Running Down Plame

Er, actually a sort-of Plame rundown (yeah, that's what I meant!)...go visit JustOneMinute and marvel:

David Gregory, apparently a liar...

and changing stories...

James Joyner has thoughts on Grossman:

Marc Grossman, who came across as cool and cooperative in yesterday’s testimony, is bumbling and unhelpful today. Defense attorney Ted Wells asked him why, in two separate interviews with the FBI prior to his appearance before the grand jury, he told them that he had relayed information about Joe Wilson’s Niger trip by telephone but he is now telling the jury that it was in face-to-face meetings. He can not explain this.

Whoops.

Train-wreck waiting to happen. How exactly did this get to trial?

That man is too smart by half

Victor Davis Hanson chimes in on an apparently ill-advised Iraq criticism:

Noticed in the New York Times more of the old comparison of Iraq to Sicily, 415-413 B.C. But again, that might be a comparison that the writer would not like to make. Athens attacked not a dictator, but in Syracuse, the Greek world's largest democracy—sort of as if the United States in 2003 had suddenly invaded India. And despite Thucydides' own narrative of ample aid for the enterprise, the historian's own final assessment of the ill-planned expedition was that it nevertheless might have worked had those at home consistently offered their united support. And finally, Sicily did not wreck Athens, despite the horrendous losses of 40,000 and most of the fleet. Within months it was laying down new triremes, and lasted another 9 years, recreating an entirely new navy, inflicting terrible punishment on the Spartan fleet, unwisely refusing all peace-feelers over the next decade, all before being ruined at Aegospotami. Somehow a nation of 300 million losing 3,000 brave soldiers in an effort to depose a monstrous, mass-murdering dictator and foster democracy in his place, with a congressional vote of authorization, doesn't seem comparable to the Sicilian expedition-especially when the verdict is still out...

I've made that last point myself but of course since only about 10 people read this, it's not very well received, if at all. The fact that anyone would think making historical judgments--or in this instance comparisons--about Iraq while that history is till being made, boggles the mind.

Chin Blogging

Welcome to the party!

Figures

I've already read one review of the SOTU calling it President Bush's best (not to mention criticism of the canned variety as well). Well of course...that would be the year that I sit it out in favor of personal obligations to family and friends.

Meanwhile, Peter Robinson offers forceful commentary about what appears to have been a forceful statement of conservative principals in many ways and perhaps the best explanation of Iraq and the President's foreign policy in five years:

But listen to this: “A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy.” Or to this: “[We need to expand the econony] not with more government, but with more enterprise.” These were the most straightforward, compelling statement of the fundamental importance of free markets that this president has uttered in many months. On balancing the budget “without raising taxes,” on reducing earmarks, on reforming entitlements, on the need for school vouchers, and in presenting his plan to restore tax neutrality to health spending—in nearly every word of his domestic agenda, the president proved serious, compelling, and—a word I’d almost given up associating with him—conservative.

The section on the war on terror? The best statement of his case since his speech to the nation on September 20, 2001. Whereas a year ago the president spoke about Iraq in words he might almost have used a full year earlier, tonight he was specific to this moment. He explained how we reached this point, what we face now—and what he intends to do about it. “Whatever you voted for,” he said to his audience, “you did not vote for failure.” Superb.

The speech was straightforward, solidly delivered, and cogent—a case made in full, an argument. It would have represented a fine piece of work at any time. But at this moment, when the nation is disheartened, when the president’s political opponents appear positively giddy with his standing in the polls, and when some two-thirds of Congress appears to be clamoring for retreat from Iraq—at this moment the speech represented a really splendid act of courage.

Hard is not Hopeless

General David Petraeus in his Senate testimony today made the obvious point that I've made here and elsewhere far less eloquently. From his response to questioning from Senator Kennedy:

Sen. Edward Kennedy asked him why an extra 21,500 would make a significant difference. Petraeus replied that the important factor was how extra troops are used, not their numbers. Their main focus, he said, will be on securing the civilian population of the capital rather than killing insurgents..."

The Senator from Massachusetts makes a good stand-in for all who profess their lack of understanding on why and how the surge can--though not guaranteed to--work in Baghdad.

Aside from that obvious point, Petraeus also made it clear that from his view of things, the day is not lost:

"The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard. ... But hard is not hopeless," he said...

A point that, sadly, Congress doesn't get.

Nothing learned, nothing gained

Nothing new:

Parties do split, and the Congressional Republicans seem headed toward such a breakdown. The Congressional Republicans are putting forward positions that were not part of the party's agenda in the fall, and not part of the leadership elections that followed either. They are positions far removed from the party's core commitment to national security and an aggressive war against terror in Iraq and elsewhere.

