Right Wing Nut House

What a political clusterf**k for the Bush Administration.

There really is no other way to describe the monumental stupidity, insensible decision making, and PR disaster that the sale of port management responsibilities to DP World has become for the the rabbit heads at the White House.

I’d ask what were they thinking but posing such a question assumes that there are at least two working brain cells among officials in the entire executive branch of government. And judging by what we’ve heard in justifying this decision the last few days, I may be giving them more credit than they deserve in the localized distribution of neurons.

No less than 12 agencies and departments signed off on this idiocy including our Homeland Security Department but not, evidently, the people who would have to go to war if this decision blows up in our faces and something catastrophic happens; the Department of Defense:

In a press briefing today, Secretary Rumsfeld revealed that he was not consulted about the decision to transfer operations of six key U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates, a country with troubling ties to international terrorism.

QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?

RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

A small detail of note is that Rummy’s Defense Department is supposed to be part of that Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) that voted “unanimously” to okay the transfer to DPI. Would someone like to explain how the Secretary was not informed or briefed on this decision until this past weekend?

On its surface, there really is little to be upset about with allowing the Dubai based company to handle the management of the ports. DPW has contracts at ports all over the world and has proved itself competent enough. There would be a minimal change in employees at the six ports in question. Ships would still have to be offloaded by the Longshoremen, as patriotic and security conscious bunch as there is in the United States. And as AJ Strata rightly points out, actual security of the ports would still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and the Port Authority.

So what’s the problem? The problem is in the atmospherics of this deal.

The problem is with the tone deaf bureaucrats of CFIUS who okayed this deal in the first place. They may have gotten some DoD flunky to vote for it in Committee but not bothering to brief the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff about it only contributes to the notion that they are not taking port security very seriously.

The problem is with the incompetence (or arrogance) of the supposedly vaunted White House political operation in treating this deal like a routine transaction when the involvement of a Middle Eastern country whose toleration and support for the Wahhabi brand of Islam was sure to cause trouble on the Hill. Then there’s also the minor matter involving the UAE being a banking Mecca for terrorism. I find it more than a little ironic that monies we’re pouring into the banking system of that country could be used to plan and carry out attacks against our own country.

The problem was in not recognizing that the deal would give your ravenous and out of control enemies on the left and in the press a great big T-Bone steak of an issue to chew on in the immediate aftermath of the Cheney debacle. These are people who were gnawing on your leg while bodies were still floating in the floodwaters of New Orleans. Just what in God’s name were they thinking?

The problem is that given the lukewarm response of our government to the cartoon jihad, the President’s strongest and most vocal supporters would see this deal as one more nod, one more cave-in to Muslim sensibilities rather than the good business deal it almost certainly is. Taking the base for granted in anything is bad politics. In this case, it demonstrates an ineptness that would be troubling if we weren’t getting used to it by now.

Finally, the problem is President Bush. One of the major reasons we went to war in Iraq and have sacrificed so much was based on the idea - a good one - that after 9/11 we couldn’t take the chance that Saddam would make common cause with al Qaeda and supply them with weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t important how likely that possibility was at the time. The point was that we just couldn’t take the chance.

And now here we are 3 years later and we are taking what I believe is a similar chance that a company owned by a state that has refused to recognize Israel, that acted as a waystation for al Qaeda in the lead-up to 9/11, and despite protestations to the contrary, is run like a Medieval fiefdom with trafficking in white slavery, illegal arms, and drugs some of its more unseemly activities. It is “stable” only as long as Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum - “Sheik Mo” as he is called by his subjects - can keep the lid on the resentments of the hundreds of thousands of foreign workers who live in virtual slavery and who do the scut work that the natives and western contractors don’t feel like doing.

But here is the President yesterday showing that now famous obstinacy that serves him well at times but in this case only makes him look arrogant and disconnected from reality:

President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration’s decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.

Mr. Bush’s rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company’s acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.” ‘

The President wishes an explanation why a Middle Eastern country should be held to a “different standard” than the Brits? Is he kidding?

How could DPW being in charge of the management of our ports facilitate a terrorist attack on the United States? Do you want to find out? And therein lies the problem for the President. He and the CFIUS could give us assurances from here to doomsday but the fact remains the possibility is there. And if our security is all about not taking chances - which I believe is a sound policy - then this deal is a slap in the face to the men and women who overthrew Saddam Hussein and are working their tails off to make Iraq into something resembling a democracy.

The only way to salvage the situation now is for the White House to agree to hold hearings on the matter, let the politicians grandstand to their heart’s content, and then quietly kill the deal when the hubbub dies down.

Otherwise, the President is going to find himself alone at the end of a very short plank. And Republicans are not going to join him in walking it.

