Right Wing Nut House

The New York Times reports this morning that after examining documents pertaining to the response by government officials to Hurricane Katrina, that there were “missteps at all levels” and that the Bush Administration knew of the damaged 17th Street levee which eventually put 80% of the city underwater on Monday night instead of Tuesday afternoon.

To briefly address the issue about the levee, it appears that the Times, in their continuing effort to blame the Bush Administration for the disaster, have cherry picked one report out of hundreds that were flooding into FEMA headquarters on Monday evening (the day of the storm) and offered it as “proof” that the Administration failed to act in a timely manner with regards to the levee break:

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency official, Marty Bahamonde, first heard of a major levee breach Monday morning. By late Monday afternoon, Mr. Bahamonde had hitched a ride on a Coast Guard helicopter over the breach at the 17th Street Canal to confirm the extensive flooding. He then telephoned his report to FEMA headquarters in Washington, which notified the Homeland Security Department.

“FYI from FEMA,” said an e-mail message from the agency’s public affairs staff describing the helicopter flight, sent Monday night at 9:27 to the chief of staff of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and recently unearthed by investigators. Conditions, the message said, “are far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting. Finding extensive flooding and more stranded people than they had thought — also a number of fires.”

Mr. Marty Bahamonde, is listed in the FEMA Staff Directory as a “Public Affairs Specialist.” Not to take anything away from Mr. Bahamonde who I’m sure is a dedicated public employee but if the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, and others at FEMA who are more technically competent are telling me one thing and a PR “Specialist” is telling me something else, whose information do you think should be acted upon?

A brief look at the Katrina Timeline I amassed from the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports should make things a little clearer.

Late Monday morning, the National Weather Service announced that the 17th Street Levee “gave way,” flooding about 20% of the city. At this point, the system of massive pumps designed to keep Lake Pontchartrain at bay were working at maximum capacity - and fighting a losing battle. According to this report, by late Monday evening, the water was still rising slowly from the damaged levee.

It was at this point that Mr. Bahamonde took his helicopter survey and reported to DHS headquarters that things “are far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting.”

What were those media reports based on? Why information coming from city officials and state DHS employees of course. And as far as those officials knew, the Army Corps of Engineers was dealing with the problem of the levee:

Officials of the Army Corps of Engineers have contingencies for levee breaches such as the one that happened Monday, but it will take time and effort to get the heavy equipment into place to make the repair. Breach repair is part of the corps’ planning for recovery from catastrophic storms, but nobody Monday was able to say how long it would take to plug the hole, or how much water would get through it before that happened.

In fact, the Engineers hadn’t even started, mostly because the overtopping of the levee was much more extensive than the Corps itself realized. They couldn’t get their equipment to the point of the breach due to flooded roads and the the Corps’ massive cranes placed on boats couldn’t navigate the swollen canal.

On Tuesday morning, the water was still rising, something that mystified officials.

By Tuesday afternoon, it became apparent that the pumps were going to fail and the city would be inundated.

Recall that the Administration was saying on Tuesday morning that they had “dodged a bullet” because the damage from the hurricane would evidently be minimized. Even Mr. Bahamonde’s report didn’t mention that the pump system would be unable to handle the flooding as of Monday night.

What ended up “surprising” the Administration - and every one else - was that by early Tuesday evening, the water pouring in from Lake Pontchtrain overwhelmed the pumps causing them to shut down. This is what caused the massive flooding.

To say that this could have been forseen in the dark, on Monday evening, by a PR “Specialist” is absurd. Again, taking nothing away from Mr. Bahamonde, but if you were Michael Chertoff and received a report that, if acted upon would have meant transferring millions - perhaps tens of millons of dollars of resources, wouldn’t you want that information coming from someone who was in perhaps a little better position to know? Especially when local officials were telling you something totally different.

Let me make it clear that this does not in any way excuse the wildly incompetent response by FEMA to this tragedy. But for the Times to try and shift blame to the White House based on an email that contained a report predicting dire consequences unless something was done when the Administration was getting dozens of other reports telling them differently, only shows an inherent bias on the part of the Times that has become all too commonplace.

If all this sounds familiar, consider the way the Times handled leaks from intelligence analysts about Iraq WMD. They used the same method of cherry picking reports that questioned whether or not WMD was there while ignoring the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 clearly said the opposite.

As for the rest of the article, there are no major surprises. The move of FEMA from independent agency to an arm of DHS was cited as a major cause of government paralysis, something I pointed out here months ago. And horse impresario Brown (who testifies before the House DHS Committee today), and the disaster tag team of Blanco-Nagin all come in for their share of blame. But as I said here, the politics of disasters have changed enormously:

When all is said and done. When all the fingers have pointed and tongues wagged. After the dead are buried, the hearings held, the pundits pontificate and bloggers blog, it all boils down to this; a force of nature that no one could stop raised a mighty fist a slammed it down on a city and people that didn’t deserve it. It’s a tragedy. It’s an act of God so blame him. “Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minues to hours?” is a line from Gordon Lightfoot’s The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. For both believers and non-believers alike, blaming God is not an option.

So in the end, politicians will get their pound of flesh. A fat lot of good it will do for the people of New Orleans or which ever city is next in line to feel the random wrath of Mother Nature.

The votes are in from this week’s Watchers Council and the winner in the Council category is Glittering Eye for “Our Liberties Are Our Liberties, Even if, and Especially if, That Pisses Mohammed Off.” Finishing a very close second was Dr. Sanity for “Guess What, Professor Cole?.”

In the non Council category, Neo-Neocon came in first with “A Mind Is a Difficult Thing To Change — Part 6 B (After 9/11: War Is Interested In You).”

If you’d like to participate in the weekly Watcher’s Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

As more information is released about issues surrounding the top secret NSA intercept program, we’re finding some things that are cause for relief and others that continue to be worrisome. And we are seeing that most delicate of dances in our democracy - the jostling involved in trying to delineate the balance of powers - played out for the most part with a surprising care by members of all three branches of government.

I say surprising because even most Democrats on both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees seem to recognize the enormous stakes involved and are moving cautiously. Of course, some of the minor actors on both sides are posturing shamelessly, angling for headlines and face time on the talk shows. And then there’s Kos and Company who, in the end, are going to have about as much impact on this debate as their idiotic, screeching denunciations deserve. But looking over the landscape as it exists at the present, I think we can say that there appears to be a willingness not to force a Constitutional crisis over the issues brought out by the warrantless searches and instead, reach a suitable compromise with which all sides can live.

