Bush And The "Secret" Eavesdropping

The NY Times continued its war on America yesterday with its revelation that

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Careful readers of the story will note that this program had some judicial and legislative oversight:

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

...The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

[Big Skip]

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

That seems reasonably clear.

However, their hand-wringing follow-up on Saturday discussing the legal foundation for this program makes no mention of the fact that Congressional leaders were briefed.

And their "Mission Accomplished" Saturday article discussing the failure of the Senate to extend the Patriot Act buries quite deeply the fact that Congressional leaders were briefed on this program.  However, we are treated to howlers such as this:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the program as "Big Brother run amok," while Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said the disclosure "ought to send a chill down the spine of every American and every senator."

"You want to talk about abuses?" Mr. Feingold asked. "I can't imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first getting a court order based on some evidence that they are possibly criminals, terrorists or spies."

"A chill"?  Sen. Feingold ought to ask his fellow Democrats, Senators Reid and Rockefeller, whether their spines are still chilled, or if they have recovered.  Sorry, I leaped to a conclusion there - neither Reid nor Rockefeller were available for comment for the Big Expose piece, so I may be unreasonably optimistic in assuming that they have a spine available for chilling.

David Sanger goes totally off the rails in a Saturday web posting that I assume will be corrected in time for the Sunday print edition.  Here is the start to paragraph six:

Mr. Bush's public confirmation on Saturday of the existence of one of the country's most secret intelligence programs, which had been known to only a select number of his aides, was a rare moment in his presidency.

Down in paragraph seventeen Mr. Sanger does note that President Bush "said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program...".  Thanks for sharing, and caring.

For comparison, the WaPo put the fact of Congressional briefing in the second paragraph, and even attempts to quantify "repeatedly":

The controversial order has been approved by legal authorities in his administration, Bush said, and he added that members of Congress had been notified of it more than a dozen times.

Jeff Goldstein has thoughts; Michelle Malkin has a huge round-up.

My stray thoughts:

(1)  This problematic overlap of foreign and domestic spying reminds me of Able Danger; might there be some other connections between this program and that?

(2) I have no doubt the Administration was very sensitive about sharing NSA programs with Congress after this intel debacle involving NSA intercepts and Senator Shelby (more here).  However, the Shelby leak was June 2002; this NSA program was underway by then - from the Times:

The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible, they said.

(3) I am obliged to make the obvious Plame connection - the Times sat on this story for a year at the request of Administration officials.  And the WaPo manage to keep to itself the names of the European countries cooperating with the CIA secret prison program, again at the request of senior Admin officials.

But when Bob Novak had the perilous, life threatening, national security imperiling leak about Valerie Plame, all he got was a call back from beleaguered Bill Harlow in the CIA press office.  And even there, Bill did not knock himself out (although he tried harder later when spinning his story:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Comic emphasis added.  Look, when my son buys new shirts he gets the largest size in the kids section, but I don't tell people he wears the largest shirts.

Too cryptic?  OK, please, PLEASE tell me why Harlow could not have said either of the following:

"Bob, please stay on the line; DCI Tenet will be picking up to explain to you why we would not like to see anything published about Ms, Plame.

Or, "Bob, let me just double-check - your editor is still Steve Huntley of the Sun-Times, yes?  Please ask him to expect a call from DCI Tenet."

That did not happen.  Yet folks within the Adminisatration were able to get results wuth both the CIA secret prison story and the NSA story.  I just wonder why.

Comments

[Section9]

Ah, the Central Intelligence Agency continues its war against the Bush Administration.

You know, if they weren't so incompetent, they might actually have been able to bag bin Laden by now. Instead, the CIA is good at one thing; leaking highly classified information in order to damage a President with whom they disagree.

They tried the coup d'etat route already. That was the origin of the Joe Wilson thing; but their guy Kerry lost. It's as if Bush were Arbenz, Mossadegh, or Diem. Too bad they're too incompetent to actually fight the enemy.

[JJ]

I'm no expert in communications technology, but I have a friend who is quite knowledgeable. He sent me this e-mail thia morning:
"My thoughts on the NSA wire taps go something like this: This is an area where the Law is a way behind the current telephonic technology. The need to tap a person not hardware, is one of the key issues. As for time, the tappers have to move rapidly to keep up with the switching of devices, there is no time, not even minutes to present things to a judge who, even if expedient, is not fast enough to keep up. So while technology has rapidly evolved the Law has remained static - stuck somewhere around the Al Capone - J. Edgar Hoover 1930's era. This failure to keep up has put the US in a very dangerous position and those who fail to recognize it are going to get a large number of us killed and injured."
If he's correct then I hope Congress will get the message and work with the administration on this.