UPDATE

I find it laughable that the left is waving the flag on this issue. If they showed one tenth the outrage at illegal immigration - a problem that poses a security risk 100 times more serious than the ports issue - then they might have some credibility when it comes to talking about “playing politics with our security.” Opinion Journal:

As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports “is a homeland security accident waiting to happen.” Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.

So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for “hearts and minds” now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it’s terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That’s all sure to play well on al Jazeera.

Why do liberals believe that gimmicky stands on issues like this will prove to people that they are to be taken seriously when it comes to the security of the nation?

Talk about tone deaf….

UPDATE II: BUSH IN THE DARK

AP is reporting that President Bush didn’t know about the ports deal until it had already been approved by the CFIUS:

While Bush has adamantly defended the deal, the White House acknowledged that he did not know about it until recently.

“He became aware of it over the last several days,” McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, “That’s correct.”

“The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process,” the spokesman said. “He made sure to check with them — even after this got more attention in the press, to make sure that they were comfortable with the decision that was made.”

“And every one of the Cabinet secretaries expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction being approved,” he said.

Ooookay…How these guys figured that this wouldn’t be a huge todo in the media and the Congress is beyond me. They didn’t even think that it was worth briefing the President before the Committee took a vote to get his input?

Bush seems to me to becoming more disinterested in what’s going on lately. He may have “hit the wall” as marathon runners say in that the constant warring may be contributing to some kind of Presidential burnout. The same holds true for his staff. Would they have made this kind of gigantic miscalculation in Bush’s first term?

I wonder…

UPDATE III

Michelle Malkin on the security angle:

The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn’t. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

The Journal and the Bush administration make no persuasive case that it was.

Michelle is talking about the WSJ editorial I linked to above that actually supports the deal.

Most of us who have an abiding interest in politics can point to an event, or an issue, or even a person that galvanized our souls and turned us on to both the entertaining theatrics and passionate, heartfelt by-play that makes the inner workings of our democracy such a marvelous spectator sport.

For me, it may surprise you to learn that it was not a Republican or a conservative that first piqued my interest in politics but rather a liberal Democrat. Hubert H. Humphrey was a smallish man but his energy, humor, quick wit, and sunny disposition made him seem larger than life.

The 1964 Democratic Convention was my first real introduction to politics as I came to know and love it. At the age of 10, I was already reading the great political columnist Mike Royko whose hilarious insights into the less than honest workings of Mayor Richard J. Daley’s Chicago political machine was the stuff of legend. But the convention that year would be my first lesson in politics as theater, a drama played out on a national stage with heroes, villains, and colorful personalities galore. Without a doubt, the most outsized personality on display during the convention was that of the Senator from Minnesota and putative Vice Presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey.

There was tremendous drama at that convention. Not in who was going to be the nominee but on the convention floor. Mississippi’s all-white delegation was having their credentials to be seated challenged by a rival delegation made up of both blacks and whites. It was the Old Guard against the New South and the issue of Mississippi’s credentials was roiling the entire convention. In American politics, there are times when it is too painful or divisive to talk about an issue directly. Instead, we surround the problem and obscure its true nature by dealing with the atmospherics of it in such a way that we can debate the issue without tearing ourselves apart.

Such was the situation with the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party as the insurgents called themselves. The overarching issue was voting rights for African Americans. But the convention chose to address it by debating which delegation had a right to sit on the floor.

In the end, a compromise was reached allowing for representatives from several rival Mississippi delegations to be seated. And in a historic decision that was to have unseen consequences, the national Democratic party committed itself to requiring all delegations be integrated for future party gatherings. The left would take this decision and in later years, make the Democratic party a vessel for identity politics by requiring specific percentages of not just African Americans, but women, homosexuals, and every other minority group who could wangle seats from the party’s leadership.

All that lay in the future. In 1964, with the death of President Kennedy still fresh in everyone’s mind and Viet Nam a barely discernible blip on the nation’s radar, the question to be answered following the credentials fight was who would President Johnson name as his running mate? Humphrey was the front runner but there were rumblings from the delegates who thought that either Bobby Kennedy or Sargent Shriver, Kennedy’s brother-in-law, should get the second spot.

Johnson, who could be cruel and vindictive, had decided on Humphrey weeks before the convention but left the Minnesota Senator dangling uncomfortably all week. He then called Humphrey into his presence and grilled the Senator unmercifully about his private life. Humphrey emerged from the meeting shaking with anger at the treatment Johnson had meted out but within hours was his old, sunny self backslapping his way from delegation to delegation and treating people to his own special brand of oratory.