THE EXECUTIVE

Following what most observers say was a mediocre showing by Attorney General Gonzalez before the Judiciary Committee, the Administration was faced with a choice; continue to try and beg off informing Congress about even some of the bare bones details of the NSA program or try and enlist the lawmakers in an effort to keep the program viable. Their hand was pretty much forced when Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM), Chair of the House Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee which oversees the NSA, threatened to conduct a “complete review” of the program unless a fuller briefing was forthcoming.

At a meeting yesterday, the full Intelligence Committee of the House was given a briefing by AG Gonzalez and General Hayden of the NSA on not only the legal justification for the program but also what Wilson has called “minimization procedures and mechanisms in place and reviews conducted to ensure full compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other laws protecting the privacy of U.S. persons.” Following that meeting, several members including some Democrats expressed surprise and relief at how carefully the program seemed to be tailored.

In one sense, the Administration’s cooperation with Congress was the right thing to do. Yes it might impinge on Presidential prerogatives but at the same time, the Administration read the writing on the wall. Several prominent Republicans in both the House and the Senate have demanded more information from both the NSA and the Department of Justice and the Administration realized their wiggle room had almost disappeared. Just how far this cooperation goes will depend on what the Congress will end up doing with both the NSA program and FISA.

CONGRESS

There appears to be a movement in the Senate to bring the NSA program under the auspices of the FISA court. Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced he is drafting a bill that would “require the administration to take the program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.” And Senator Sam Brownback seemed to get on board by saying “I think there’s a decent shot at crafting legislation to make the FISA court a more workable option” for setting guidelines for the surveillance program. He said he wants “a separate set of eyes involved in this to provide safeguards.”

What makes this move significant is that rather than have the Justice Department (and probably NSA lawyers) as the final arbiters regarding who is targeted by the program, the Congress wants to assert its authority by retroactively giving its blessing to the program while also requiring the Administration to go hat and hand to the FISA court in order to continue it. Senator Chuck Hagel explains:

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said in an interview that the “balance must be preserved between the executive branch and the legislature. And I think this is a clear example of where the balance has gotten skewed. . . . The administration cannot unilaterally assume that they have the answers to get around or go over a law.”

Clearly Hagel speaks for a lot of legislators, both Republican and Democratic, who have viewed the Administration’s aggressive domestic security initiatives with something of a jaundiced eye. The President has not been shy about exercising what he sees as executive branch war time powers in order to keep the country safe. Congress, as Congress is want to do, is extremely jealous of its own prerogatives. And thus we have a tug of war between the two branches where both sides are sincere and both may be right.

THE COURTS

Here is where the courts come in. And if this curious article in today’s Washington Post can be believed, what has been going on in the FISA court is at the same time puzzling and worrisome:

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush’s eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly — who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.

Essentially, the Chief FISA judge was concerned that 1) FISA was not competent to determine whether or not the program was legal, and 2) information from the program not be the sole basis for future FISA warrants. In other words, the Post lede is misleading because the doubts raised by Judge Kollar-Kotelly were not about the actual legality of the program but rather about the standing of the FISA court itself to judge Constitutional issues.

But Kollar-Kotelly’s complaints about tainted wiretaps are a serious issue as we’ve already seen. It is likely that more than one terrorist will attempt to use these revelations as grounds for release from custody.

As Hugh Hewitt has pointed out, in some ways, by taking the two ranking FISA judges into their confidence regarding the NSA program, the Administration may have undercut some of its legal rationale:

The “deal” seems to me to assume that the president lacks the authority to order the NSA surveillance his government put into place, and also seems to arbitrarily burden the FISA process with a new procedural hurdle, one developed by one or two judges, never communicated to their colleagues on the FISC, and never reviewed by an appeals court.

Mr. Hewitt also questions some of the Chief Judge’s unilateral decisions about how NSA information would be handled by the FISA court as well as taking the Department of Justice to task for not “testing” the President’s authority by forcing the FISA court to act.

I wouldn’t dream of crossing Hugh Hewitt on a matter of law but I think the situation with the FISA court points up the Administration’s extreme caution. They knew they were treading in dangerous Constitutional waters and evidently felt insecure enough about the legality of the program that they took the two top FISA judges into their confidence. The judges in turn did their job by requiring DOJ lawyers to get corroborating evidence not based on the warrantless intercepted communications in order to get a FISA warrant. The fact reported in the Post - that there were only two instances where the arrangement didn’t work - should be reassuring. It appears that both branches of government were doing their jobs.

We only have one Constitution. And while I don’t agree that it is a “living” document in the same way that liberals do, it certainly is elastic enough. Over the years, it has been pulled and stretched by the Legislative and Executive branches in a constant battle to exercise power. This is what the framers saw. It’s what they wanted.

Now, if we could only keep the political Mickey Mouse to a minimum, we can get on with the task for protecting the country from terrorists as well as an overreaching executive and a grasping legislature.

The scene is becoming painfully familiar. At what used to be considered the most inappropriate times imaginable, the left has chosen solemn public occasions to vent their hatred and disgust at Republicans, conservatives, and even the President himself. And while there is something to be said for freedom of speech on any and all occasions, one can certainly question whether or not funerals and national tragedies like Hurricane Katrina are fit circumstances to engage in the kind of rancorous, partisan speechifying that have marked the funerals of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, Corretta Scott King, and the immediate aftermath of the destruction of the Gulf Coast.

The way in which one determines appropriate and inappropriate behavior in society has been evolving for more than 500 years. In a very large way, democratic society cannot function without an agreed upon set of manners and behaviors that grease the wheels of discourse and allow for differences of opinion that, in earlier times, would have led to physical combat. Good manners and civility then are not just artificial social constructs which dictate suitable public conduct, but necessary components that make up the nuts and bolts of democratic government, as important as a written constitution to the smooth functioning of our republic.

In order for these constructs to have meaning, all must accept them. But judging by what we have seen from the left in recent years, it appears that this necessary compact regarding civil discourse has been broken and behaviors that previously were considered out of bounds have now become a staple of their unreasoning and pathological hatred of their political opponents.

