Why did nabalzbbfr's foolishness get an editor's star?

nab: If AG Gonzales came into your business and wanted to pay for a substantial item by personal check would you accept it?

THAT was an illuminating article.

The abuses of this government have reached a frightening stage;

how is it that Congress is so bound up and so non-reactive to these

huge attacks on the Constitution?

Who is minding the store?

Not the populace,

not the media,

not the Congress.

No wonder this Democracy is sliding toward oblivion.

Very chilling.

Does this sound in any way like the behavior of a government operating under the rule of law, which believes that it had legal authority to spy on Americans without the warrants required for three decades by law? -GG

Sounds like the behavior of an organized crime family to me. Hence the nickname "Fredo" for Gonzales?

Sad to say, but I believe the only way this is going to get any traction is for someone to quickly make a 30 or 60 min docudrama and get it on HBO or some such - this is isn't very far from the Sopranos, is it? And how much more "organized" can organized crime be, then to have the the president's henchmen pushing the Attorney-General to sign off on an illegal program, while he's gravely ill?

And how much closer are we to Germany 1932?

Some here are speculating about the members of congress being spied on and blackmailed. I know Right Wingers will be inclined to call that unhinged speculation and conspiracy thinking, but I think the speculation is warranted and a reasonable inference.

I've thought this for a long time. It would have explained a lot about the past 5-6 years. I don't think it's just Democrats who have to be worried, though. Information on Republicans would be just as useful to this thuggish administration.

Given both Rove's and Bush's own political backgrounds at the feet of Atwater, and the technological resources available to them that weren't to him... what else is there to think?

And then there's that favorite talking point of the strict constructionists about there being no Right to Privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, but only a mere thread of one, because of previous SCOTUS rulings which could easily be overturned.

Ai yai yaiii!

Ideally, there would be enough investigations yielding enough incriminating information that the Republicans, if only to save their own skins, would be forced to begin impeachment proceedings against both Bush and Cheney, but I'm less optimistic now that it could ever happen.

In the update in Glenn's post yesterday, Tony Snow is quoted:

This is a program that saved lives...

Compare that to the quote from Jay Rockefeller in today's post: For the past six months, I have been requesting without success specific details about the program, including: how many terrorists have been identified; how many arrested; how many convicted; and how many terrorists have been deported or killed as a direct result of information obtained through the warrantless wiretapping program.

The disconnect between these two statements is jarring and simply drives home the point that everything this administration undertakes is based on their self-assured authority and that no oversight is to be allowed. This can be in no way construed to be the actions of a democratic republic. Our country has slipped away from us.

Quote from article

________________

How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history?

_______________

You've answered this question in previous articles.

It's because the MSM feels it's a good thing the "strong on defense" Republicans are spying on the "pro-terrorist" liberals.

Bush & Cheney goes around last election cycle equating a vote for a Democrat as a vote for the terrorist (or even more loathsome, if you vote for a Democrat, you are a terrorist).

Yet the only MSM journalist to find this outrageous was Keith Olbermann. Keith is one out of what....several thousand?

Indeed, the American 4th estate, who has long bought into the "Republicans are strong on defense" meme (though voluminous evidence to the contrary exists), probably feel a genuine sense of security when they hear Bush is intentionally breaking domestic spying laws.

I don't think it's a coincidence that in April 2004, a month after the Ashcroft hospital incident, Bush told a crowd in Buffalo that, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important to our fellow citizens to understand when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Oh come on, the terrorist surveillance program was in the news last year. Despite the best efforts of Bush deranged liberals to blow it up into a major issue, they got no traction with the American public. Unsurprisingly Americans have no problem with the NSA eavesdropping on al-Qaeda terrorists and their operatives within the US. By the time of the elections last year, even the most partisan Democrats concluded that it was a losing campaign issue and stopped mentioning it at all. However they can't leave well enough alone. Succumbing to another spasm of Bush Derangement Syndrome, Senate Democrats are giving it another go. However just as last time, they aren't getting anywhere with it. The hearings got hardly any mention on the evening news. Their witness Comey has zero credibility -- he is clearly motivated by personal animus against Alberto Gonzales. Even so liberal bloggers are giving his testimony a crazy spin which is truly delusional, making even the most rabid 9/11 conspiracy theorists look sane by comparison.

Comey's dramatic disclosure should prompt a renewed Senate investigation. I also think a special counsel is clearly warranted now.

Two facts worth noting:

* We know from previous reporting in Newsweek that OLC's official thinking about executive power changed after Jack Goldsmith took over from Jay Bybee. That was likely a big factor in DOJ's legal reconsideration of the surveillance program in 2004. We still don't have the before-and-after secret OLC opinions.

* Note that nowhere in Comey's story are NSA officials mentioned. But FBI Director Robert Mueller was a central player in the drama -- he even met personally with President Bush -- and also was one who threatened resignation. This indicates that, whatever was going on before the program was modified, those activities were being conducted by the FBI, not just the NSA. That could mean purely domestic unwarranted wiretaps, unwarranted black-bag jobs, or similar misconduct.