Humphrey had earned the sobriquet “The Happy Warrior” thanks to one of the more principled and decent stands ever taken by an American politician. At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Humphrey, at that time the Mayor of Minneapolis, was instrumental in ramming through a civil rights plank in the party platform that caused Lester Maddux, Strom Thurmond, and other southerners to walk out of the convention. The “Dixiecrats” would run Thurmond for President that year but it is Humphrey who is remembered and honored. His speech in support of the plank, considered one of the greatest political speeches ever, was a clarion call for fairness and decency:

To those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this, that the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”

Just three years prior to that speech, Humphrey had led the effort to unite the old Minnesota Farm-Labor party with the national Democrats to form the Democratic Farm Labor Party (DFL), one of the most active and influential state parties in American history. The impact of both the DFL’s policy positions and its personalities on the American political scene through the 1980’s was astonishing.

They were in the forefront of civil rights issues, the environment, arms control, food stamps, and a host of other social issues long before most national Democrats dared to talk about them. Except Hubert Humphrey who rarely needed an excuse to give a political speech. Humphrey loved the DFL with a passion and to his dying day sought to keep the party vibrantly engaged on issues important to liberal Democrats.

It was his acceptance speech at the 1964 convention that held me mesmerized and inspired my lifelong love of politics. To get an idea of what it was like think of Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican Convention last year and multiply the intensity by a factor of 10. Humphrey absolutely skewered Barry Goldwater. In a sing-song style that was both rousing and entertaining, Humphrey attacked Goldwater by ticking off a list of Great Society programs that moderate Republicans had voted for, always ending with the refrain “but not Senator Barry Goldwater!” After two or three examples, the entire convention picked up the refrain and would scream with one voice on cue “but not Senator Barry Goldwater” and roar with laughter and applause. It was electrifying. And it was great political theater.

But there was no malice in Humphrey’s words. Humphrey respected Goldwater and, in later years, developed a good working relationship with the Arizona Senator - as many old liberal Democrats did when their party kept moving ever leftwards, ever more defeatist on foreign policy issues especially with regards to the Soviet Union and Communism.

Humphrey was a gentleman, a patriot, a dedicated public servant, and great legislator. We may look upon many of his ideas today as wrong headed. But his advocacy for those less fortunate among us was heartfelt and genuine. If he failed to see the consequences of creating a welfare state, a culture of dependency, and other nightmares that have come about as a result of a government grown too large, it was not out of a desire for personal power. He was a humble man who was motivated to do good. If that be a sin, then would that there were 534 transgressors just like him in Congress today.

What would Humphrey think of his creation, the DFL today? Considering the fact that today’s incarnation of the party of Humphrey, Mondale, and Wellstone is asking its members to help deny American veterans of the Iraq war their rights guaranteed under the Constitution to free speech, I daresay that the Happy Warrior is weeping in his grave. Herre’s DFL Chairman Brian Melendez in an email message to members:

I’ve heard from many of you that you are disturbed by the misleading “Midwest Heroes” ads produced by Progress for America Voter Fund that are currently being run by KARE 11 and WCCO. The ads erroneously make a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists attacks and suggest that the war in Iraq will prevent an attack by Al Queda in America.

[...]

Right now, our state is a testing ground for these ads. If Minnesota speaks out and says no to this ad, the entire country can thank us. What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06.

The Progress for America ads feature soldiers and their families talking about the war in a personal way, asking Americans to continue to support the mission until it’s completed. The problem, according to Chairman Melendez, is that he and the DFL disagree with the sentiments expressed in the ad:

DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez called a news conference to call the ad “un-American, untruthful and a lie.”

“Minnesota has a chance to take a stand against this misleading and untruthful propaganda,” he said. Referring to controversial ads that ran during the last presidential race, he said, “Minnesota TV stations should pull this ad and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of ’swift-boating’ anymore.”

To call the opinions expressed by soldiers and their families propaganda is ridiculous on its face. If Mr. Melendez can prove that the people featured in the ad aren’t real or are not really expressing their true feelings, then he may have a case. But no one has stepped forward to offer any proof of that nor can they. It is simply a blatant attempt to silence a point of view the DFL doesn’t agree with, something Hubert Humphrey would have squelched before it got out of whatever committee meeting this idiotic idea was hatched.

John Hinderaker adds this:

So now soldiers who support the war they fought in are “un-American.” Unbelievable. And, by the way, does anyone have any idea what “Swiftboating” is supposed to mean? Is that when a veteran says something that liberals disagree with? Is it when a serviceman publicly describes events that he participated in and witnessed with his own eyes? I’m not sure just what the criteria are, but it seems clear that only veterans and servicemen can be guilty of the dreaded crime of “Swiftboating.”

