This is so crazy making

All right. You know what makes me absolutely crazy? It's the Bush administration justifying itself regarding criticism nobody has made. It's the straw man argument. It's slyly changing the subject ever so slightly so that the original issue is lost. True to form, Bush is defending surveillance of possible terrorists as if we had objected to that - which we didn't. Take a look at this article in USA Today entitled, "Surveillance program protects country, Bush says" .

Tue Jan 24, 7:35 AM ET
President Bush defended on Monday what he called a "terrorist surveillance program" that targets international communications of suspected al-Qaeda members. However, the nation's No. 2 intelligence officer acknowledged that not every call monitored proved to have a terrorist link.

Objecting to the term "domestic spying," Bush said the surveillance he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks involves communications in which one party is outside the USA.

Bush said he had the legal and constitutional authority for the program without congressional approval. He told an audience at Kansas State University that U.S. intelligence can determine whether someone is tied to al-Qaeda, "and if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why."

Yes, indeed, I would want to know why too. That's why we have FISA. That's why we have a secret court from whom warrants can be obtained - even after the fact if time is of the essence. Listen up, George Bush: What part of "get a warrant" don't you understand? We're not objecting to the surveillance. We're objecting to illegal surveillance. Big, big difference. Now it seems to me that if you don't want to get a warrant it must mean you don't have probable cause or you want to spy on somebody no court would let you spy on. Who is it, George? Journalists? Democrats? Nuns? (I know you're already going after Catholic Workers and Quakers. Who's next? How 'bout Episcopal nun/Buddhist types who write blogs? And no, Homeland Security. I'm not taunting the president. I'm just expressing my utter disgust. Last I looked, that was still legal.) Dissenters of all stripes?

The president with his "unitary executive" theory has basically made the case that the law doesn't apply to him. That's what we're objecting to. And I, for one, will object to it with my dying breath.