I think it's important that, as nasty a proto-dictator as Bush is, we not try to minimize wrongdoing by people on "our side". I never heard of any warrantless spying by Bill Clinton, but I'm pretty sure that if he did it it was unconstitutional. Whether or not it violated FISA as it was then written seems immaterial. I don't want any president, or anyone else inside or outside government, to have the power to spy on me or anyone else without a warrant, period. And I think the Constitution is in agreement with me about this. So let's be careful not to allow ourselves to fall into the hypocrisy trap. Again, I don't know the details of any actions that Clinton may or may not have taken, but if we start looking for technicalities that excuse the unconstitutional behavior of the guys we like while sneering at the technicalities cited by others to excuse the unconstitutional behavior of the guys they like we have become nothing more than self-interested spinmeisters, seeking to justify anybody and anything if it appears to serve our interests (sound like anybody we know?). If Clinton's administration stepped outside Constitutional bounds in carrying out warrantless searches we need to step up and condemn that behavior just as firmly as we condemn Bush's actions. This isn't about protecting our own "golden boy"; it's about protecting the Constitutional rights of everyone from anybody who seeks to infringe them, regardless of whether it's technically legal or not.

I'm no fan of Dick Cheney - far from it. He's a slimy, bought-and-paid for corporate shill who values profits over even the lives of our own citizens (not to mention the carnage of "collateral damage"), but I think we need to keep this hunting incident real. Maybe, as this War Room piece suggests, Cheney did slip on the safety rules of hunting. Hunting quail is a tricky business requiring split-second decisions and action - it's incredibly easy for an accident like this one to occur, even for experienced hunters like Cheney. That's why they call them "accidents", and they happen to hunters of impeccable moral character and sleazebuckets alike all the time.

One of the major characteristics of right-wingers that makes them so repellent is their willingness to spin anything and everything so that they look virtuous, no matter how horrible the crime they're spinning. Let's not be like them, folks. Trying to make political hay out of what is almost certainly a regrettable hunting accident that could have happened to anyone is a tactic straight out of the neocon handbook. Let's stick to real transgressions when we're vilifying these monsters - we certainly have more than enough ammunition without resorting to this kind of nitpicking. Stunts like fantasizing Cheney's "acceptable" reaction and then contrasting it with his actual behavior are just cheap tricks that make the left look bad. We don't need to stoop to that kind of Fox-News-esque behavior, and I for one don't want the political persuasion I align myself with tainted by it.

I agree that Foggo's association with Brent Wilkes is mere "guilt-by-association stuff", but I have to ask myself how a civil servant, even a high-ranking one like the No. 3 man at the CIA, can afford even half of "a wine locker at a high-priced Washington steakhouse". Does he have inherited wealth? Does he moonlight as a highly successful day-trader? Has he got a consultancy on the side?

Let's face it - public servants at the executive level don't make the high-flying salaries that their counterparts in the private sector earn. I'd be surprised if Foggo takes home more than $200K a year from his CIA salary, and I'll bet it's less than that. That's quite a bit of dosh, admittedly, but unless he's extremely passionate about wine, holding a wine locker at a high-priced restaurant is a serious luxury. None of the executives I work with have such a thing, and they make twice what I assume Foggo makes. Heck, just eating at a high-priced restaurant often enough to maintain a wine locker there ain't chump change.

I know virtually nothing about Foggo's private life, but my friend Ben Franklin says he's got a nice house in an upscale DC suburb, a couple of plush Eurosedans for himself and his wife and at least one kid named Brent who attends a private school or an expensive private university (and if he's at university that probably means another plush Eurosedan). He's around 50 years old and has spent "decades" in public service, so he almost certainly doesn't have savings from a lucrative private sector career.

So I have to ask myself: where's the money coming from?

DISCLAIMER: Everything I've said about Foggo's lifestyle (except the wine locker) is pure speculation. For all I know, he has such a passion for wine and steak that he and his family live in a trailer in rural Maryland so they can indulge that passion. I doubt it, but it's possible.