Read the rest of the Powerline piece as John and the guys work over their favorite target, Nick Coleman, for his outrageous claims about the Progress for America ad.

Although a conservative, I always admired Hubert Humphrey and the DFL. They both represented what is best in American politics; strong, heartfelt principles, decency, and a concern for their communities and the country at large. You could strenuously disagree with their ideas. But you would be hard pressed to criticize their sincerity or their love of country.

Considering what the DFL has turned into in the last 10 years or so - a tired echo of the national Democratic party with little in the way of principle or original ideas - I would think that it would be unrecognizable to Senator Humphrey and the small band of reformers who, in the face of overwhelming opposition, stood up for the equality of the black man so many years ago and pricked the conscience of an entire nation.

UPDATE

Powerline has more today on the PFA ad issue.

And my friend Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker goes me one better on Humphrey - his parents were active in the DFL and they actually knew HHH. Tom gives some wonderful thoughts of his own on a man who I am discovering today inspired a whole helluva lot of conservatives to become interested in politics.

From Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker, we hear the news that the “Saddam Tapes” which were scheduled to be unveiled at the Intelligence Summit this weekend will instead air tonight on ABC’s Nightline.

The tapes, which have been verified by the House Intelligence Committee, are said to contain conversations between Sadaam and his top aides well into the year 2000 talking about hiding WMD, attacking Washington, and other topics of interest. Drudge just broke the story and we have this that just popped up on the CNS News Service website:

(CNSNews.com) - Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC “Nightline” program Wednesday night, a former federal prosecutor told Cybercast News Service.

The tapes are being called the “smoking gun” of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The panel’s chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), declined to give the Sun details of the content or context of the recordings, saying only that they were provided to his committee by former federal prosecutor John Loftus.

Loftus has been tight-lipped about the tapes, telling the Sun only that he received them from a “former American military intelligence analyst.” However, on Wednesday he told Cybercast News Service, “Saddam’s tapes confirm he had active CW [chemical weapons] and BW [biological weapons] programs that were hidden from the UN.”

First of all, a word of caution is in order.

The Duelfer report made clear that interviews with dozens of Saddam loyalists revealed that his top aides routinely lied to the dictator about having WMD. However, this could be a cover story by the aides who could have worked one up prior to the invasion. Or, it could be the truth. It could very well be that Saddam was talking about WMD he didn’t have.

That said, the program should give us a fascinating glimpse into the mind of one of the most brutal dictators in history.

Another aspect of this story that should give us pause is that the tapes come to us via a man named John Loftus. Loftus is known as something of a gadfly in intelligence circles and his book about the Nazi connection to the Vatican and American intelligence has been criticized for sloppy research. That said, Loftus really has nothing to gain from trying to perpetrate a fraud and the House Intelligence Committee felt them important enough to verify and examine.

Will the tapes change any minds? Not very likely. They may cause a flurry of “I told you so’s” on the right and “it doesn’t matter’s” on the left. But beyond that, the MSM could be sitting on a 155mm binary nerve gas shell and still insist it needed more proof of Iraq WMD.

UPDATE

Hah!

Lori Byrd beats the rush so to speak and issues a statement proclaiming her belief that there were WMD in Iraq all along. She’s got the links to prove it, too!

UPDATE II

Mr. Lifson is on a roll today:

Slowly, very slowly, we are beginning to discover what happened to the WMDs of Saddam. The left and the antique media have made it an article of faith that there never were any WMDs, and that “Bush lied.” So deep is their investment in a political position premised on this conclusion that they will pay no attention to contrary evidence.

Via Peter Glover’s website Wires from the bunker, we learn of an interview between Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s and a personal friend of the dictator and Ryan Mauro of Worldthreats.com.

Only two weeks ago, General Sada, formerly Sadaam’s no 2 Air Force Commander, told the New York Sun that Sadaam’s WMD was moved to Syria just six weeks before the US-led invasion. Now Ali Ibrahim confirms this and explains the underlying strategy of Saddam.

Read the whole thing for a pretty plausible explanation. The important thing is, Mr. Ibrahim confirms what Mr. Sada said 3 weeks ago about WMD being flown out of the country to Syria.

So what does all this mean?

As I said in the post, this is not likely to change many minds about whether or not the Iraq war was worth it. And failing Syria coming out and admitting that Saddam shipped his WMD’s prior to the invasion to Damascus, it’s not likely that the “WMD to Syria” story will get much play in the MSM.

In the end, the more evidence that emerges that Bush wasn’t lying about WMD, the more the media and the Democrats will play down the story. A sad commentary on the times.

