It doesn't matter that Bush broke the law and trashed the constitution, just like it didn't matter when Reagan broke the law and trashed the constitution, because the GOP controls the House and Senate. Even Nixon was allowed to resign unpunished. It didn't even matter that Bush stole two elections in a row!

The US system ensures that politics, not justice, decides the fate of a criminal president, and the GOP doesn't have a shining record of placing ethics or respect for democracy ahead of politics. In fact the stated rational of the ruling cabal is to ensure, mostly by foul means not fair, that the GOP stays in power...forever. That would put the US right up there with all other Democratic Republics, like Congo, China and North Korea.

I dont' think Americans living in America understand the disgust and despair experienced by those of us in the real world who believe in Democracy, and are forced to watch what Americans are doing to it. Americans enjoy freedoms, wealth and advantage only dreamed of in most of the world, and what do you do with it? Throw it all away for a spoiled, rich-boy draft-dodger in a cowboy hat who promises to protect you from the boogey man. Sickening.

Its not bad enough that you trash your own democracy from ignorance, greed and fear, but the US then goes around threatening or overthrowing emerging democracies that it doesn't like- remember Chile? Greece? Congo? Venezuela? How long will Morales last in Bolivia, or will the CIA organise yet another coup against another popularly-elected anti-US-Imperialism leader?

I proclaim again, Americans aren't ready for democracy. They don't understand it, they don't value it, and they consistently work against it, even when they do bother to vote. The ruling junta has proven itself to be a threat to its own citizens as well as the world at large. The best thing we can do is send in the Blue Helmets to try and set up a transitional government while a proper constitution and legal system is drafted and put into place. 'Cause the one you got, it don't work.

Of course Conason is correct to point out the clumsy distortions of the Drudges and Limbaughs of the world, although it is</> like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nonetheless, my question is this: does anyone know when the secret prison system described by the WP and present in popular media forever was created? Were there "black sites" extant under Clinton or earlier?

Like proverbial police corruption in New Orleans, we not only condone US mistreatment of foreigners, we've come to expect it. It is only that this warrantless spying has been conducted against American citizens that has landed the President in hot water with most of the public.

Clinton was no saint and in an effort not to become the photographic negative of Limbaugh et al, it would be good not to simply assume in a knee jerk manner that all charges against him are malicious right wing demagoguery.

Thank you to Conason for pointing out that Clinton's exceutive order re: FISA was different than Bush's. Now, what about those prisons?

Of course Conason is correct to point out the clumsy distortions of the Drudges and Limbaughs of the world, although it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Nonetheless, my question is this: does anyone know when the secret prison system described by the WP and present in popular media forever was created? Were there "black sites" extant under Clinton or earlier?

Like proverbial police corruption in New Orleans, we not only condone US mistreatment of foreigners, we've come to expect it. It is only that this warrantless spying has been conducted against American citizens that has landed the President in hot water with most of the public.

Clinton was no saint and in an effort not to become the photographic negative of Limbaugh et al, it would be good not to simply assume in a knee jerk manner that all charges against him are malicious right wing demagoguery.

Thank you to Conason for pointing out that Clinton's exceutive order re: FISA was different than Bush's. Now, what about those prisons?

Good essay Joe!

It perfectly captures exactly what really sticks in my craw about this crime. To quote the article:

"But he (AG Gonzalez) also confessed that the administration had abandoned the idea of new legislation because getting a bill through Congress 'would be difficult if not impossible.' In other words, Congress would refuse to pass legislation authorizing activities its members had supposedly approved after Sept. 11, 2001."

Bush committed a crime. As the AG's quote shows, Bush knew that he was committing a crime. And this week Bush admitted to doing it in public, on videotape.

This is a slam-dunk impeachment - or rather would be, if the American people had the political will or the Republican leadership had any ethics.

These right-wing bozos blabber on so wantonly for much the same reason as so many elections are lost by Democrats: no one has the stones to fight back.

John Kerry is the quintessential example. Even though he knew they were false and he had much more than enough documented proof to clearly demonstrate the Swift Boaters as the lying, scum-bags they are, he never fought back.

Why have the National Enquirer, et. al. become much more boring these days? It's because the stars whose lives they've been distorting and invading for so long have begun routinely taking them to court. $10 million here, $2 million there... pretty soon, the actions take their toll and these rags have had to learn a little restraint. They don't have nearly as many mulligans to pull anymore. In the process of suing, the celebs get an opportunity to belly up to the news bar and tell their side in the media, defending their honor to some degree (wherever possible).

It's high time for Bill Clinton to get his genitals back from Hillary (who also seems to have lost her ability the throw a punch for what she believes in, too!) and go on the offensive. Every one of these turds that throws out comparisons to what he did in authorizing searches of non-citizens is casting Clinton as a criminal - literally, albeit via very simple straight-line logic.

If he were to sue them for slander or libel (whatever is appropriate for each "pundit's" format), if nothing else, it will elevate the matter to a level where news media will [eventually] pick it up. It will expose the inaccuracies (aka "lies") in the form of a news story and cast a pall over the right wing-nut jabber and the wing-nuts themselves. The Clinton lawsuits would become a NEW story - the lies on the web sites & talk radio will never rise to that level on their own, so they fester in their own unchallenged, puss-filled 'credibility.'

If everyone refuses to take them to task for these abuses of free speech - which is why slander and libel laws exist! - then the illegal character assassinations and boldface lies will never be quelled. But even if he asserts them and drops the suits, he will have succeeded in helping call into question the credibility of these cackling zealots. I will never suggest that those morons be silenced - just that effort should be taken such that the public will treat their words with the same respect it would some PCP addict, blathering incoherently on some street corner. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh... but the idea is that the pie-hole effluent from Oreilly, et. al. should be taken as ill-informed editorials - not news reporting.