Just a few days prior to the 2002 midterm elections, a memorial service was held for Senator Paul Wellstone, tragically killed in a plane crash. The service was attended by 15,000 people including nearly half of the United States Senate, several House members, and other local Republican dignitaries. One who was not there was Vice President Dick Cheney who had announced that he would participate but had been rudely disinvited. This sign of extraordinary disrespect to the office of Vice President was an omen for what followed. For what should have been an event that commemorated the life of someone who by all accounts was a good and decent man turned into a partisan slugfest by Democratic speakers who brought the cheering crowd to its feet several times with partisan attacks on Republicans.

It was a shocking display of inappropriate behavior. In addition to cheering wildly at the speeches, the crowd booed lustily when recognizable Republicans like Senator Trent Lott (then the Majority Leader) were introduced. CNN and other TV outlets later explained that they felt they couldn’t cut away from what had become a campaign rally because it was a “memorial service.”

One could make the argument that since the election was literally hours away, such a display was inevitable. I totally reject that notion based on the idea of simple, common decency. Republicans who were also friends of the late Senator had come to pay their respects and were instead used as props in a political passion play, targets to be struck again and again by partisan attacks by Democratic speakers . How can anyone claim that using someone - even a political opponent - in this way was fitting behavior during a funeral?

For the left, good manners and deporting oneself with a minimum of courtesy and respect has no meaning in a political context. Since the 1960’s, it has become more important to “speak truth to power” than maintain even a semblance of decency in conducting political discourse. This has allowed the left to justify shouting down political opponents while claiming to be exercising free speech, an ironic contrivance that seems to have escaped their understanding.

It has also allowed liberals to claim the moral high ground where none exists. Witness the funeral on Tuesday of civil rights icon Corretta Scott King. The Reverend Joseph Lowery, who took over the leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference following the death of Martin Luther King, gave a speech that in content and tone could only be considered “political.” It was given solely to embarrass the President of the United States (whose own speech was a model of restraint and decorum). The Reverend Lowery accused the President of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as well as making a barely concealed charge of racism:

“She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar,” Lowery said. “We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.”

He was followed by President Carter who didn’t even bother to conceal his belief that the President is a racist and used the occasion to criticize the NSA intercept program:

“This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over,” former Democratic President Carter said to applause. “We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”

Carter, who has had a strained relationship with Bush, drew cheers when he used the Kings’ struggle as a reminder of the recent debate over whether Bush violated civil liberties protections by ordering warrantless surveillance of some domestic phone calls and e-mails.

Noting that the Kings’ work was “not appreciated even at the highest level of the government,” Carter said: “It was difficult for them personally — with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI.” Bush has said his own program of warrantless wiretapping is aimed at stopping terrorists.

Certainly both Lowery and Carter have a perfect right to make any accusation they think they can get away with at any time. I am not denying their right to do so. What I’m saying is that there is a time and place for everything - and a funeral is not a place for partisan hackery. To use the President of the United States as a punching bag at an event to commemorate the passing of a great American does not contribute to the national dialog nor does it bring honor to the dead. It is a simple exercise in tastelessness.

In a pre-emptive attack on the right who are blasting away at this breakdown in civility, leftists have offered the novel idea that it was entirely appropriate to use the President as a punching bag despite the fact that his presence - not of the man but of the office itself - does an enormous honor to the King family. Jeralyn Merritt:

The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m wondering why Bush was granted speaking privileges to begin with? Their lives have nothing in common and I doubt they were close friends.

If, as we are constantly reminded by the left, that we are a nation of laws and not of men, why is so difficult for Ms. Merritt and other liberals to see that respecting the office of President is so much more important than hating the man who occupies it? Are they that small minded? Are they so consumed with rage that they cannot see the insult done to the office does not damage Bush half as much as it injures the dignity of the Presidency?

John Aravosis goes even further. He accuses the right of “Samboing” the funeral:

How dare a black man not know his place at a funeral, they’ll say. As if the Republican party and its surrogates have any right whatsoever to speak on behalf of Mrs. King, to tell black America what they can and cannot do to honor one of their most revered leaders.

How we got from the right criticizing Democrats for a lack of common decency to the left accusing Republicans of racism is beyond me. As if manners and modes of behavior weren’t the same for all, regardless of race? I guess if you throw enough crap at the wall some of it is bound to stick.

The obvious answer as to why use the funeral of a prominent person as a vehicle for political diatribes is the ubiquitous presence of television. And therein lies the real transgression. For in addition to using their political opponents who are present, the speakers at the Wellstone and King funerals tarred millions of the President’s supporters with the same racist coat of feathers. It is unthinking. It is unworthy. And if we weren’t used to it by now it would be shocking.

That’s because if anyone had any illusions about the left’s claim to moral superiority one need only look at the aftermath of the Katrina tragedy. Almost before the hurricane winds that ravaged the city of New Orleans stopped blowing, the left was blaming the Bush Administration for the plight of the victims. Not only that, there were charges that the government “didn’t care about black people” which is why aid to the nearly destroyed city was so slow in coming.

Arguments about the competence of the federal government’s response have been raging since the tragedy and it is not my intent to add anything to them. The point is one of common decency; while thousands of their fellow citizens were still in need of rescue in a life and death situation and with hundreds of bodies floating in the flood waters, the left deliberately chose that moment to initiate a partisan political attack the likes of which have rarely been seen in this country.

Accusing the government of incompetence is one thing. Accusing them of murder is another. And the thinly veiled charges that the Bush Administration deliberately withheld aid to the nearly destroyed city of New Orleans because it is made up of mostly black people while the rest of the country was riveted by the efforts to save lives would be unbelievable in any other age, any other time.

If there was any doubt that we have entered a new era in American politics where nothing is sacred, no occasion too solemn for partisan attack, the King funeral should disabuse one and all of that idea. With the blanket TV coverage that such events afford and with the need to feed the ideological frenzy of their base, don’t expect any change in the left’s behavior anytime soon. Only the disapprobation of the public will cause them to think before acting in such a disgusting manner.

And as long as that behavior is seen by the media as acceptable, that is not going to happen.

UPDATE

The Anchoress weighed in first on this topic. And said it much better than I did. Read the whole thing

Betsy Newmark mourns a “lost opportunity” to honor the memory of the Kings. Very true.

UPDATE II 2/10

Tom Bevan is on pretty much the same wavelength that I am.
 

I will be upgrading my Wordpress platform this afternoon and the site may experience some downtime.

