How Do You Defend the Indefensible?

Well, you don't of course. It's much easier to engage in cheap character attacks. After all, that's what Tiggers the Bush team does best.

White House Rejects Gore Assertion on Eavesdropping

I know. You're shocked. Sit down and drink some ginger ale; you'll feel all right in a moment. (Bolds mine)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday rejected Al Gore's assertion that President George W. Bush broke the law in authorizing domestic eavesdropping and said the former vice president's comments showed "hypocrisy."

Ahem.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Bush's authorization as legal and aimed at detecting and preventing attacks.

"This is aimed at international communications involving someone who is associated with al Qaeda. This is about connecting the dots and preventing attacks from happening," McClellan said. "It is a vital tool in our efforts to preventing further attacks inside the United States."

Gore, the Democratic challenger who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, made the comments at the start of a congressional election year in which the domestic eavesdropping flap has become an issue.

First of all... Scotty... no one is saying that Bush doesn't have the right to protect Americans. That's part of his "job," after all. No one is saying that Bush can't spy on people suspected of terrorism. The warrant policies have been in place since the 70's, after all, and it would be foolish to assume that no spying has been done after your favorite date in the whole wide world, 9/11.

The point, dear Scotty, is that this was done without a warrant. Bush broke the law. That is the problem here. I would expect the government to do some spying in order to "protect Americans." However, if the President is going to do some spying on Americans, he'd better have a damn good reason.

And he'd better have a warrant.

And please don't give me that "What if there was no time? We don't have time to wait to get a warrant" silliness. It's just pathetic, really.

Second... can we please stop saying that Gore lost to Bush in the 2000 election when he makes statements that are critical of Bush and his administration? This is not a simple issue of sour grapes. Thank you.

"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.

How exactly is stating that Bush has broken the law hypocritical? Has Gore somehow committed a crime against the Constitution and the American people?

"I'd just say if Al Gore is going to be the voice of Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it," he said.

You know what? If that would mean more speeches like yesterday, I'll welcome it too. Now get back to your LiteBrite and let the grownups talk, Scottie.

Fortunately, the ACLU is not being blinded by the 9/11 smokescreen, and has filed a lawsuit.

NEW YORK - Civil liberties groups filed lawsuits in two cities Tuesday seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, arguing the electronic surveillance of American citizens was unconstitutional.

The U.S. District Court lawsuits were filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The New York suit, filed on behalf of the center and individuals, names President Bush, the head of the National Security Agency, and the heads of the other major security agencies, challenging the NSA's surveillance of persons within the United States without judicial approval or statutory authorization.

It seeks an injunction that would prohibit the government from conducting surveillance of communications in the United States without warrants.

Which is, of course, the way Bush was supposed to behave in the first place. We're suing the president to require him to get a warrant before spying on Americans... when he already needs a warrant before spying on Americans.

I'm living in a cuckoo clock.

So, now that the ACLU is involved, I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will be frothing at the mouth over this. Although a supposed "independent thinker" really should be more concerned with the fact that the President is breaking the law. But that's expecting a bit much of falafelboy.

What about Malkin? I'm sure she had some scathing words for Gore.

Gee... not a word. What a shock.

Of course, there's plenty of time and bandwidth to further bash Hillary Clinton for daring to suggest that soldiers should have more, or better body armor. By the way, she's still using examples of soldiers saying they "don't want more" by only quoting men in the army, ignoring the Marines; the soldiers that the Pentagon report was about in the first place.

Malkin: All Hillary-Bashing, all the time.

I guess a President that breaks the law isn't worthy of her precious "sober analysis."

(I knew a girl named cross-post, I guess u could say she was a sex fiend...)