"Once upon a time, much ink was spilled and much political warfare was waged over the question of whether or not a certain president lied about getting a blow job. Today's new, improved model of president lies about torture and the secret surveillance of American citizens. That's quite the upgrade."

Well, he did restore "honor and integrity" to the White House, did he not? There has not been a whiff of sex scandal around the White House in five years.

Of course, some people whose nose is ultra-sensitive, will point to the stench of torture, rendition, secret prisons, and other unsavory practices, that emanates from the White House and the Administration. But again, some people are just too delicate for their own good.

I was pondering this very issue in my blog after seeing the following bumper sticker:

"Restore Integrity...Vote Republican"

Yes, indeed. Since the restoration of our national integrity, not a single Presidentially "sealed" navy blue intern's dress has emerged into national prominence. More importantly, the Presidential Office has been tarnished with not a single lie involving oral sex or "be" verbs ("That depends on what your definition of is is.").

I sure do feel integrified all right.

Thank heavens the only lies coming to us from this administration are on the subjects of intelligence, torture, and domestic spying. Because while I would hate to think that there are untruths about fellatio floating about, lies that lead to the deaths of American troops and Iraqis are fine by me. Ditto lies that denigrate our international reputation as a just and fair nation by using semantics to justify the use of torture. And don't get me started on the government reading my email and listening to my phone conversations (Hi, Dick!). I love thinking that my words could bring some measure of joy to the government. I think it's absolutely appropriate that the probe that has been opened into the issue of spooks listening to my talks with Mom when I was overseas involves not the issue itself but that someone linked the information to a reporter. And anyway, George has told us that we shouldn't worry, because he only authorized spying on bad people.

I believe him. Don't you?

You write, in part:"Once upon a time, much ink was spilled and much political warfare was waged over the question of whether a certain president lied about getting a blow job. Today's new, improved model of president lies about torture and the secret surveillance of American citizens. That's quite the upgrade."

Why isn't "America" screaming in outrage, and demanding "his head?"

Or was Clinton's "travails" a media and political carnival using "America's" sexual repression as the touchstone of piety?

Where is the so-called Religious Right on this matters of deep concern,a lying law breaking President?

Where are the Democrats who apparantly won't even feign an Impeachment process if to do no more than hold Bush's feet to the fire?

Questions questions and questions?

when he says the illegal wiretaps aren't objectionable (to him). I happen to agree with essentially the rest of what he says, but the fundamental point is whether the government should have unliited power to spy on its own citizens. It shouldn't, and Bush now claims it does have that right, and also to keep its activities a secret. Just how close to the KGB and the Stasi do we want to get?

When do the legitimate concerns about terrorists bleed into spying on political enemies for no other reasons than they are dissenters or old foes. The rationalizations are endless, and what we have then is the political police. Actually we already have them, only the files they are compiling have yet to be used to silence what little dissent now remains. Old J. Edgar knew how to do that very well, and so will the inheritors of all the current eavesdroppers. There will be no way to kill or delete those files. They will live on somewhere no matter how many times we are told they no longer exist when the shit really hits the fan on this one. Talk about a cancer growing on the Republic!

The President is quoted as saying:"...If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why..." Well, you know what - it's none of your f'ing business. The Constitution allows me the freedom to speak to whomever I please. Now I realize this may be politically incorrect - but I'm more worried about the integrity of the Constitution than I am about Al Queda - especially at the hands of an administration that has shown piss-poor judgement on every single issue for the last five years.

If Bush really said "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order," then perhaps he was indeed telling the truth.

Remember that he's been working very hard not to reveal the illegal wiretapping program that the NSA has been engaging in at his behest. And so this is not a time when "you hear the United States government talking about wiretap." Apparently only the wiretaps that the government will admit to require court orders, in W's America.

It seems pretty clear to me that the wiretap program which has recently been revealed must be a "dragnet"--listening in on all voice conversations and Internet traffic to and from certain parts of the world, looking for code words or phrases. And no court--not even the ultra-compliant FISA special court--can approve wiretaps without a known target and some reason for suspecting that target. Probably not even a change in the FISA law could permit such dragnet wiretapping, as even our current Supreme Court would have a hard time squaring it with the Constitution.

When the President signed the bill containing the McCain Amendment on torture, he issued a signing statement, which can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/7twvx

The key part is this:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

So, who says we have laws about torture?

Here is a discussion of this atrocity on Balkinization:

http://tinyurl.com/akgba