UPDATE III

Goldstein weighs in with his usual perspicacity:

What will be most interesting to watch is the amount of the coverage this receives. I suspect the next stage of legacy media denial will come in the form of, “because ‘intel agencies’ and other unnamed sources have expressed no clear consensus about what these tapes signify, we are simply being circumspect about our reporting.”
Of course, had somebody suspected Dick Cheney of keeping a flask of whiskey in his hunting vest, that would be a different story entirely…*

Yep.

And Jeff also has a blurb from the Newsweek Disaster Tag Team of Isikoff and Hosenball who inform us that 1) this is old news. 2) it’s not really important. 3) intelligence professionals aren’t impressed.

I find that last assertion laughable. There is no group in the United States of America with more of a vested, vital interest in our not being able to find any Iraq WMD’s than our so-called intelligence professionals.

Entire careers are at stake here. To believe anything about Iraq WMD’s coming from that crew is loony.

UPDATE IV

I just heard excerpts of the tapes. Nothing conclusive. Nothing earth shattering. Saddam was a thug who wanted WMD. We knew that. Did he have any at the time we invaded? Yes. Massive stockpiles? Probably not. Enough that he would have moved them to Syria? Unknown.

Does it matter anymore in a political sense? Not to me. Taking out Saddam was the logical next step in the War on Terror.

Representative Hoekstra of the House Intelligence Committee reminds us there are still nearly two million pages of documents from this thug’s regime. If history is any experience, it’s best we get to reading that stuff.

The West German Goverment requested we return all the documents that fell into our hands at the end of World War II in 1953. How long before the new Iraq government does the same?

Al Gore is once again visiting overseas so it’s time for him to perform his specialty; over the top, exaggerated, hysterical anti-American rhetoric with a healthy dose of Bush bashing to boot.

I wrote here about the ex-Vice President and TV mogul wannabe and his trip to Sweden where the inventor of the internet daydreamed about what the world would have been like if only he had been elected in 2000 instead of George Bush.

Not to be outdone, this time Gore is in Saudi Arabia groveling at the feet of the Sheiks of Araby by pandering to their most base notions of the United States and feeding their paranoia about Washington:

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and held in “unforgivable” conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida’s hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Please note that our Creepy Veepy is talking about the round up of Muslim dissidents that occurred following 9/11. If your memory is a little hazy, let me refresh it for you. It was a great time. We rode our horses through Dearborn, Michigan lassoing any Arab who dared show his face, penned them up in cattle cars, and then drove them to that secret detention center in Utah where rabid Mormons tried to convert the prisoners to Christianity.

Or…the ex-model for the book Love Story is lying through his teeth.

Were Arabs detained following 9/11? Why yes they were. According to this Arab-American website, the number could have been 1200, with 725 held on immigration violations, another 100 held for unrelated criminal charges, and 360 detained for possible links to terrorism. And according to the US Census Bureau, there are about 3 million Arab Americans in the United States.

Some kind of “indiscriminate roundup” eh?

But our prevaricating almost-President wasn’t finished. He then proceeded to ask one of the swarthy gentlemen in the front row to turn around and raise his robes so that he could deliver a heartfelt lip-to-butt smooch, all the better to prove his anti-American bona fides and kick the Administration in the groin at the same time:

“The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake,” Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. “The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

Absolutely. “Dear Saudi Arabia: Please send us more hijackers that fly planes into our buildings. We ran out more than 4 years ago and have yet to receive any replacements. Best Regards, Algore”

And then what did our courageous Hamster-In-Chief do when several of the attendees asked about US support for Israel? Did he point out that Israel is an American ally by virtue of it being the only democracy within ballistic missile distance? Did he offer strong support for the brave Israeli people facing the prospect of increased terrorism from those “Hamas reformers?”

Several audience members criticized the United States for what they described as “unconditional” U.S. support for Israel, saying U.S. diplomats helped Israel flout U.N. resolutions that they enforced when the measures targeted Arabs.

Gore refused to be drawn into questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We can’t solve that long conflict in exchanges here,” Gore said.

“Duck and cover” used to be the byword in the 1950’s when we schoolkids saw the bright flash of a nuke going off nearby. Protozoa Brain has adopted the saying to explain why he felt it necessary not to talk some “truth to power” with regards to the Saudis and their nauseating support for Palestinian terrorists.

I’m not the only one who has noted how Brave Sir Alfred has chosen foreign venues to launch his attacks. Tigerhawk:

Procedurally, Gore’s speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. Whether or not one agrees with Gore on the substance, if he wants to change American policy to let in more Saudis the only way he can do that it is to campaign for that change among influential Americans. It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience.