[TM]

This is odd - Trent Lott is quoted by the WaPo as supporting the program:

Some prominent Republicans defended the surveillance, arguing it was necessary to combat terrorism. "I don't agree with the libertarians," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

However, he should have been briefed on it, right? Lott stepped down as Majority Leader just after the 2002 elections.

[fred lapides]

Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.--which meansw: we do not know who was told what and therefore must assume only those sympatico had been told.
Fact: NSA is not to spy on American citizens domestically. Fact: under the Bush program, even the courts are not to be used as safeguard. That means: trust us. It is for your good. Fact: the FBI is not to tap phones without court orders. Question: are they too allowed now to circumvent court ok?

That a few people in congress were told about something like this does not make it ok....how many in Nazi Germany knew about the plans for the final extermination of the
Jews?

[kim]

Able Danger is not going through a judge.
==============================================

[Seixon]

The NYTimes might have complied with the administration perhaps only because they wanted to wait to spring this when things were starting to go upwards for Bush, as they are now. Right after the Iraq election, they try to nail him with this.

Sitting here in Norway, the Norwegian press is leaving out virtually all the finer details, such as how many times eavesdropping was conducted, that members of Congress were briefed, etc, etc. None of these facts get told abroad, which makes Bush virtually look like Hitler to the rest of the world. Brilliant work, I must say, for a propaganda enterprise.

[creepy dude]

Bush briefed Congressional leaders. And you buy that at face value?

Didn't the Congressional Research Service just prove was Bush lying about his repeated assertions that Congress saw the same intelligence he did? Short answwer-yes.

Bush will back down from this because he is wrong-just like he just surrendered completely on the Mccain amendment after an earlier veto threat.

And for all you Bush lovers-tell me when Bush was wrong re: the Mccain amendment-when he threatened to veto it or when he agreed to it? He can't be right both times-though I can't wait to see how the master ass-kissers here will square that circle.

[Syl]

It's not a matter of Bush briefing congressional leaders that there is a program, the DETAILS of every tap are presented to a committee EVERY 45 DAYS for oversight.

These are communications with numbers found on terrorists computers, etc. They are not domestic phone numbers. A call comes in from that number, or a call goes out to that number overseas, we tap it.

Is that so hard to understand?

All the details are passed to a congressional oversight committee.

What part of that don't you understand?

The Pakistanis capture and al Qaeda guy in Karachi. We're there, get the computer, get the numbers and email addresses. No time to wait for a judge in the states. Tap the lines before the goons on the other end even know this guy was captured.

What part of that don't you understand?

[SteveMG]

Creepy Dude:
Elevate the debate, please. Give it a try.

You make some good points (on occasion) but they're lost in your less-than-Dale Carnegie-how-to-win-friends-and-influence people style of arguing.

SMG

[kim]

Syl, not much time to work with that Pakistani computer before the New York Times spills that one, too. I remember.
======================================

[SteveMG]

Bush is fighting a war against a trans-national terrorist organization that uses stealth with impunity with a intelligence agency he simply cannot trust to keep a secret.

Good luck with that one W.

JFK (reportedly) threatened to break the CIA into a thousands pieces after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That may be a story planted by Schlesinger or another Kennedy hagiographer to provide cover for the disaster. But too bad he didn't follow through.

Probably would have won the Cold War in the early 70s.

Too bad Bush's father isn't young enough to go to Langley and take names.

SMG

[oldradus]

Ben Franklin's statement that 'those who would give up some liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security' be observed in all seriousness.

This moron in the W-H has a autocratic streak -- Be afraid, be VERY afraid. If the 'use of force' resolution gives the Pres. the power to set aside laws as has been stated. Then we are NOT, for the duration of this war, a nation of laws, but of men, or rather of ONE MAN. G.Bush, Le Loi? C'est moi!

[John Thacker]

The NSA is not to spy on US persons. (Not just citizens; this includes anyone currently present in the country.) This includes US citizens abroad. However, the US also captures plenty of signals abroad, including those which are encrypted. After capturing those signals, it may turn out that some of the communications were by US citizens, whom the NSA is barred by law on spying on without a warrant.

Now, the NSA could refuse to intercept any signals at all that might be used by US citizens. This would of course curtail signals intelligence incredibly, to not be able to intercept any foreign communications. Therefore, the NSA's solution, which they have done for years, is to intercept foreign communications and then, after decoding, discarding all intercepts which deal with US persons (if there is no warrant). This must be discarded within a narrow (24 to 48 hours) timeframe after interception.