What is it about minority status that rips the spine out of GOP members of Congress?

Again...Still?

Herschel Smith at The Captain's Journal observed yet another instance of our Government at war...with itself. Pointing out that the President in his announcing of the Baghdad surge, also intimated a significant change in strategy vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, he then highlighted numerous disappointing signs that other members of the Administration (officials and/or their bureaucracies) are hard at work continuing their fight against the President and his efforts:

The U.S. is at a strategic and unique point in history, with Iran and Syria among the top reasons that stability has not been brought to Iraq, Iran aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and both countries fomenting the spread of jihadism throughout the region. Decisions made at the highest levels of government over the coming months will have deep and lasting impacts on civilization for many generations to come. It is apparent that the general public does not comprehend the momentous and watershed events upon us, and it is equally apparent that this administration is not girded for the struggle.

...

Assessment and Commentary

Ostensibly, the administration has finally fully engaged in the war that Iran and Syria are conducting on the U.S. by proxy fighters. Or have they? Any threat by Iran to conduct conventional warfare against the U.S. is likely a hollow threat, and their biggest threat is still asymmetric warfare. They are conducting this with ease and without apology. As I have discussed in The Broader War: Redefining our Strategy for Iraq, Iraq is part of a regional problem and thus will require a regional solution. Iran is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Yet after issuing sanctions on Iran, some members of the EU want a more nuanced approach to support for nuclear programs from the IAEA to Iran, believing that this will once again engage Iran rather than "forcing them into a corner." Inside Iraq, a top Shi'ite politician, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, strongly criticized the U.S. detention of the Iranian agents, literally calling it an "attack on Iraq's sovereignty."

Kuwait has made known their desire that the U.S. engage in talks with Iran, and Iraq's foreign minister increased the pressure yet again on the U.S. by promising to Iran's foreign minister to free the detained Iranians. Iran has all but dismissed any potential hit on its nuclear facilities, telling the world not to take seriously the possibility that the U.S. will follow through with such plans.

In the most ham-handed diplomatic move since the beginning of the war, it seems that the administration cannot retreat fast enough from Bush's threats to Iran.

Sen. Joseph Biden, now Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman (and a Dem presidential contender), sent a letter to Bush after a question-and-answer confrontation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Biden said Rice had been evasive on whether Bush's statements meant that U.S. military personnel could cross into Iran or Syria in pursuit of insurgent support networks. He also asked whether the administration believes the president could order such action without first seeking explicit congressional approval--as Biden thinks he must.

But regardless of how far the President has authorized U.S. forces to go in search of rogue elements, the administration cannot even seem to muster the resolve to allow the Iranians to think that we will enter their territories. Continuing,

... administration officials (anonymous due to diplomatic sensitivities) concede that Bush's Iran language may have been overly aggressive, raising unwarranted fears about military strikes on Tehran. Instead, they say, Bush was trying to warn Iran to keep its operatives out of Iraq, and to reassure Gulf allies--including Saudi Arabia--that the United States would protect them against Iranian aggression. A senior administration official, not authorized to speak on the record, says the policy is part of the new Iraq offensive. "All this comes out of our very detailed, lengthy review of strategy from last fall," he says. Recent intel indicates the government of Iran, or elements in it, have stepped up interference in Iraqi political affairs and the supply of weapons to Iraqi Shiite insurgents, say several U.S. intel and national-security officials, anonymous when discussing sensitive material. "The reason you keep hearing about Iran is we keep finding their stuff there, " Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace said Friday. Two of the officials, however, indicated Bush had not signed a secret order--known as an intel 'finding' authorizing the CIA or other undercover units to launch covert operations to undermine the governments of Iran and Syria.

At a time when the world is watching for resolve, the President's handlers are denuding the story and handing him the worst foreign affairs blunder in recent memory. With a softer approach to counterinsurgent warfare in Iraq possible, along with a strangled story as soon as it leaves the President's lips, we are kicking the proverbial can down the road in the hope that we do not finally have to deal with it. But that can will only be kicked so far.

So at what point does this kind of counter-productive, "We know better than you," kind of backstabbing become not an annoyance but a hindrance to any hoped-for accomplishment and and, dare we say, start inching towards treasonous contempt for the authority of the Chief Executive at a time of war?

Ding Dong, the $%# - %^&#@* Witch is Dead!

God Bless Peyton Manning, his sore thumb and the Colts' defense...