In addition, I will be completing my indoctrination into the Pajamas Media super secret blog club and will soon have the mind control ads directly on my website. Please make sure you have your tin foil hat securely on your head whenever you visit as I wouldn’t want to see you corrupted like me.

Now, excuse me while I count all that Pajamas Media money…

UPDATE

Almost done. Still waiting on PJ Media to send the ads from hell to place on the sidebars. And we still have to tweak a thing or two in the guts but how do you like it?

The font is a little bigger which is good for us old folks whose eyes are failing them. And, joy of joys, several issues that had been plaguing this site for months have been addressed:

1. Those who use Netscape 7.0 and above should now have no problem seeing the blog.

2. Comments and Trackbacks should now have no problem going through whatsoever. I’d be interested to know if your comment has been denied in the past and now shows up so give it a try and let me know.

3. The archives are still an issue but we’ll be addressing that.

4. Comments on the changes are welcome.

My Zsu Zsu watches the Game Show Network late at night. She says it helps her get to sleep but truthfully, I don’t see how that’s possible. There is something mesmerizing about game shows that some Madison Avenue flunkie figured out nearly 60 years ago, almost like watching a bad skin flick but without the “redeeming social value.”

If you get a chance, you simply must watch some of the ancient and honorable game shows from the 1950’s that are rebroadcast on GSN after midnight. Beat the Clock is one of my favorites. Ordinary New York (or occasionally New Jersey) couples are forced to accomplish the most challenging but unremarkable tasks in so many seconds. There’s just something riveting about watching a man trying to deflect ping pong balls into a small pail with his hands tied behind him by thrusting his stomach into the path of the balls thrown by his wife. Or a woman catching marbles in her mouth thrown by her husband, knee walking across the studio floor, and having to spit them into a paper cup (no Styrofoam back then).

This was one of the highest rated prime time shows of its day.

Without a doubt, however, the greatest game show ever invented was What’s My Line? The half hour show was a mainstay on network television for 17 years and featured panelists who had to guess the occupation of ordinary people by asking a series of questions that could only be answered “yes” or “no.” The panel featured the lovely actress Arlene Francis, Broadway columnist for the old New York Post Dorothy Killgallen, and one of the founding editors of Random House Bennet Cerf. The banter by the panel was witty and literate - almost like a televised Algonquin Round Table while some of the occupations they had to guess were hilarious. For example, a “lumber herder” shepherded logs from streams and lakes in the north woods and directed them to the shore where trucks would take the to the mill.

But the highlight of every show was a “Mystery Guest” where the panelists would have to put on these ridiculously huge black blindfolds so they couldn’t see the celebrity sitting with the host. The mystery guest would try everything to trick the panelists. Men would use falsetto voices to try and make the panelists believe they were a woman and so forth.

At any rate, what got me thinking about the show was this recent flap about the Mohammed caricatures and how the Islamic fanatics are using it to force a clash of civilizations with a west. Can you imagine an episode of What’s my Line that would feature one of these suicidal jihadists as a Mystery Guest pitted against the witty, urbane, liberal panelists? Imagine some of the questions:

Is your line of work considered dangerous?
Do you have to wear any special equipment to do your job?
Is this something I could do with the proper training?

I’m sure you could come up with your own questions. The point being, the panelists could ask a hundred questions and still not be able to guess our jihadist’s occupation. It is so far beyond our capacity to understand a mind that would consider it a proper response to a mildly offensive cartoon to burn an embassy or behead an infidel that the Mystery Guest may as well be from another planet. At bottom, that is what this “Cartoon Intifada” is all about. While the controversy is being driven by men who know exactly what they’re doing, the poor schmucks who are held in thrall of the holy men’s message don’t have a clue. They have no more idea what freedom of speech means than most of us have of quantum mechanics.

This is a special kind of cluelessness; a closing off of independent thought. And until we get around that and are able to penetrate the wall the separates Muslims from the modern world, there will be many more intifadas with the exact same results.

Stupidity always accompanies evil. Or evil, stupidity.
(Louise Bogan)

Got that right, dog!
(Me)

***************************************************************************

Adam Graham has a first class post on the book Prayers for the Assassin by Robert Ferringo in which he takes apart the premise - an Islamic takeover of much of America - in expert fashion. Fascinating read.

Orac weighs in on the Cartoon Caper by responding to an unsolicited email from a Muslim who seems a little peeved. Orac’s sensible response is a lesson to us all.

Jack Cluth has a few choice words for the rioters in the streets of Arabia. Good to see many lefties on the side of the angles on this issue.

Dan Meslon has a thorough, thought provoking look at abortion. He covers every angle - political, legal, and moral - and has some interesting conclusions.

In case you were unaware, there is real momentum building in Washington to look into the case of missing Iraqi WMD’s being sent to Syria and maybe even Iran. Our lovely Carnival Pin-Up girl Pamela has the latest and skewers the Democrats for ignoring the issue.

Two Dogs reprints part of a study showing black spending habits. Wildly politically incorrect but since it was written by a black person, one must take it for what it is - a wake up call that will go unheeded.

Raven returns to the Carnival with a post on the clueless UN and how John Bolton has his hands full even trying some basic reforms - like members showing up on time for Security Council meetings.

Have Alta Vista open in another window because those Pompadoured Pachyderms at Elephants in Academia are blogging a French website that is full of la chauve-souris de la lune.

Van Helsing proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a leftist, is a leftist no matter what country he’s from.

Is there anyone uglier than Janis Karpinski? Tony B. doesn’t think so. I think he’s right.

Resistence is Futile presents “What the left is thinking.” I thought the post would be much shorter.

AJ Strata is imploring the clueless Democrats to carry through on their threat to run on a platform of impeaching Bush.

The lovely Mensa Barbie puts the Palestinian elections in perspective, calling for a cut off of funds to the murderous terrorists in Hamas. Yes please.

The equally lovely Wonder Woman wonders what the Arabic word for “irony” is when looking at some of the clueless statements from Muslims over the cartoon imbroglio.

Here it is! Your weekly fix of Carnival satire from our stable of excellent writers!

Our favorite hippie chick Peace Moonbeam is in Cuba casting a baleful eye at Gitmo.

Mr. Right has a hilarious series of pictures entitled “The Democrat Family Album.”