Previously, the NSA did not intercept any international communications between US persons and non-US persons. However, it appears that the Administration has decided to place international communications that originate domestically by US citizens under the same sort of restrictions as purely international communications. That is, the communications may be gathered, and then the parts of the conversation performed by US persons must be discarded, although the part spoken by non-US persons does not have to be.

That is sensible and only legal thing that the NSA could do that follows its mission, has precedent in its earlier treatment of international communications, and could be described by the newspaper articles.

People are often unaware that purely international communications by US citizens can be tapped by the NSA without a warrant, though their own communications must be discarded. That is because the NSA cannot always identify who is using a signal before capturing and decrypting it. Previously, communications where one end was domestic were not intercepted without a warrant at all, because of the guarantee that one end would be a US person and ineligible for spying. However, what they are doing is essentially identical to what they've done for years with purely international calls made by US citizens; capture the signal and then discard the things said/sent by US citizens.

[clarice]

The Congressional mewls about this tell me that the Dems realize that we have won the war in Iraq--And I think it is a dreadful miscalculation.I think the Middle will never trust them on national defense. Ever.

In any event it reminds me of Europe's made up shock at the rendition program:

"LONDON (Reuters) - Rendition, the controversial practice of moving terrorism suspects from one country to another, is not new and European governments should not be surprised by it, Colin Powell said on Saturday.

The former U.S. Secretary of State was speaking to the BBC after his successor, Condoleezza Rice was forced to defend the practice during a recent trip to Europe.

The trip was overshadowed by allegations that the Central Intelligence Agency ran secret prisons in eastern Europe and covertly transferred suspects via European airports.

"Most of our European friends cannot be shocked that this kind of thing takes place," Powell told BBC World.

"The fact that we have, over the years, had procedures in place that would deal with people who are responsible for terrorist activities, or suspected of terrorist activities." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051217/ts_nm/usa_powell_rendition_dc

Take that as a hint--that if they continue, there will be leaks at how much they cooperated with that program. Diploblab and the people who can translate it.

[larwyn]

Dr.Sanity has put it all to music
for the Merry Allah-mas season:

THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVE INFIDELS

Inspired by the National Review cover, Dr. Pat Santy presents
Mr. Abu Musab Al Zarkawi singing
"These Are a Few Of My Fave Infidels"
(sung to the tune of "These Are A Few Of My Favorite Things") **

Senator Murtha and Ms. Cindy Sheehan
ANSWER and MOVEON and Boxer and Dean
All those who buy what the NY Times sells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

Nancy Pelosi and Georgio Clooney;
Moonbats and Lefties and all that are looney;
All those who protest with loud, angry yells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

Feminist nazis and darling Code Pinkers;
Kerry and Kos and those other deep thinkers;
Secular nuts in their own little hells--
These are a few of my fave infidels!

When The Bush speaks,
When Iraq votes,
When I'm feeling sad;
I simply remember the the brave DNC
And then I don't feel so bad!

Give Dr. Sanity a big hand!
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
Click here: Dr. Sanity

With her inspiration I offer these:

Craig and Murkowski, joined Sununu and Hagel,
Taking roving wiretaps off the FBI's table,
Restoring our ease in ringing our cells,
They are the fav of our fav infidels!

And Senator Johnny "Secret Santa" McCain
Puts in the "pleasure" and takes out the pain.
We thank him sincerely for"Don't ask, we won't tell"
He is one of our favorite naive infidels!

We have hardly tapped the possiblities here.

[Syl]

Clarice

Take that as a hint--that if they continue, there will be leaks at how much they cooperated with that program. Diploblab and the people who can translate it.

Heh. Thanks for your insight.

[Jor]

TM, is there anything Bush could do to piss you off? Anything "testable"? Anyway, I'm sure he's only secretly spying on terrorists -- not on anything else. That would be a *shock*. As we all know, Patriot Act Provisions haven't been used for _anything_ but terrorism. There are plenty of reasons why your BS doesn't even stand up to a second of though -- i.e. FISA. At least start making up some long-winded-highly-implausible theory about that.

[Jor]

I know TM didn't find it important to mention, because he couldn't construct some bullshit theory yet to account for it -- but you conservatives do realize there is a special court to expedite warrants that has only rejected 4 applications in a quarter century, right? (via TPM). Bush doesn't need to specifically, secretly spy on anyone. There is a process already in place to do it. SEPERATION OF POWERS IDIOTS.

