1 Boring Old Man

Well, there are two suits filed about the wiretapping [1][2], [thanks to Karen at Peripetia] but it seems like Gore’s suggestion for a Special Prosecutor is more appropriate. The Attorney General would be the person to appoint such a person, but he was on Larry King Live last night defending the President! The national media didn’t air Gore’s speech, just the refutations of what he said.

It’s the same old thing, "Clinton did it," so the blogs are spending their time refuting the refutations, as usual. Clinton didn’t do IT as it turns out, but who cares? That’s no defense. If Democrats broke the law, prosecute them. If Democrats took Abramoff’s payola, put them in jail. It is remarkable how quickly they roll out these Talking Points. If one doesn’t work, they keep them coming. It’s like the show Rove has put on about outing Ms. Wilson, "Didn’t like that lie? Here’s another, that covers the last one and adds a new one."

But it doesn’t matter. Gore’s speech was only seen by those of us who worked at seeing it. Everybody else watched the Golden Globe Awards. The Attorney General [Chief Prosecuter] who should be looking into the allegations is on the front line defending the defendants. Clinton’s behavior before something became a law is given as evidence that what Bush did after the law against it was enacted was okay. The media ignores Gore’s speech, instead focusing on the Administration’s counter-arguments. Time to push the rock up the hill again Mr. Sisyphus. How you holding up?

But, at least there are two suits filed…

Update: Gore’s response to the Attorney General.

There are two problems with the Attorney General’s effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration’s behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General’s attempt to cite a previous administration’s activity as precedent for theirs – even though factually wrong – ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration’s program.