Welcome newbie Potfry who writes of the frantic search by Arabs for a Danish flag to burn.

Buckley F. Williams presents “Top 9 Signs Your Religion May Not Be So Peaceful.”

I tried my hand at satire this week with “CRAZED ISLAMISTS TORCH NORSE EMBASSIES: PAYBACK FOR “THE 13TH WARRIOR”

Sixteen Volts brings us “The Wisdom of Feminism.”

Kender has penned some “Songs for the Fatwa.” How about “House of Zarqawi’s Son.”

“Praise undeserved, is satire in disguise”. (Alexander Pope)

Miriam wonders what the difference is between Hamas and Fatah. Not too damn much.

Cao brings to our attention a Mr. Richard Erlich, a journalist who has set out to deliberately lie in order to damage the cause of Jack Idema.

DL at TMH Bacon Bits writes about Cluebat Hall of Famer Jesse Jackson’s impeachment speech. I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of these over the next few months.

Jay at Stop the ACLU has the jaw dropper of the day as the so called rights group is defending protesters who desecrate military funerals.

Jeffrey Strain has a smorgasbord of links following cluebats who are clueless about money.

Bill Karl wonders where liberals will go now that Canada has gone to the Tories. Just don’t send them here. We’ve got enough moonbats of our own to worry about, thank you.

Mark Coffey has the skinny on Cluebat Hall of Famer John Kerry and his attempt to lead the troops in an 11th hour filibuster against Alito.

As regular readers of this site know, I like to involve myself in discussions on the weighty questions confronting the country. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t contribute in my small, insignificant way to the national conversation on a variety of issues. War, peace, taxes, ethics, the law - anything and everything that tickles my fancy and that might engage my readers and other bloggers in conversation is fodder for this beast of a blog.

Then there are times when I read something so illustrative of both the looniness and loutishness of liberals that I have to take time to examine it. First, you have to figuratively remove it from the bottom of your shoe for it is usually so fetid and corrupt that you don’t know whether to forget about it and toss it in the “poop bag” or, overcome with curiosity, place the offending offal under a microscope and inspect it to discover its pathology.

In the case of Antonia Zerbisias, it might be a good idea to wear a full bio suit in order to read this diseased rant:

While Muslim religious extremists are rioting in the streets of Beirut, Gaza City and Kabul, Scandinavian embassies are being torched and Jordanians are deprived of their Danish feta over cartoons that were never actually published in any legitimate newspaper, the right-wing blogosphere has been staging its own “blogburst”: the act of reproducing the offending depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.

It’s a “simultaneous, co-ordinated posting by a large group of webmasters and bloggers on a given topic,” says Israpundit who, along with Michelle Malkin, who is like Ann Coulter but not as funny and not so skinny, are leading the cartoon crusade.

Follow their politics and you’ll understand why they’re on this particular blogwagon: they hate Muslims. In fact, if they were to write about Jews the way they sometimes do about followers of the Prophet Muhammad, they’d be denounced as anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers.

First of all, I hardly feel the need to defend the willowy Malkin from the verbal onslaught of someone whose picture brings to mind the sharply defined features of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H* not to mention a body that brings back fond personal memories of a large canvas sack that I used to use as a hammock in the back yard.

But hey! That’s just me…

At any rate, getting to the maggoty portion of her rant (still wearing that bio suit, I hope!) her entire screed is based on the erroneous conclusion that conservative bloggers are republishing the cartoons because they hate Muslims.:

No doubt, the Kartoon Karnage Kapers are inexcusable, and threaten to escalate into even more senseless death and destruction. That’s why the absolute glee with which this has been received by the online cons strikes me as so puzzling. Do they enjoy the blood sport of watching out-of-control Muslim mobs in the streets?

It’s also bemusing to see how they have suddenly declared solidarity with the heretofore “appeasers” of Europe for republishing the cartoons.

In issuing their fatwa on the Muslims who are calling for the heads of people whose mightiest weapon is the pen, the North American pyjamahadeen have gone too far, using the incident as another reason to bash Muslims and sow further divisions between what are already “clashing civilizations.”

It’s like they have been waiting for just this opportunity.

Yes, dearie…”no doubt” you see “glee.” What else you can see with blinders on is a different question for another day. But how one can translate the passionate defense of the freedom of speech into “hate” and “glee” is the work of sheer, obstinate ignorance. Your point is one I partially agree with - that republishing the cartoons far and wide is not being helpful and is probably causing millions of ordinary Muslims pain. But the fact remains, it is a perfectly legitimate exercise in free speech to republish those cartoons as a way to show solidarity with people who have been forced into hiding in fear of their lives. While it is true that a small minority of conservatives hate all Muslims (you know…like the way you hate all conservatives), to paint Michelle Malkin and the overwhelming majority of conservative bloggers who are reposting the caricatures with the kind of broad brush your small minded rant appears to do is not only unworthy of someone who writes for a major newspaper but also demonstrates a shallowness of thought not uncommon with people of your ideological ilk.

And, dearest readers, if you thought our Antonia was a little off her noodle in what she’s written before, get a load of this:

To be honest, I think that, here in Canada anyway, our Muslim communities are too diverse and too embedded in our culture and society for any kind of concerted reaction.

As for violence, I would guess that Muslims are more victims than perpetrators.

After all, when Irshad Manji published her controversial The Trouble With Islam: A Wake Up Call for Honesty and Change in 2003, no harm ever came to her despite so many — again right-wing — bloggers’ musings that it would. That said, their fears helped Manji move a lot of books around the world.

Frankly, we’re a lot more tolerant society than our own intolerant right would like to believe.

Which makes me wonder who the real hate-mongers are: those who are cut off from modern communications technology and are more easily subject to the machinations of ignorant clerics — or those that should know better and who claim to be morally superior.

There is almost a dreamlike quality to those words; as if our Antonia lives in that delicious pre-wakeful state when you’re not sure whether or not the dream you just had was real. Best thing to do Antonia is pinch yourself honey because unless you wake up pretty quick, you are gonna be one disappointed Canuck.

I wonder if the name Salomon Rushdie rings a bell. And the fact that one insignificant Canadian author who wrote a book mildly critical of Islam didn’t get beheaded you see as forbearance on the part of the wild eyed fanatics, only shows you either to have the critical thinking skills of my pet cat Snowball or the naivete of a 7 year old. Let’s hope it’s the latter since Snowball is actually quite intelligent and I’m sure a much better conversationalist than you are.