[Rizalist]

The President at all times must do what is necessary to protect and preserve the nation. But certain points raised by Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy and cited by Glenn Reynolds today are troubling: it wasn't necessary to skip the Courts since the special FISA Court tasked to handle these matters has only once denied a govt request in its 20 year history, and that was granted anyway on immediate appeal. Further, even emergency situations are actually covered by existing laws and recent case history, for when it is impractical to see the Judge. At Volokh is a nice link to USA vs. Usama bin Laden (decision was Dec. 19, 2000) which will be fundamental to the coming debates, IMO. [My first time here, saw your link on Memeorandum, thanks]

[clarice]

Oh, dear--why bother reading the disalogue above when you're drive by posting in a swarm?

[boris]

If the choice is between liberty or security, I'll take liberty. If the choice is security or privacy by government restraint, I'll take security and make my own privacy. I just don't believe in hampering the government of the people in it's primary function on the basis of make believe privacy any two bit private investigator can get around.

Going ballistic over monitoring international communications with suspected terrorists is lame. The change represents little more than reduction in red tape as the quantity of links after 911 swamped anything resembling actual judicial oversight. Data mining is a far greater intrusion into the illusion of privacy anyway and as it turns out, the only realistic way 911 could have been prevented.

[kim]

It is finally revealed that the names of MAD Magazine's Spy vs Spy are Able Danger and Danger Able.
=========================================

[Neuro-conservative]

Jay Rockefeller's connection to this leak is troubling. I thought his famous memo said there was only one opportunity to use intelligence gathering controversies to launch an investigation against the administration. I guess he is trying to take a second bite at the apple.

[kim]

Poor Jay. He might look at the present actions of the administration now that the purpose is nearly accomplished for the action against Saddam for insight into the motivation for it.

He is several horses behind the cart.
=========================================================

[Rick Ballard]

Rockefeller is simply raising the stakes. The Deaniac wing has been putting party above country for two years now and they just aren't getting the return that was promised. There aren't any strategists involved in this - just a bunch of tacticians with limited imaginations.

The Dems have marginal seats up in GA, LA, TX, IN, IA, KS, MO, SD, TN, and UT for the House and FL, NE, MI, MN and NM in the Senate. I wonder if any of those incumbents got to vote on whether leaking classified information to Paunch's fishwrap was a good idea?

Small minds generating small ideas wind up with small results. The blowback on the Defeatocrat wing is going to be entertaining to watch.

[Mark]

The FISA process can take up to a month to produce a warrent, this can render intelligence that requires timley action useless and put American lives at risk. During post 911 times, the Administration would not be doing it's duty if it failed to act on time crucial intel and the same hypocrites who say that Bush didn't connect the dots would be asking for his head.

[AST]

I wonder if the people at the Times would like police to wait for a warrant if there were an escaped homicidal maniac in their homes?

The term "exigent circumstances" has been in the law of search and seizure long enough, and interpreted by enough courts that the FBI knows what it means. Why are we letting the NYTimes be the judge?

I used to think that Republicans and Democrats only differed in the kind of policies they think would be good for society. Now I don't believe the Democrats should ever be trusted again. They've shown that they'll say anything for political ends. They make Tom Delay look like a saint, and most of the media are worse.

[Rick Ballard]

AST,

There will come a time (possibly sooner than anyone thinks) when the Democrats will split. The moderates still outnumber the Deaniacs/Defeatocrats even today. They can't put up with this crap much longer or they aren't going to be able to protect their seats. Dean's not even generating the money he promised so why in the world should they allow him and the Blue Castle lefties to call the shots?

[kim]

RB, the trouble is that the moderate Democrats are easing into moderate Republicanism. There will be two wings of the Republican Party, sooner than two of the Democratic. The two wings will agree on a President.
==============================================

[Jor]

Mark, Where is the link saying FISA can take a month?

[Specter]

fred and creepy,

If congressional leaders were not briefed, as even the NYT has stated, then why aren't they lining up at the microphones to deny it? Simple. They were. And if they knew about it, and thought it was wrong, then why didn't they come forward then? The forest for the trees......

[Rick]

Well, they can stop me with no cause at a drunk driving checkpoint. They can take pictures of my car going through intersections. Those are scary over-reaches of government that should outrage normal folks. But tapping some phones of people who talk overseas with those known to want to make holes in NY skyline and take as many Americans with them as possible... well... what do you folks think about driving checkpoints? Is this a fair comparison?

[flenser]

"That a few people in congress were told about something like this does not make it ok....how many in Nazi Germany knew about the plans for the final extermination of the
Jews?"

When they came for the Al Queda terrorists, I was silent, for I was not an Al Queda terrorist.

