NSA Round 2: Dem Senators, Repeat after me:

[John_H]

I will limit my questions to the following three lines of inquiry:
How deeply was the president involved in the planning and execution of this crime?
How many non-terrorist americans' rights were violated?
When will this criminal power grab be suspended or terminated?

I will keep in mind that by engaging in complex, case-citing debate with these thugs I am playing into the GOP's strategy of portraying indiscriminately spying on terrorist-connected and innocent americans alike as a big constitutional gray-area, laden with highly complex, too close to call nuances that reasonable people can disagree about but by golly the preznit is going to err toward protecting the 'mercun people.

I also recognize that the he-said-she-said storyline is exactly the king of story that 99% of reporters covering the NSA crime want to write because: it makes them look "objective," because they are easy to write, and because their republican bosses want the NSA story to play that way.

above all, the administrations crime and their legal arguments justifying it will not be "troubling" (10+ references today) or "inconsistent". They will be Outrageous. Disingenuous. Laughable. A giant PR operation. Insane.

[Zen Democrat]

1. I can tell you the answer to #3. They don't intend to ever stop.

They are now talking about the "Long War". A long war is necessary to keep their "inherent war powers". We'll be in war as long as these bastards are allowed to continue.

It's up to us. We have to keep the pressure on the politicians, the media and our fellow citizens to STOP THIS NOW.

Some of our elected Dems seem to be growing spines lately, and I am confident that this is a DIRECT result of grassroots dissidents gaining momentum, and a voice via the Internet. We can't leave it up to the elected officials to go it alone. We can't count on the intimidated party hacks, those so-called Democratic spokesmen who mealy-mouth and crawfish on national talk shows and are scared to death to say that Bush is a lying incompetent.

Let's see what has Bush succeeded at:

Preventing a domestic terrorist attack, with plenty of forewarnings?
Capturing Osama Bin Laden?
Spreading democracy in Iraq?
Finding the leaker in the White House who outed a covert CIA agent?
Providing prescription drug coverage to seniors?
Reforming education with No Child Left Behind?
Responding to the Gulf Coast during the Katrina disaster?
Rebuilding New Orleans?
Preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?
Keeping oil and gas affordable?
Delivering huge tax breaks to millionaires, and billion dollar giveaways to Halliburton?

Yeah, the last one, he did that. He's a complete and utter failure. He can't lie, cheat or steal his way out of the disasters he's created. He should be behind bars.

[HereSince1628]

2. "How many domestic spying programs are there?

"Are General Hayden and Director Chertof talking about the same program and authorization that you are Mr. Gonzales?"


Gonzales' response to questions by Biden, Kohl, Feinstien, Fiengold, Schumer and Durban all indicated that the domestic spying is probably on a vastly larger scales.

But Gonzales refuses to talk about anything but 'international' spying, which, as the focus groups and polls have shown, is supported by a majority of the nation.

This led to outbursts of frustration from Biden and Feinstein.

The willingly mendacious nature of Gonzales character that facilitates this is the object of what appear to be Feingold's attempt to charge Gonzales with lying to Congress.

[John_H]

3. Absolutely! Repeat this one too, senators!

[Pryderi]

4. Are they having hearing today?

[John_H]

5. Here's what Round 1 legal "debates" got 'em:

Aside from Americans' everywhere being duly impressed by the nuanced legal minds of Democratic Senators and their staffers, yesterday's law class yielded a few headlines. Round 1: "He said" and "She said" battled to a hard fought draw:


Gonzalez Defends Surveillance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600195.html

In Defense Of Eavesdropping

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1157155,00.html

Gonzales Defends Spying as 'Limited and Lawful'

And my favorite:

The Legal Arguments: In Limelight at Wiretap Hearing: 2 Laws, but Which Should Rule?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/politics/07legal.html?ex=1296968400&en=5e7c8ce72ff0b9d5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

But what happens when you simply and directly state the obvious, that the Bush Administration are a bunch of civil liberties abusing criminals? Sadly yesterday only yielded one example....in Scotland, thanks to Jimmy Carter:

Eavesdropping programme 'illegal'

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=193032006