People you call “hatemongers” for standing up for what they believe in - despite the fact that I personally think it wrongheaded and hurtful - are doing something with our liberty that absolutely must be done every once in a while. Our freedoms must be taken out and exercised vigorously or else, like unused muscles, they will atrophy, wither, and die.

Keep your hate to yourself, Antonia. And while you’re at it, try reading a little bit about our enemies from some other source besides the Daily Mail. They are the ones who believe we are in a clash of civilizations. And not to acknowledge that fact is almost as dangerous as handling one of your hate filled screeds.

UPDATE

Ace takes on the jewbaiting issue:

Gee, I don’t know. Perhaps it has something to do with the rather central tenet of liberal democracy that all ideas, no matter how offensive to some, should be responded to peaceably. Bad speech should be countered with good speech. Not with arson and rioting and murder and calls for terrorism.

As for the charge that Holocaust deniers would be called anti-Semites: well, yes, they would be, and they are. But again, the distinction that seems to elude this apologist for murder is that offensive speech should be met with more speech, not with molotov cocktails.

Not only that but all anti-Semites are not Holocaust deniers. In fact, many modern day Nazis brag about wanting to “finish what Hitler started.” Of course, if you’re like the Iranian President, you can be both and still be welcome in liberal circles as long as you’re anti-Bush.

NOTE: I had to republish this due to technical difficulties.

UPDATE II

And what does Our Miss Malkin think of being used as a foil in dear Antonia’s screed?

You show me one ounce of glee expressed on this website over the conflagration, and I’ll show you one ounce of genuine, unqualifed concern expressed by Ms. Zerbisias over the senseless Cartoon Jihad bloodshed of victims such as Father Santoro.

I’ve no more time to waste on Zerbisias and her ilk in the media who want to lecture us all about being hate-filled and misinformed–while spewing hatred themselves and refusing to fully inform. Glenn Reynolds and readers dispense with her most effectively here.

Youch! I felt that all the way over here.

I don’t ordinarily write about criticism leveled at me by another blogger. That way lies madness - not to mention idiotic flame wars that solve nothing and get enormously tiresome after a while. Besides, given the amount of flack thrown my way by liberal bloggers just for the name of this site, I’d be at it until next Christmas. Somehow, they all think they’re being original thinkers when they say something profound like “Duhhhhh Rightwing Nuthouse…How appropriate heheheheh…” Now if they could only learn to close their mouths and breathe through their noses, that would be an intellectual triumph for which they could write home to their mothers about.

I don’t know exactly what it is about this particular moonbat’s criticism that set me off. Maybe it was the sheer idiocy of it. Maybe it was the double blind partisan hackery for which this particular blogger is justly famous. Or maybe that I’m getting a thin skin in my old age and all the criticism I’ve gotten from conservatives lately has led to something building up inside me until I just can’t hold it in any longer and I just have to explode into a righteous rant of unreasoning fury.

Last evening, I wrote a pretty straightforward analysis of the NSA hearings as I saw them. I didn’t indulge myself much in the way of partisanship. In fact, I wrote that most of the Democratic Senators asked some tough questions that Gonzalez had a hard time addressing. I also wrote that Gonzalez gave a good account of himself, especially in his opening statement. In short, aside from some penetrating political analysis about where the Dems scored and the fact that there’s trouble down the road for the White House if the Committee calls some Department of Justice dissenters whose concerns about the program were addressed by former AG Ashcroft when the program was just getting started, my piece probably wasn’t much different than what you’d find on just about any other serious conservative’s website.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this lickspittle lefty of a blogger took that post and blatantly misrepresented both the tone and thrust of it:

Truly, this controversy is less about security than it is about faith. I offer this example from Right Wing Nut House [emphasis added]:

AG Gonzalez acquitted himself well but was at a huge disadvantage. Because of the secrecy of the program, he was unable to reveal details that could have buttressed his case that the Administration’s warrantless interception of American citizen’s communications was inherently legal based on both exceptions to the FISA statute and the authority granted by the President by Congress when that body authorized the use of military force after 9/11.

Such a beautifully pure faith makes one want to weep. If only it weren’t so misplaced.

First of all, it’s clear Mr. Maha never read the post. Or if he did, he chose to deliberately misrepresent what I wrote. But what is really telling is that he, along with all but a handful of lefty bloggers have decided without knowing more than the surface details of how the NSA intercept program actually works that the President has broken the “law” and should be impeached.

This is, on its face, idiocy. And I would say exactly the same thing of righty bloggers who make the opposite claim - that there’s no doubt that the program was legal and constitutional. To say that the intercept program does or does not violate FISA or that it absolutely falls under or absolutely doesn’t fall under the President’s legitimate exercise of his power under Article II of the Constitution is equally batty. No one knows. And the reason, Mr. Maha, that no one knows is because of its secrecy! To call that self-evident fact “faith” is to reveal not only a towering, deliberate ignorance on your part but a casual kind of stupidity one would expect to see from a 15 year old whose linear thinking is dominated by thoughts of ice cream and sex.

It doesn’t seem to enter into the heads of lefties like Maha that there is even a controversy over whether or not the law has been violated. Instead of a classic argument involving the separation of powers with a concomitant subtle exercise in critical thinking, what we get from blowhards like Maha is “neener neener neener” and other deep thoughts.

I would love to see this controversy treated seriously by both sides. But since the Democrats seem hell bent on trying to make political hay out of it (a losing proposition I might add), it seems pretty clear that nothing will be resolved and no great questions of Presidential vs. Congressional power answered. This is what serious people are talking about Mr. Maha. And as long as anal retentive lefties like you continue to run around with blinders on, no one - certainly not the American people - are going to take you seriously. There’s a reason you lose election, after election, after election. It’s because it’s impossible to give a party power where a sizable portion of it - yourself included - is so hell bent for leather on “getting” the President that you look like escapees from an institution for the criminally insane rather than rational members of the “reality based community” you are always bragging about belonging to.

–end rant–

UPDATE

Just found out that “Mr.” Maha is actually a woman. At least I think it is. Anyway, let this be a lesson to you. To paraphrase Bill Murray when talking to the groundhog while making his getaway in the stolen truck “Don’t write angry…”

Am I the only one who thinks that this year’s story is advancing just a little too slowly?