And Scott Johnson has a few choice words for the Saudis:

I want them to know that Gore’s impulse to defame his country before a foreign audience for fun and profit does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of citizens of my country. I want them to know that the American people support the enforcement of America’s immigration laws, especially against those suspected of having a possible terrorist connection. I want them to know that when 15 of the 19 perpetrators of September 11 were found to have been Saudi citizens, the American people wanted the Saudi government to take responsibility for its role in the attack on the United States and take every action necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

I really wish Al would go back to delivering speeches here in the United States where no one pays any attention to him. That way, when he makes a fool of himself, people won’t confuse him with someone who has anything important to say.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin rounds up blogger reaction and gives us the zinger of the day:

The notion that Saudis are entitled to unfettered visas to work, study, and do business in this country–the notion that entry into America is an entitlement and not a privilege–cost 3,000 innocent lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

How much did the Saudis pay you to forget, Al?

Youch!

Pat Curley:

Gore’s never been a particularly smart man; remember he flunked out of both law and divinity school. It may be as simple as the notion that “By hurting my enemy (President Bush), I’m helping myself.”

The man will go to his grave cursing George Bush.

Cross Posted at The Wide Awakes

Ann Coulter is in trouble again.

The most unpredictable mouth in America has once again proved that idiocy is not a mental state confined to the left wing in American politics. Calling Arabs “ragheads” while joking about her “ethical dilemma” regarding whether or not to kill Bill Clinton when she had the chance is simply the latest in a very long line of over the top - some would say out of control - thoughts that have spewed forth from her brilliant, eccentric mind.

In the end, this is Coulter’s dilemma. And the great trap she has set for herself as she has climbed the ladder of success to achieve fame and fortune. In this celebrity, media soaked age where the ravenous appetites of the news nets, “lifestyle” shows, and political talk radio are constantly demanding more and more controversy, more and more outrageous personalities to fill the time and attract more audience, the danger for any one personality like Coulter is that yesterday’s jaw droppers and head shakers can’t be repeated. She must come up with entirely new derogatory sobriquets to call her political opponents and ever more outrageous metaphors to describe her political pet peeves. By definition, she must go “over the top” on nearly a daily basis.

This way lies madness. Once people like Coulter start down this road it can only end in one way; you become a caricature of yourself. The barbs that once zinged your opponents with razor sharp wit causing even your political enemies to chuckle will lose their edge and end up as simple, hurtful, name calling more akin to playground epithets and hardly worthy of approbation except by your most rabid fans.

Hence, jokes about Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades morph into daydreaming about assassinating a President. And spot on, uproariously funny critiques of racialsm and the stupidity of identity politics segues easily into ethnic slurs. She has little choice if she wishes to remain atop the rickety pyramid of notorious celebrity she has carved out for herself. To do less would disappoint her numerous acolytes whose immaturity allows for giving her standing ovations when she casually refers to Arabs in a politically incorrect way.

The left, of course, is already all over the “raghead” comment, calling it “racist.” I constantly marvel at such ignorance (even though we should all be used to it by now). To say that Arabs make up a separate “race” is imbecilic. The racial origins of Arabs, Persians, Afghans, and people in Northern India are, in fact, Caucasoid (um…that means “white” my lefty brethren). They are more closely related to the Swedes than any of the Negroid sub-groups in southern Africa. But since the left never lets the facts stand in the way of their constant drive to twist the English language into doing its political bidding, I guess it really doesn’t matter. In a similar way, we’ve seen media savvy Muslims these past couple of weeks charge that the Cartoon Intifada is actually western “racism” directed against the “Religion of Peace.”

I guess you can’t accuse the fanatical jihadists rampaging through the streets, burning and murdering, of not having read the media Bible as written by the hard western left. After all, they seem to have more in common than either probably realizes.

Coulter’s speech at the CPAC Conference, while well received by the audience, laid an egg with righty bloggers. A sampling of reaction:

Joe Gandleman:

The problem is: she’s indicative of the rapid decline of issue-based political discourse in this country. Political opponents are described as evil enemies versus competitors with different ideas and approaches. It’s anti-PC that sells exceedingly well on radio and cable talk shows and on college campuses in particular — but people roaring in laughter at the undercurrent of zingers that jokingly suggest assassination is what’s troubling (and particularly because these same folks would be up in arms if someone such as Michael Moore suggested the same thing about people on their side).

Okay…sorry Joe. You’re not a “righty” per se but I liked your analysis, although disagreeing with your thoughts that Coulter has contributed to the “rapid decline” in sane, political discourse. The existence of Ann Coulter was not necessary for that to happen, not since the left announced that “the personal is political” back in the 1980’s.

