As a person who is utterly appalled by the warrantless wiretap program, I tuned in eagerly yesterday to hear the hearings on the radio. I have to say that I was far less impressed with our senators' objections, and with the Democrats in particular, than I would have liked. Mr. Shapiro has written the story I would have like to have read, had I not heard the hearings. But instead of hearing the Attorney General slowly boxed in by Democrats, what I really heard was a successful attempt by Gonzales to force the committee to accept his non-answers as answers and to entertain the theory that all this is just a bunch of legalistic bickering by lawyers.

Too often, Senators of both parties (but I particularly fault the Democrats, as the opposition) would ask questions about the technicalities or margins of the program, let Gonzales reply with a narrow or non answer, and then move on. It was almost as if they felt their job was to ask a lot of questions, so as to give the appearance of doing something. Far more effective, in my view, would have been forcing Gonzales to answer a single, powerful question--and staying on an issue for the whole ten minutes. The closest we came to this, in my view, was about a 2 minute stretch when Biden tried to get Gonzales to define when the war would be over. This question forced Gonzales to deal with two uncomfortable issues: 1) how long we can expect the president to use a unending war to excuse extra power 2) to what extent is the government actually claim that it doesn't need war powers to do this.

Enough attention deficit disorder--pick an issue and stay with it.

Are we actually at war? The term is thrown about loosely everywhere, but are we legally at war? Has war been declared by Congress? Doesn't the Constitution grant that power only to Congress? The Founding Fathers surely did not envision a permanent state of belligerance that pre-empted every attempt to reign in the power of the executive branch.

I am increasingly finding myself incapable of following the impenetrable jungle of legalese coughed up by this administration. Is it just me or do others find themselves longing for the good old, straightforward days of, “It depends on what your definition of is is.” So, just a few questions from someone less concerned about the gotcha factor and more concerned about the future:

1)In this time of convoluted semantics, what exactly does the word “war” mean?

2)How does Joe Citizen know when the war starts and when the war ends?

3)Unless I completely missed something, Congress never actually declared war. Here’s section 8 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have power to…….. declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

4)When we speak of the war, are we referring to Afghanistan, Iraq, or terrorism?

5)How does a war that was never declared end?

6)To whom does the newly minted law against torture pertain? The Bush Administration has fairly clearly indicated they will break this law as they see fit – so, was passing this law just an exercise in politics for public consumption?

7)Can’t Congress reinstitute the proper checks and balances by simply voting to restore the law of the land – i.e., rescind the special powers granted just before the Afghanistan and Iraq “wars?” Weirdly, though, isn’t this just reasserting what the Constitution already says?

8)Does anybody really believe that when the NSA records are finally unsealed, perhaps decades from now, that there won’t be copious examples of domestic spying on activities unrelated to Al-Qaida and/or terrorism? In other words, doesn’t allowing unbridled power essentially always result in egregious violations of the public trust? In what way has the Bush Administration earned the level of trust granted here?

All of these questions are asked in earnest – the answers to these questions really need some serious public debate or this country is in big trouble. I am loathe to push for impeachment on these issues because I think this country is already polarized to the point of danger. But can’t we get back on the right footing with Congress simply reasserting its proper, constitutionally mandated roles?

The sickest part of all this is that the government had all the data they needed to stop the 9/11 plot. Afterward they asserted that there had been too much data and they couldn't connect all the elements to reveal the attack at hand. We were expected to understand that the outrageous volume of information with which they had to deal made it nearly impossible to see what was coming.

Now they want MORE data? They need more data like they need a hole in the head.

I totally agree with Hung Chad in his/her posting. Gonzalez is not made to answer questions but is allowed to go around them. I wish HC's questions had been asked--I agree that war was never declared against anyone, so how can the Bush administration assume the increased powers. It feels to me as tho we keep losing ground with this administration--they keep pushing and pushing farther and there's less and less oversight and checks & balances. I do NOT understand the hang-together attitude of these Senators--Grayham and Spector seem to want to get to the bottom of this, yet both voted "no" to swearing in of Gonzalez--voting right along party lines.

I think it is time for mainstream Republicans to separate themselves from Neocons, but somehow there seems to be some type of punishment factor held by Republicans to keep the group together, so that no one Senator will stray from the party line, dictated by the WH and Karl Rove.

For several years now this WH administration has been allowed to get away with and has not been called on its sidestepping back and forth over the line. When it is convenient to be "at war", they claim we are, such as wanting to grant Bush greater powers; but when it comes to granting prisoner of war status to the captured, suddenly we're not "at war". Well, I for one am sick of this waffling--which is it??

I also think it is interesting that deer-in-the-headlights Bush is the one we talk about taking greater power--come on, we all know who the power-broker is in this administration. It's the guy whose residence is totally blurred on Google World. Does anyone really not think that Cheney is the ruler behind the throne here?? Cheney and Rove?? Cheney--the guy hired to locate a vice-presidential candidate to run with Bush. Cheney, the guy who promoted himself. Cheney, the guy they worried about on 9/11 and scurried into a bomb-proof hidden bunker. Perhaps it is time to put the Evil Dr. Sneer on the witness stand and swear him in.