A Stitch in Haste

In my last post I asserted that it wasn't just about wiretapping.

In fact, it's not really about "wiretapping" at all. But the Bush Administration wants you to think it's about wiretapping, because that makes it easier for them to obfuscate

For example, the White House has attempted a "mini-fisking" of various statements by Democratic politicians regarding the warrantless wiretap scandal.

The piece is merely the same shell game that the Administration and its apologists have been playing since the scandal was revealed:

We have clear authority under FISA.
No? Okay, clear authority under AUMF.
No? Okay, clear authority under Article II.
No? But it's al Qaeda! We know it's al Qaeda!
But we don't "know" it enough to get a warrant.
So we can't go to the FISA Court.
Why not? Because the FISA Court is obstructionist.
Oh, they're not? Okay, because they're too slow.
Oh, we could get a retroactive warrant?
Um, um, um...do you want another 9/11?!?

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

Nothing new in any of that gobbledygook. No, what actually got me uppity was the ludicrous invocation, in the very first sentence of the piece, of a quote from Press Secretary Blunderkind Scott McClellan:

Critics have stepped up their attacks on the President for authorizing the National Security Agency to listen to international communications of known al Qaeda members or affiliated terrorists during a time of war.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

I have yet to encounter such a "critic." If I did, I would most likely punch him in the face. No reasonable American opposes eavesdropping on "al Qaeda or affiliated terrorists during a time of war." We have no problem with that. It's the eavesdropping on the American citizen on the other of the phone that's upsetting us.

In other words, it's the "warrantless," stupid.