Jeff Harrell: (CPAC attendee)

We all think you’re really funny, okay? We all think you’re hilarious. You’re witty and funny and all that.

Reasonable people everywhere

Why stop at “reasonable people?” Even “unreasonable people” like me are upset.

Sean Hackbarth: (also blogging CPAC)

With Ann Coulter you should only expect a bad stand-up comedian with a conservative shtick. That’s what CPAC attendees got today. My expectations were low, yet she proceeded to go below them.

Tom Bridge:

Sad, isn’t it? That those talking in sensible tones will be forgotten for the loudmouths with braggadocio. What happened to the impassioned and dedicated work of smart and talented men and women on behalf of the duty of a grateful nation? Is it lost upon the masses in favor of the reptilian revenge driven brain? The five second soundbyte generation?

I think I’m going to go be ill.

You answered your own question, Tom. Those “loudmouths” suck all the media oxygen out of the tent with precious little left for the rest of us.

Little Miss Attila:

Wasn’t it James Joyner who coined the moniker “our Michael Moore”? I’ll never buy one of her books.

Great observation. Which brings me to my final point.

A cursory Technorati search a little more than 12 hours after Coulter’s remarks reveal dozens of lefty bloggers pillorying her for her remarks. This is to be expected. But the sample above from righty blogs (which I fully expect to grow massively as the day goes on) points up an enormous difference between right and left “partisans.” From Trent Lott, to Rick Santorum (and others who use the term “Nazi” to describe Democrats), to Pat Robertson, the right is pretty good at policing itself when its adherents go beyond the pale in political discourse and decorum.

Would that the Democrats had half that kind of sensibility.

Most recently, the funeral of Coretta Scott King, which turned into a political rally with partisan attacks on President Bush who had come representing the American people, was actually cheered by the left as entirely appropriate. And the casual, constant references to their political foes as fascists, Nazis, Klansmen, and the like has become so pervasive that there is not a writer on the left who can say anything about conservatives without using one of those disgusting epithets.

Until the left can police its rabble, they will not be taken seriously by the rest of the country. The day that Michael Moore is dethroned as an icon of the left due to the words and actions of liberals is the day that conservatives will accept criticism of Coulter and her ilk with more than a grain of salt.

UPDATE

Forgive me for not including James Joyner’s excellent analysis:

CPAC is attended mostly by the people who man the booths and by wild-eyed college kids hoping to see some famous conservatives in person. I understand wanting to have as much red meat as possible for this crowd. But Coulter is an embarrassment and her words continue to get quoted as representing what “conservatives really think.” The CPAC organizers should be ashamed for inviting her back year after year and giving her such a prominent stage.

On a side note, the commenters on Sager’s site are mostly siding with Coulter. Sad.

I’ll try and update this post every once and a while as the reaction pours in from the right.

Eric over at the excellent site Classical Values has a hip, literate, and spot on post about Coulter. He has an interesting take that may just surprise you:

For some reason, burka belittling is considered fair game, but making fun of male Arab headgear, well, that’s just not cricket!

And “raghead.” While I don’t think it’s racist (because turbans and keffiyeh scarves are by no means limited by race), “rag” has a certain implication that the people wearing them might not be able to afford anything better. Howard Stern used to say “towelheads.” Maybe that’s more fair and neutral. Nah, that’s insensitive too, as it implies kids playing dress-up games in the bathroom or something.

UPDATE 2/13

I must say I’m not surprised by the comments. Many on the right want me to lay off Ann and those on the left are typically stuck on me taking them to task for mis-using the term “racist” as it applies to the ethnic group made up of Arabs. Both responses are expected but still disappointing.

If you want the classy response of someone directly affected by the pejorative “raghead” please go here and read Aladdin’s take.

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 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…”

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.

If Joe Biden didn’t exist, some stand up comic would have to invent him.

During this morning’s round of questions, Senator Biden (in 08!) prattled on about the NSA intercept program, wondering aloud whether or not the President had the authority to carry it out when all of a sudden out of the clear blue sky he asked Albert Gonzalez, the Attorney General of the United States, “When will this war be over.”

I half expected Gonzalez to start singing that old Civil War campfire tune, “When This Cruel War is Over:”

Dearest love, do you remember
When we last did meet,
How you told me that you loved me
Kneeling at my feet ?
Oh! how proud you stood before me
ln your suit of blue,
When you vowed to me and country
Ever to be true.

(Chorus) Weeping, sad and lonely,
Hopes and fears, how vain! (Yet praying)
When this cruel war is over,
Praying that we meet again.