This one was Manning at his best.

He was the first-round draft pick in 1998, considered a prototypical, can't-miss guy despite the fact that he could never win the big one in Tennessee, falling to archrival Florida three times when the Vols might have been good enough to win it all.

He was 0-2 in the playoffs against New England, and the storyline all week was what a break the Colts got to get the Patriots at home, and what a sensational feeling it would be to finally knock off the team that bedeviled them most.

Manning conceded during the week that he could hear the clock ticking as his career entered its prime, especially as the disappointments mounted.

His teammates protected him, saying the quarterback shouldn't shoulder all the burden for the franchise's inability to break through and make the Super Bowl.

But now Indy has finally done it, for the first time since owner Bob Irsay's midnight move from Baltimore back in 1984 found the Colts in the Midwest, adopted at first by a basketball-loving fan base, then embraced when Manning came into the fold.

The Patriots lost for the first time in six trips to the AFC championship game, as coach Bill Belichick found himself uncharacteristically unable to shut down Peyton and Co.

Doting Daddy

That loud explosion...

What you heard was the sound of exploding heads at Daily Kos:

Once again the "independent Democrat" from Connecticut is burnishing his Republican credentials, this time by announcing that he will join in a filibuster against the Senate resolution opposing the escalation of troops in Iraq.

MS. BLOCK: Can you imagine a scenario where you would join in with a Republican filibuster to stop the resolution, if it comes to that?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I can because I think that it – this is this important.

Calling the resolution, "phony," Lieberman says:

I say to those who are opposed to what the president is now suggesting that they have a responsibility to do one thing: one is to come up with a better plan if they don’t like this one...

I'd suggest that BarinMD double-down and check out this report from yesterday:

Seeking to capitalize on Democratic discord, House Republicans declared their readiness to "rally" together on Iraq, hoping to bring some Democrats over to their side.

The generally unified Democratic position on Iraq has reached a crossroads: two sizable groups of congressmen are set to diverge on whether or not to call on the Bush administration to redeploy American troops from Iraq.

All that precint-walking, all those phone calls, all the elctioneering and all the anger...could it all be for nothing!?

Speaking into Reality

Clarice Feldman, frequent commenter at Just One Minute and co-blogger at American Thinker and legal expert in her own right, shares her thoughts about the jury selection process in the Libby trial this week. The prime observation is one that seems obvious to defenders of the Administration and their behavior. Seeing it stated as such though is troubling:

On January 16, Libby filed a motion asking that he be permitted to probe the extent of exposure jurors had to such coverage.

As previously noted by the defense, the pretrial publicity in this case has been significant and in many cases has included inaccurate and inflammatory statements and assertions that are unduly prejudicial to Mr. Libby. Therefore, in connection with the voir dire, the defense will need to ask certain venire members about their exposure to such publicity and probe whether that exposure has affected their ability to impartially judge the facts in this case. Such individualized voir dire is necessary to give the Court an adequate basis for determining whether the venire member will be able to render a verdict based on the evidence adduced at trial, and not incomplete facts and speculation circulating before trial. See United States v. Liddy, 509 F.2d 428, 434-35 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Attached to this pleading are a sample of instances of publicity.... [emphasis added]

The exhibits contained biased and inaccurate and inflammatory press coverage of the case, beginning with the Special Prosecutor's unfortunate and misleading press conference transcript (I have discussed this presser before and it is part of the complaint I filed with the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Integrity).

Sunny Day, a JustOneMinute Poster, has put the exhibits in html format for easier reading here, here, here, and here.

I have no record of an order being entered to permit what Libby requested, but based on my observations from the media room at the courthouse, the defense was allowed to ask jurors what they knew about the case and how they learned it, with particular attention to the coverage attached as exhibits to the pleading Libby filed.

As the defendant was a member of the Administration, and other officials including Vice President Cheney are expected to testify, counsel probed whether the potential jurors' views of the Administration would impair their ability to fairly judge the case.

That this pretrial publicity has had a pervasive, poisonous effect on public opinion of the defendant was obvious in the jury selection process yesterday. A majority of the potential jurors I saw had not only heard of the case but had adopted the false narrative of it: that Libby was being tried for disclosing the name of a an undercover CIA agent as vengeance for her husband's exposing Administration lies about Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium in Africa. That is to say, they had been reached by the press narrative that the administration lied, Wilson told the truth and Libby, uncaring of national security, "outed" her to pay back her husband for speaking truth to power.

Takes you back doesn't it? Back to the heady days when everyone was certain that the Bushies were punishing Joe by ruining Valerie's career for political reasons. Yes, those were the days!

