan was holding his daughter's new Cabbage Patch Kid. When he saw me pull out my camera, he threw it down so I would have a photo of him holding a doll. He used to not be that quick. Heh. So he picked up his son and said that was the only baby I could photograph him holding.

After brunch broke up, we did some Christmas shopping and went to my brother Dan's house for dinner. He put on a great spread and we all had a good time. He even took me to his office to show me "where the magic happens" when he writes Conservative Corner.

Scott told me an interesting story. He said he was looking for a place online to get his master's degree. He wants to continue his religous studies and an online program will fit with his busy schedule. He said he looked into a number of places and all were expensive, but one. He said this one site offered him a master's program for less than $600. He emailed for more information and they told him he qualified and that if he sent the money, they'd send him a certificate.

"They didn't want me to take any courses or tests," he said. "They just wanted the money. I said 'That's not going to help me.'" In the second photo, Scott demonstrates how the light went on and he realized this was a scam.

So we ate too much, compared hair- and waistlines and exchanged gifts. It was a good day.

The Bush administration refuses to comment on the Plame leak case because they say they won't comment on an ongoing investigation. Bush himself said it would be wrong of him to prejudge the investigation and that he shouldn't comment. But he felt perfectly fine about declaring Tom DeLay innocent of money-laundering charges.

Hmmm. When reporters picked up on this, Scott McClellan said the policy has not changed. Bush was just exercising "presidential prerogative." This sounds an awful lot like the "It's legal because I say it's legal" argument, which is darn close to Nixon's (paraphrasing, here) there are some things that are illegal that when it's the president doing them, aren't illegal.

I get the occasional comment from people asking me to stop criticizing Bush and support him because "all presidents make mistakes." That's a pantload of a cop out. Bush deserves the criticism because he refuses to acknowledge his own mistakes. He still insists that, even if he knew there were no WMDs or connection between Iraq and al Queda, he would still invade.