The War on Terror (abridged version)

If you vote for Kerry, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't renew the Patriot Act, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't pass this spending bill, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you force us to leave Iraq, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us torture people, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you don't let us eavesdrop on you, you will be attacked by terrorists.

If you challenge our authority, you will be attacked by terrorists.

Bush war powers, Tom Daschle, anthrax and September 18, 2001

The Washington Post details the backstory regarding the resolution passed after 9/11 (the one which Bush claims gives him the authority to spy on us):

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

The Justice Department acknowledged yesterday, in a letter to Congress, that the president's October 2001 eavesdropping order did not comply with "the 'procedures' of" the law that has regulated domestic espionage since 1978. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, established a secret intelligence court and made it a criminal offense to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant from that court, "except as authorized by statute."

... The congressional resolution of Sept. 18, 2001, formally titled "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," made no reference to surveillance or to the president's intelligence-gathering powers, and the Bush administration made no public claim of new authority until news accounts disclosed the secret NSA operation.

I'll explain why I added the emphasis to the date above in just a moment. As Daschle explains:

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

...

If the stories in the media over the past week are accurate, the president has exercised authority that I do not believe is granted to him in the Constitution, and that I know is not granted to him in the law that I helped negotiate with his counsel and that Congress approved in the days after Sept. 11. For that reason, the president should explain the specific legal justification for his authorization of these actions, Congress should fully investigate these actions and the president's justification for them, and the administration should cooperate fully with that investigation.

Now then.

The same day that joint resolution passed in Congress -- September 18, 2001, and a resolution changed at the last minute by Daschle to prevent Bush from declaring war on Americans in the name of terror -- that same day, Americans were targeted in a domestic terrorist attack.

Letters laced with anthrax were dropped in mailboxes around the country. One originally thought to be postmarked 9/18/01 was addressed to Tom Daschle (scroll down to just above "Elsewhere Monday"). This letter was actually mailed in early October. Here's some images of anthrax letters.

That was a heckuva job on that investigation, wasn't it?

(Special thanks goes to bettyellen and Syrinx for their research.)

Is flip-flopping patriotic?

SusanG at Kos points out the latest:

From MSNBC six days ago:

Mr Bush, in an effort to force passage of the bill, warned on Friday he would veto any temporary extension of the (Patriot) act.

From AP today:

The White House is hailing the Senate's vote to extend the Patriot Act for six months, a day after vowing President Bush wouldn't accept a short-term extension.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls Wednesday night's Senate vote "an important victory for the American people."

It's truly astounding how myopic and forgetful the administration presumes us to be.

Moneyshot Quote of the Week #2: Tom DeLay on Congressional Ethics

Joe Conason via David Sirota and kos. Originally from the Congressional Record, 11/16/95 (.pdf) :

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know ... I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

A few Christmas images

"The Grinch Factor"

(a poem by UVa law school professor Rosa Brooks:)

The Whos down in Who-ville

Were a tolerant lot:

Who Christians, Who Muslims — a Who melting pot.

Who Hindus! Who atheists! Who Buddhists, Who Jews!

Who Confucians, Who pagans,

And even Who Druze! The Who 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause

Said, "No creches in courts," and the Whos loved their laws.

Because somehow … they worked. The Whos rarely fought,

Mostly, each Who did just what he ought.

Every Who down in Who-ville

Loved the Consti-Who-tion a lot.

But the O'Reilly, who lived up in Fox-ville,

Did NOT!

The O'Reilly DETESTED the Who Consti-Who-tion,

He thought it was some sort of liberal pollution.

Now, please don't ask why, for I really don't know.

Perhaps it had something to do with his show.

It could be that his head wasn't screwed on quite right.

Or it could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.

But I think that the most likely reason of all

May have been that his RATINGS

Were two sizes too small.

Well, whatever it was, bad ratings or tight shoes,

He stood there one Christmas, just hating the Whos.

"They're so multicultural," he sneered, "and wherever they're from,

They lack the good sense to just launch a pogrom!

There's no Who ethnic cleansing, no Who Inquisition,

If this PEACE can't be stopped, I may lose my position.

Those sensitive, tolerant Whos! It's quite grating.

I must think of something to fix my show's ratings!"

Go read the rest here.

Abramoff ready to flip

And this is quite honestly the worst news of the day for DeLay (and a few dozen other Republicans, and perhaps even a Democrat or two):

Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.

Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."

Whatever Ronnie Earle does or does not accomplish with regard to DeLay's crimes in Texas, this case will result in all manner of Republican indictments, resignations, and defeats at the ballot box next year.

The tsunami is coming, and the corruption is going to be washed out.

And there isn't a damn thing that can be done to stop it.