When they came for the Mafiosi, I was silent, for I was not a Mafiosi.

[vnjagvet]

From the tone of the criticism on this thread and elsewhere on the web, you would think the Commander In Chief were conducting a war on the American People or the Democratic Party or other domestic political foes rather than the Islamic Jihadists who have for nearly twenty years been carrying out plots against this country's people, its property and its institutions.

If there were any scintilla of evidence supporting that proposition, I would switch sides immediately. So long as the evidence remains that these activities are conducted to continue the prevention of other attacks like the one on September 11, I will support them.

Legitimate, creative interpretation of the law to protect the country is warranted in my opinion.

A careful reading of its reportage reveals that even the NYT did not offer a witness who would state for the record that these activities were unlawful.

Those who claim that they were have the burden of proof, and they have not met it.

[Davebo]

Mark, Where is the link saying FISA can take a month?

Only in the deep dark recess of Mark's mind.

Point 1. There's no need for it. They can already tap for 3 days without a warrant, and even use information from that tap to obtain a warrant.

Point 2. It's illegal. Period. And presidents cannot circumvent law by executive order secret or otherwise.

Point 3. Crawl out from under your freakin beds for just a second and at least PRETEND to be an American.

Jeez!

[clarice]

Maybe they should have tattooed it on her botoxed butt:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she had been told on several occasions that Bush had authorized unspecified activities by the National Security Agency, the nation's largest spy agency. She said she had expressed strong concerns at the time, and that Bush's statement Saturday "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful." < a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush">Dumber than dust

[Buddy Larsen]

Jed Babbin just made that point on in a TV interview--speed, timeliness, helped nail several plots in time. And Jor, if you're going to captalize and call people IDIOTS, you really should spell separation correctly. otherwise, you look like the idiot--not for the mis-spell, but for the carelessness right at the tight moment of establishing your superiority. It's almost as bad as calling someone an "idoit" or something.

[clarice]

dumber than dust

[boris]

There's no need for it. They can already tap for 3 days without a warrant, and even use information from that tap to obtain a warrant.

Then there should be no objection to the new policy because it simply removes meaningless red tape.

[boris]

UnBOLD I Command!

[Mescalero]

Tom--

Thanks for providing the information that the MSM and their Democratic Party owners refuse to provide to the rest of us!

[maryrose]

Rick,
You are spot on in your analysis of the situation. President Bush had to remind Jim Lehrer that the big story was the Iraq election not that we do necessary security work. The people who are outraged just don't 'get' the current war on terrorism that we are fighting.

[TP]

Flenser. Maybe I am too dumb to understand what you are saying. What makes the Jews like the Nazis and Mafiosi?

[flenser]

TP

Well, young grasshopper, the question you should be asking is "What makes Bush like Adolf Hitler?"

It's the poster upthread who likened the spying on terrorists to the Holocaust.

[Specter]

Huh?

[Rick Ballard]

MaryBeth,

I imagine that President Bush is capable of maintaining oversight on more than one aspect of national security at any given time.

After all, BJ Clinton could conduct congressional relations while being serviced by an intern - that might be considered by some to be a more difficult attempt at multitasking. I've often wondered if Clinton was overtaxed at the time that he ordered the incineration of the children at Waco - it's quite possible that he delegated that task to Hilary and we certainly don't know who was servicing him at the time but his casual breaking of the Posse Comitatus act in ordering the use of the Ft. Hood armor has always seemed to me to be evidence of distraction.

[clarice]

To the left everything is exactly like the Holocaust--except the Holocaust.

I should tell you that not only did I lose family in the Holocaust (indeed, my father's village, Rejowiec) was made a transit area to hold more once his village was wiped out, but that for a number of years I worked at DoJ's Office of Special Investigations, prosecuting those who assisted the Nazis, and the very notion that what the President did was illegal, let alone like the Holocaust , is so outrageous as to be beneath comment.

The law --as it is not a total ass-- permitted the President in time of war to issue this Executive Order. The power is used sparingly and under constant review (internal, judicial and Congressional).And (unlike, say, those 400 FBI files or the IRS--See Barrett report fandango--the President had no personal interest whatsoever in this).

[Specter]

RB,

I had to laugh...

After all, BJ Clinton could conduct congressional relations...

Not that the concept was funny - just that the word "relations" in conjunction with Bill C is hillaryious.

[TP]

I guess I had forgotten that Bush is Hitler. I suppose that makes Saddam and OBL Churchill and Roosevelt.

[Beto Ochoa]

My God. If you all only knew what went out the back door between 1993 and 2001.