The AG looked a little perplexed. He must have first wondered if the Senator had mistaken him for some 5-Star, gold braided yip-yip from the Pentagon. Then he must have considered the possibility that the Senator was pulling his leg since the smile on Biden’s face only seemed to get broader and toothier - the Senator’s facial cue that he was being very, very serious and that he was asking a very, very important question.

Finally, Gonzalez decided that Biden wasn’t kidding and had not mistaken him for the Secretary of the Army and gave a simple, declarative sentence that any boob could understand:

When al Qaeda is destroyed and it no longer poses a threat to us.

Not. Good. Enough. What? No specific date?

Andy McCarty at the Corner has this prescient comment:

The same, one imagines, might have been said about the Nazis in 1941 or 1942. Biden’s point, of course, is the oft-stated complaint that the war on terror has no definite end-date. Has there ever been a war that has?

Yes, as long as al Qaeda is still a threat, there will never be a time when we would not want to know what its operatives are saying when they communicate into and out of the U.S. Why is that an offensive concept?

The problem, Andy, is that in order to understand that concept, the interlocutor has to acknowledge the fact that we are at war in the first place, something that most Democrats like Biden either fail to acknowledge or don’t really believe.

And this guy wants to be President?

Lights! Camera! Meltdown!

The hearings on domestic spying that will get underway today had the potential to actually answer some very fundamental questions about executive power in wartime and the limits that should be placed on government spying. Too bad that Democrats have to be involved. And it’s also a shame that this is an election year.

Put those two factors together and instead of a serious debate all we’re likely to see is some more off the wall antics by Democratic Senators and, by necessity, over the top responses by their Republican colleagues in defense of the President.

The fact that this does a huge disservice to our democracy will be lost in the overheated rhetoric by Democrats who will set the stage for potential impeachment hearings next year if the Dems get control of the House. The following is intended to give the readers some hints of what to look for during these hearings:

1. Whichever Democratic Senator gets to lead off the questions, I will bet a week’s wages that the name “Nixon” will be spoken within 2 minutes. And I will bet an additional week’s wages that the ex-President’s name is raised by Democrats more than the current President’s.

2. Much will be made of the charge in the Washington Post yesterday that “only” 10 or 20″ terrorist suspects were caught in the NSA digital dragnet while 5000 or so American citizens had snippets of their communications looked at by NSA analysts. I really hope the Democrats take this tack because it will highlight the fact that the program actually works. Those are 10 or 20 terrorist suspects that we didn’t know about before.

3. Democrats will go nuts over AG Gonzales rationale for the program. They will say that when they voted to give the President broad powers to protect the nation after 9/11, they really didn’t mean it. They were for expanding the powers of the executive before they were against it. And we know how well that meme works, don’t we?

4. Ted Kennedy will be incoherent.

5. Arlen Specter will have one foot firmly planted on each side of the issue until the polls tell him which way to jump.

Speaking of Specter, the Pennsylvania Senator came out yesterday and said the NSA intercept program was illegal…without knowing much about it. He said it was “in flat violation” of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). Unless the Senator, who is not a member of the Intelligence Committee, has been seeing a soothsayer lately, he really can’t make such an extraordinarily broad claim.

6. Count the number of blue ties worn by Senators. I will bet that more than half of them will be wearing ties of that color.

7. Joe Biden will have a perpetual smile on his face that will need to be surgically removed by the end of the hearings.

8. Diane Feinstein will be wearing a red dress. No word on whether or not Chuck Schumer will also wear a red dress or whether he will go with something more subdued - like a clown suit.

There will be serious questions asked about the NSA program. But since no one can give the kind of technical details that would enlighten the members about whether or not the program is legal and constitutional, the issue will not be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. Because in the end, there is no alternative but to trust the President that what he’s doing is right.

This is an impossibility for liberals and getting to be a chore even for many Republicans and libertarians. But unless we want our intelligence secrets plastered all over the front pages of the world’s newspapers (or at least more than they are already), no definitive word can emerge that will allow us to judge the efficacy of the program.

The one thing that has struck me about this program and the response by lawmakers is that even Democrats like the ranking House Intelligence Committee member Jane Harman have not called for the termination of the program and indeed, have not even pushed much on reforming FISA to bring the program retro-actively under its auspices. This seems to be a dead giveaway that the program is both necessary and probably technically legal. At least, that would be my reading of the Democrat’s reaction.

Don’t expect too many fireworks between Senators although if the AG proves too much the moving target, Democrats may get frustrated and begin to weep.

I hope they brought their blue hankies with them today.

UPDATE

Michelle Malkin rounds up blogger previews on the hearings. And Mark Coffey has an excellent primer that looks back at how this imbroglio came about.

Lori Byrd and I are on the same wavelength this morning (Not about the blue ties and hankies…about how useless they will end up being.)