Out of My Mind

If I were a real blogger, I'd parse the entire NewsHour transcript for you. Instead, I'm just going to do what I can in a couple of minutes. And, hey, I just gave a link to the transcript....

So, the Chimp speaks (no word whether the box was attached to his back):

Jim, we do not discuss ongoing intelligence operations to protect the country, and the reason why is that there's an enemy that lurks, that would like to know exactly what we're trying to do to stop them.

He's completely right. Given the existence of the PATRIOT Act, no one would assume there was any domestic surveillance at all. It's one of shibboleths of national security I've loved: The American people have to be kept in the dark because our enemies are so stupid that they couldn't assume we'd be doing the obvious thing. Our enemies are so stupid they need to be told what we're doing, spelled out nice and simply enough for a W or Dittohead or Bushie supporter to understand.

But then he makes us a promise, with fingers crossed:

I will make this point. That whatever I do to protect the American people, and I have an obligation to do so, that we will uphold the law, and decisions made are made understanding we have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of the American people.

Okay. I give up; I just don't have the time to parse so much crap in so few words. Suffice to say, it's an obvious lie. And an empty promise from the poster boy for stolen elections.

OTOH, I have to run this one for obvious reasons:

I-- after 9/11, I told the American people I would do everything in my power to protect the country, within the law, and that's exactly how I conduct my presidency.

Here, I must give the administration credit. There has not been another 9/11 since 2001. OTOH, it is very possible (here I'm given an unearned benefit of the doubt) that this administration, you can say, enabled 9/11. And this "within the law" is, well, let's say a creative expression... maybe it's meant figuratively, like within the law as W understands it, or within the law as a Republican president's royal right of fiat, or within the law as twisted and torn by Albert Gonzalez and his posse.

OK, maybe one more:

....I remember talking to an Iraqi woman recently who said, I cannot believe you're giving a Saddam Hussein a trial like that. I said, well, first of all, we're not, you are. And secondly, it's important that he have a fair trial because it stands in stark contrast to the way he treated people. What I found interesting was that she wasn't interested in fair trials. She was interested in sudden retribution, and that's one of the real big issues we're going to have to work with the new Iraqi government on is to reconcile years of bitterness.

Well, that's an issue. Is Saddam getting a fair trial as within Iraqi law, any ex post facto laws excluded? I doubt but wish there was some way to nail him good. That said, I don't know that being dictator while your security and police forces torture and slaughter is really so actionable. Or is under existing Iraqi law. Too, I dunno that it's universally accepted that overreation against a threat to national stability and order is a crime. We all know the GOP doesn't believe that controls here. Maybe the correct answer would be an international tribunal (more Nuremberg than International Court of Justice if you know what I mean).

I now give up. If interested, read the whole thing here.

W also gave a long spiel on the latest Iraqi election, but this long slide to an Islamic republic is never addressed. Maybe it's not inevitable, but it is certainly likely. What's being done to prevent it? And if it were to happen, between that and making Iraq a fertilization pot for terrorists, would the war have been worthwhile?

And for a nice analysis of the spying at home issue, see this and, maybe more importantly, this.

And apropos the slippery slide to another Iran, read this.