Did Brian Ross ask these two sources whether they knew who told him there was bentonite in the anthrax, suggesting an Iraqi source, back in 2001? Oh, wait, that's a different issue, and Ross knows the answer to that, anyway, he just won't tell us.

On the meat of this story, while recounting all the different ways this kind of surveillance is felonious and unconstitutional, and all the different ways Bush didn't care and Congress wouldn't stand up, please do not lose focus on the undisputed fact that the "immunity" which Congress enacted in the FISA amendments does NOT, repeat NOT, reach the President's involvement. To the contrary, Bush's felonies were and are known to be high crimes and misdemeanors which plainly would support impeachment of the President. The FISA immunity was premised upon excusing those who took their orders from the President, but did not purport to find the President's orders to have been lawful or constitutional.

Oh, and as to "point 3" and the transcribed and stored evidence of these felonies, whattya wanna bet they're "not available" now? The ACLU needs to be getting a restraining order in place right damn now to interrupt the bonfires being lit as this story spreads.

The Right, and apologists like Crowley, aren't going to accept the idea that calling Obama a terrorist is any different than calling Bush a war criminal. Why? Because both are just "claims". It's Jon Alter all over: the media reports what someone says, it doesn't matter if it's true, if the "other side" says something different, then the media will report that and the result is "balance".

It may well be that Bush is a war criminal and all that; after all, he actually has done what GG says he has done. But, sayeth the Right, if Bush was really a "war criminal" or a "terrorist" or a "felon", why, then, certainly he would be impeached, right? And, since he hasn't been impeached, then it's only an "allegation" (anybody ever read a Shooter comment here?). And as long as it's only an "allegation", it's considered no different than the "allegation" that Obama is a terrorist or a Secret Muslim, etc.

So the "equivocation" of the Right has nothing to do with truth, it's just about who said what most recently.

And once Obama is President, don't lose sleep over whether they will hesitate to call for institution of impeachment proceedings should the presidential motorcade double-park in Topeka, by the way. You will not hear any calls for "restraint" harkening back to Democratic reluctance to impeach Bush when he engaged in "far worse" conduct -- that will be referred to as a tree falling in a forest where nobody listened and, therefore, equal to not having happened at all.

Not that that is honest, or fair, or true. But when it's being invited, it's not all that surprising to see it happen.

We have always been at war with Oceania.

If the American political topdogs can agree that black is white and up is down, what's with the rest of the world failing to agree? We are, after all, simply trying to make the world Safe, you know, making conditions better for people to get along and not worry about being attacked or snuck up on.

Like, oh, I don't know, selling stealth technology fighter bombers to Israel. That should calm nerves in the region, right? Who could argue that a nuclear-armed Israel with undetectable delivery systems might be perceived as somehow unreasonably dangerous by the neighbors? What is anybody thinking?

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5622

"The way fascists get their way in a democracy is by making everyone think their success is inevitable, when really their success depends entirely on the rest of us simply looking the other way."

Your lips to Pelosi's ears. Impeach Bush and Cheney, then deliver them to The Hague for trial and sentencing for their war crimes.