The writers appear to be in love with exposition this year. Instead of action packed sequences that leave us breathless with anxiety, awaiting with bated breath next week’s installment, we get a lot of thumb sucking, head shaking, and “character development.” For God’s sake guys! This is a TV show not Shakespeare in the Park. If I wanted insight into the human condition, I’d watch Will and Grace. Or maybe Meet the Press - especially when Ted Kennedy is on.

Fleshing out the relationship between President Jellyfish and his Nutzo wife is all well and good but let’s move it along. And the gratuitous inclusion of Fat Hobbit Lin’s junkie sister was jarring to the sensibilities and undermined the narrative flow - especially given that we probably won’t see her for a few hours.

More time wasters? Jack and Audrey going back and forth about Porn Star Kimmy. Just kidnap her already and be done with it!

In short…faster please. Usually by this time we have a larger body count, more plot twists, and a few more shockers, although Anessa’s revenge against Rossler ranked as one of the more satisfying moments so far. Given the way she handles that gun, maybe she and Porn Star Kimmy can team up and both of them can become rogue agents going after pedophiles and international scumbag sex slave traffickers. Maybe they can even have 24’s first spinoff show - Not Quite 21.

That’s a show I just might make time to watch.

SUMMARY

Following Ivan the Terrorist’s threat to unleash the nerve gas on American soil, Jack and Logan grill Cummings about what else he knows. We learn that the “Mystery Man” is a former CIA agent James Nathanson and that Cummings actually thinks he is some sort of “patriot:”

LOGAN: What the hell was your goal Walt? Explain that to me.

CUMMINGS: We’re patriots, Mr. President. We were acting in the best interests of the country.

LOGAN: How is any of this in our best interests?

CUMMINGS: Shoring up a strategic partner in the War on Terror? Assuring a stable flow of oil? How is any of that not in the national interest?

Nathanson chose his man well. Cumming’s arrogance and belief in his own superior judgment about what is in the vital interest of the nation was played expertly by the ex-CIA man who, it appears, may in fact be working with the terrorists after all. When CTU failed to get in touch with him on Cummings cell, it may indicate that Nathanson doesn’t feel he needs Cummings anymore or, he somehow knew that Cummings was compromised. If the latter, that would mean there’s another mole somewhere.

Feeling that his part in the drama is done, Jack makes ready to disappear again only to be stopped by Jellyfish who appeals to Jack’s patriotism and asks him to stay on until the crisis is over. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this may be the first time someone has appealed directly to Jack’s love of country in 5 years. While Bauer is a slave to duty and often has personal motivations for what he does, his sacrifices for his country were always placed in the larger context of concern for his fellow man not necessarily for Americans. His patriotism was always implicit, never articulated. Anyway, I was glad to see it.

Ivan the Terrorist discovers he needs to reconfigure the triggers for the nerve gas in order to carry out his nefarious plans. His contact in Russia puts him in touch with Jacob Rossler, a nightmare of a sleazeball who not only has the morals of a marmoset but is also the personification of The Evil Geek - a software whiz who agrees to help Ivan fix the nerve gas cannisters so that he can set them off.

The writers try to humanize Fat Hobbit Lin by introducing us to his junkie sister Jenny, a completely unnecessary intrusion in the show except perhaps as one more terrorist kidnapping target. Asking for money from her bureaucrat brother, Lin agrees to take time out of his busy day to meet her.

Ivan the Terrorist finds a machine shop where the nerve gas cannisters can be opened so that the serial numbers can be programmed into the magic chip that Rossler is making for him. They enlist young Mac, a machinist who happened to be in the shop while everyone else went to lunch. Not a good time for Mac to draw the short straw for lunchtime duty.

Jack calls Audrey and asks her to contact Porn Star Kimmy and bring her to CTU but not tell her that her father is alive. Um…right. And just what excuse is Audrey going to use to get Kimmy to come to headquarters? Let’s do lunch and a little shopping?

Meanwhile back at the ranch Nutzo Martha confronts Jellyfish over his craven inability to tell her himself that he was going to recommit her to the mental institution. After telling her spineless husband that she “didn’t come to fight,” she proceeds to deliver the most satisfying slap in the history of the show right across Logan’s flabby face. The blow seemed to have an effect on Jellyfish. In fact, it acted as sort of a gonad transplant. When Novak suggests they initiate a cover-up of Cumming’s perfidy, Martha suggests otherwise; a come clean statement to the American people:

LOGAN: You may be overestimating the public’s capacity for forgiveness.

MARTHA: No, I’m not. The only thing they won’t forgive is being lied to. I think you should issue a statement to the press. And the sooner, the better.

Showing a completely uncharacteristic decisiveness, Jellyfish agrees with Martha and they both get to work on the mea culpa, or what H.R. Halderman famously said in planning the Watergate cover-up, the “hang-out route.” Halderman had several degrees of the “hang out route” including my favorite, “the modified, limited hang out route” which is what they ended up doing. We all remember what happened there.

CTU has traced Rossler’s call to Ivan to an office building downtown. The security matrix in the building is almost unhackable. So while Jack and Curtis ready themselves to confront Rossler, Chloe begs Bill to release her geek lover Spencer so that he can use his geek magic to get CTU into the security grid at the office building. Bill reluctantly agrees and Spencer does his thing. Jack and Curtis make their way up to Rossler’s penthouse which is guarded by two sleazeball security men. Not for long as Jack (who must have been itching to use his gun, it being more than an hour since his last kill) expertly guns down the guards and bursts into Rossler’s office. After winging the Evil Geek, Jack checks the bedroom only to find a 15 year old doe-eyed Anessa who was evidently “sold” to Rossler as a sex slave. Jack’s protective instincts go into high gear as he promises the girl she is safe - for a while anyway.

That’s because Rossler has CTU over a barrel and he knows it. Only he can lead the boys to Ivan the Terrorist. Jack and Curtis play bad cop/nightmare cop as Jack does the threatening and let’s Curtis have a little fun with the Evil Geek’s wounded leg. Not getting anywhere, Fat Hobbit Lin orders Jack to give the pedophile a deal that would grant him immunity and whisk him out of the country with young Anessa. Even though Rossler talks, Jack is still sickened by the thought of the teenage girl being in the clutches of slimeball Rossler who informs the boys that Ivan will call back within the hour to set up a meet in order to install the new chip which will allow the terrorists to detonate the nerve gas.

