Really. Someone needs to start testing the Potomac. The water on the left side must have lead in it, 'cause the Dems are really starting to lose it.

For starters, the behavior at the NSA hearings was contemptible. I thought we were talking about the balance of security and rights - about the law. Apparently we're talking about campaigning for 2008. This exchange, in particular, was pathetic:

FEINGOLD: It was a question about your view of the law -- about your view of the law -- during a confirmation on your nomination to be attorney general.

So, of course, if you had told the truth maybe that would have jeopardized your nomination. You wanted to be confirmed, and so you let a misleading statement about one of the central issues of your confirmation, your view of executive power, stay on the record until the New York Times revealed the program.

GONZALES: Senator, I told the truth then, I'm telling the truth now.

You asked about a hypothetical situation of the president of the United States authorizing electronic surveillance in violation of our criminal statutes. That has not occurred.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I think the witness has taken mincing words to a new high.

There's no question in my mind that when you answered the question that was a hypothetical you knew it was not a hypothetical and you were under oath at the time.

Let me switch to some other misrepresentations.

Nice. Hit and move. Hit and move. Specter, at this point, had to break in:

SPECTER: Wait a minute.

Do you care to answer that, Attorney General Gonzales?

GONZALES: Senator, as I've stated before, what I said was the truth then, it is the truth today.

The president of the United States has not authorized electronic surveillance in violation of our criminal statutes. We have laid out in great detail our position that the activities are totally consistent with the criminal statute.

And then there was this beauty - Dick Durbin on Gonzales calling FISA a "useful tool":

DURBIN: And I've thought about that phrase because it's a phrase that's been used by the White House too.

Referring to FISA as a useful tool in wiretapping is like referring to speed limits and troopers with radar guns as useful tools on a motoring trip.

I think FISA is not there as a useful tool to the administration. It is there as a limitation on the power of a president when it comes to wiretapping.

And I think your use of that phrase, "useful tool," captures the attitude of this administration toward this law: We'll use it when it doesn't cause a problem; we'll ignore it when we have to."

And I think that's why we're here today.

And I'm curious, Mr. Attorney General, as we get into this, and I look back on some of your previous testimony and what you said to this committee in confirmation hearings and the like, how far will this administration go, under the theories which you have stated today, to ignore or circumvent laws like FISA.

I asked you during the course of your confirmation hearing a question about this whole power of the commander in chief. I wish I could play it to you here, but there's a decision made by the committee that we aren't going to allow that sort of thing to take place.

But I do believe that, if I could play it, you would be asked to explain your answer to a question which I posed to you.

And the question was this: "Mr. Attorney General, has this president ever invoked that authority, as commander in chief or otherwise, to conclude that a law was unconstitutional and refused to comply with it?"

Mr. Gonzales: "I believe that I stated in my June briefing about these memos that the president has not exercised that authority."

You've said to us today, several times, that the president is claiming his power for this domestic spying -- whatever you want to call it, terrorist surveillance -- program because of the president's inherent powers, his core constitutional authority of the executive branch.

DURBIN: And so I have to ask you point-blank, as Senator Feingold asked you earlier.

You knew when you answered my question that this administration had decided that it was going to basically find a way around the FISA law, based on the president's, as you called it, inherent constitutional powers. So how can your response be valid today in light of what we now know?

GONZALES: Oh, it's absolutely valid, Senator.

And this is going to sound repetitious, but it has never been our position that we are circumventing or ignoring FISA. Quite the contrary, the president has authorized activities that are totally consistent with FISA, with what FISA contemplates.

I have indicated that I believe that, putting aside the question of the authorization to use military force, that, while it's a tough legal question as to whether or not Congress has the authority under the Constitution to cabin or to limit the president's constitutional authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy, that is not a question that we even need to get to.

It has always been our position that FISA can be and must be read in a way that it doesn't infringe upon the president's constitutional authority.

Not that this is a surprise, but clearly, these hearings aren't so much about the validity of the program as they are representative of the real priorities of the libs - seizing any chance they have to attack a sitting President, and his Administration, during a time of war. Do they really want this country to have an inability to prevent terrorist attacks? I hope not, but some days, I just don't know.

What is clear is that the goal of protecting this country takes second place to the goal of advancing themselves. It's pathetic, disgusting, and places this country at risk.

And then there's Coretta Scott King's funeral. How many times have you seen a sitting President criticized by a former President? OK, how many times have you seen that don't involve Jimmy Carter? There we go. Almost never. To use the funeral of an American Civil Rights icon as a chance to insult the administration, and advance political agendas, is simply repugnant. There's a time and place for criticizing the policies of the Administration - and a funeral isn't it. Sadly, the funeral became less about honoring a hero, and more about a political agenda. I noticed none of them are leading the crusade to deal with the scam artist who took advantage of her ailing health....

Jimmy Carter:
"It was difficult for them personally, with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping," he said.

Yep. Wiretapping personally authorized by a liberal Civil Rights icon - the Attorney General at the time - Robert F. Kennedy. Not wiretapping of foreign terrorists conspiring to murder Americans, mind you - of political enemies seeking to advance Civil Rights in this country. But that was OK. He was a Democrat.

Joseph Lowery provided amusing alliteration and rhythmic rhyming amid his shot at Bush:

"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," he said in a boisterous, rhyming oration. "But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here -- millions without health insurance, poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the
poor."

The Fems and the Dems -- the pills on the Hill. See, I can rhyme, too. Maybe Lowery should have a conversation with General Sada about the whole "no weapons" thing.

I'm telling you, they really need to start taking water samples.

Labels: Left-Wingnuts, My Two Cents, opinion, politics