Back at CTU, Chloe reluctantly informs Spencer that his services are no longer required - either at the office or, we assume, in her bed. Fat Geek Edgar congratulates her:

EDGAR: That was hard but you did the right thing.

CHLOE: Shut up Edgar.

Edgar smiles a horny geek smile. Maybe he thinks he’ll get her on the rebound?

And the Hobbit? He slips away from the crisis to meet with his junkie sister Jenny who, after discovering that her loving brother will not give her any money, sics her junkie boyfriend on Samwise who seems to have lost some of his fighting skills when he made the move from Middle Earth. At the very least, he sure could have used some mithral to protect him from the blows delivered by junkie boy.

After finishing the statement, Martha and Logan are called out into the hallway where we discover that Cummings has pulled a Judas Iscariot and hung himself with his Brooks Brothers tie. Sic Semper proditor!

Jack gives Anessa the bad news that she must go with Rossler, at least for the time being. He promises that nothing will happen to her, that she will be rescued eventually. Obviously not believing our hero (not believe Jack?), she pulls a gun a kills her tormentor. This leaves our boys in a quandary as Ivan the Terrorist is about to call back and set up a meeting place so that Rossler can install the chips. Not only don’t they have Rossler anymore, but we haven’t seen the chip yet. And CTU is no closer to getting the nerve gas than they were at the beginning of the hour.

CELEBRITY SIGHTING

Senator McCain delivered a folder to Audrey in the CTU conference room in a split screen cameo. I guess if you’re a US Senator and a fan of 24, you get to be on the show. Or maybe he played a little slap and tickle with the producer? The Hollywood casting couch would never be the same.

BODY COUNT

Jack takes care of two security guards. Ivan plugs Mac the machinist. Anessa sends Rossler to hell.

JACK: 9

SHOW: 32

Sorry…suicides don’t count! However, if we find out later that Cummings was murdered, we will add him to the count.

UPDATE - SPECULATION

Some good speculation in this thread over at Lori Byrd’s Polipundit post. Several commenters also think the Cummings suicide was just a little too convenient.

If the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the NSA intercept program were a boxing match, the Democrats would be ahead on points after the first couple of rounds - but just barely.

AG Gonzalez acquitted himself well but was at a huge disadvantage. Because of the secrecy of the program, he was unable to reveal details that could have buttressed his case that the Administration’s warrantless interception of American citizen’s communications was inherently legal based on both exceptions to the FISA statute and the authority granted by the President by Congress when that body authorized the use of military force after 9/11.

Necessarily having to engage in generalities, the AG was at his worst when penetrating questions by Senators Leahy and Feinstein went to the nuts and bolts of whether or not the program spied on American citizens where both ends of the conversation took place in this country. He was at his best when he carefully outlined the program’s legal rationale in a very good opening statement that fleshed out the Department of Justice white paper originally claiming that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) was a trigger that allowed the President to use expanded powers granted him by the Constitution.

Exhibiting none of the personal attacks that came off so poorly in the Alito hearings, the Democrats mostly behaved themselves, even going so far as to suggest that the program may be necessary in order to protect the country. With the exception of Russ Feingold whose wildly exaggerated charges of illegality was in sharp contrast to the more subdued charges of his fellow Democrats, it was clear that the Democrats strategy was to point to certain inconsistencies in the Administration’s defense as it has emerged over the last 6 weeks and raise questions about both the legal justification for the program and the way it has been administered.

Republicans on the other hand performed a Kubuki dance with Gonzalez, making statements of support that Gonzalez would pick up and expound on. There were two notable exceptions. Senator Specter said he was “skeptical” that the AUMF rationale for the expansion of Presidential powers to justify the intercept program would fly. And Senator Lindsey Graham actually made what I thought was an excellent point:

“This statutory force resolution argument that you’re making is very dangerous in terms of its application for the future.” He added, “When I voted for it, I never envisioned that I was giving to this president or any other president the ability to go around FISA carte blanche.”

Graham said that “it would be harder for the next president to get a force resolution if we take this too far. And the exceptions may be a mile long.”

I think Graham is exaggerating but his point is well taken. Perhaps it isn’t such a bad thing that Congress, when authorizing the use of force, think about how a President might use this power in the future.

From a political standpoint, the Democrats bloodied the AG when pointing out some of the President’s statements on the issue of warrantless searches in the past as well as the Administration’s curious reluctance to amend FISA to include the program despite several opportunities since 9/11 to do so. The AG’s explanation - that the President was concerned about the program’s secrecy - seemed a little lame and forced at times and I think the Dems scored. This WaPo article sums up some of the inconsistencies authored by Bush over the last several years:

It is one of several explanations on the topic from Bush and his aides, who have provided at least two separate rationales for why they did not ask for statutory authority for the program. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the administration had considered seeking legislation but determined it would be impossible to get, adding later in the same news conference that authorities did not want to expose the program’s existence. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has echoed the latter point, saying the administration feared that details of the classified program would be exposed publicly.

The subject is one of several elements in the NSA spying debate that have been clouded by apparent contradictions and mixed messages from the government since the program was revealed last month. The confusion has cleared up little in recent days, as the White House has embarked on a multi-pronged campaign to defend the legality of the controversial program.

Gonzales and other officials, for example, have repeatedly said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs secret surveillance in the United States, is too cumbersome to be applied to the NSA eavesdropping program. Yet the Justice Department raised concerns about a 2002 bill to loosen FISA requirements.

There is also an issue lurking in the wings that may come out and bite the Administration in the near future. And that is that the NSA program has undergone several revisions since it was initiated, mostly at the behest of lower level DOJ attorneys who feared the program went over the legal line and spied on Americans without a warrant. Attorney General Ashcroft apparently addressed many of their concerns but the information begs the question; how big is the scope of this program and are there other aspects to it that may in fact be illegal?

Democrats wish to call these witnesses but the AG brushed them off with the statement that they were all on board with the program in its current incarnation. If Specter and Graham were to vote with the Democrats to call the DOJ dissenters, expect the Administration to resist strenuously even to the point of claiming executive privilege in the face of subpoenas.

If it comes to that, there will be blood on the floor of the hearing room as the AG will be hauled back and forced to justify Administration intransigence. It won’t come to that if the Republicans hold firm but that should be an interesting sidebar to watch over the course of the hearings.