Too bad it never happened that way except in the WaPo and NY Times.

UPDATE: And don't forget The Nation's David Corn.

Not surprising

A couple of Saturday unsurprises:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton unveiled her intentions to begin a widely anticipated campaign for the White House on Saturday. The former first lady, intent on becoming the first female president, said on her web site message, “I’m in and I’m in to win.”

Glad to see we've cleared up that six-years worth of suspense.

Southern California assistant head coach Steve Sarkisian withdrew from the Oakland Raiders' coaching race Friday, just days after apparently emerging as the favorite to succeed Art Shell.

As any sane man would.

Crisis!

Big Orange is out to get us...thank God we have a Congress willing to stand up to the capitalist pig-dogs!

When Sucking wouldn't Suck

When ridiculousness like this doesn't apply to you because, well, you suck:

S.1 has been introduced in the Senate as "lobbying reform" -- which in this case means "First Amendment infringements." An amendment has been attached, which requires registration of bloggers with more than 500 readers, and who comment on policy issues. Violation would be a criminal offense.

I looked it up on the Library of Congress webpage (which is essentially unlinkable) and have attached section 220 in extended remarks, below. As the bill is reported, it appears to cover any "paid" grassroots lobbying, that reaches more than 500 people. But a blogger who receives contributions might be classed as a "paid" grassroots type. It looks like Congress wants to keep an eye on annoying people like Porkbusters. It may be significant that S.1 was introduced by Harry Reid, one of the Kings of Pork.

At Running the Gauntlet, the list of Senators on-board with this restriction includes, for the most part, most of the usual suspects. Looking at the Republican names sadly lends credence to the idea that the bill's intent is purely to stop criticism.

How so? Recall that over the summer Senator Trent Lott was actively and proudly crusading against earmark reform. He took not-so-kindly to criticism leveled at he and the Senate both from the likes of Porkbusters. And here is the new Minority Whip signing on with the likes of other free-speech quellers like Harry Reid.

That's the bad news. The 'good' news is that said restrictions apply 'only' to those fortunate enough to be read by 500 or more supporters.

So when you're putting up those killer numbers like we do, it's almost like the speech-police don't exist!

Made in Moronica

Direct from Moronica and not-nearly-at-all-ready-for-prime-time, dueling rants today in the local letters to the editor. Well, not really dueling...they both take a similar tack on the same subject.

It's more appropriate to say they are competing rants. Competing, that is, for for the odious distinction of being some of the least well-thought out and downright mindless criticisms to run in the local paper(s) for quite some time. First from Terry in Lompoc:

It is unfathomable to me that after the American people, the bipartisan study committee on Iraq, retired and current generals and even many Republicans have voiced their opinions in favor of a phased plan for a quick withdrawal from this pointless and costly war in Iraq, our president continues on his unilateral course to win in Iraq.

By not listening to any of these important and critical voices, he demonstrates once again that he cares only for himself and his delusions of victory in a war that has no purpose, and in a war that was begun under false pretenses and lies to the American people and their elected officials.

This dreadful war has only created chaos for the Iraqi people and has needlessly killed hundreds of thousands, including 3,000 of our kids, spouses and other loved ones.

Not only should Congress exercise its constitutional authority to hold the president accountable, it should begin the impeachment process to oust the most dangerous president this country has every had.

Meanwhile, from idyllic Nipomo we have more meme-spewing. Over-stating things, you say? That's part of what we do in Moronica:

How bad do things have to get before Congress does its job and impeaches an unelected war president?

It's clear he is not capable of change. He was put in Washington by and for the rich because they want it all. "Mistakes were made" suggests that Iraq is somebody else's fault. Mistakes are still being made and there is one stubborn fool responsible.

If ever there was a need to impeach a president, this is it, before he manages to force his nut version of Armageddon upon the world.

Americans are not the superior race, human beings are, so let's act like it and stop stealing from our weaker brothers.

If we trade fairly for resources instead of allowing corporate thugs to use our military to barge in and monopolize everything for billions they don't need, we can have more friends than enemies. We must replace the corporate decider with a president for the people, like voters did in Bolivia.

Remember the lessons of Disney's "Fantasia." What happened when Mickey got hold of the Wizard's wand of power? Wake up the wizards in Congress to take the wand from the hands of a fool.

Watch "Fantasia," believe, and impeachbush.org.

I personally lost count of the regurgitated talking points by the time I got to the end. And how 'bout that closing analogy!? Powerful stuff.

And yes, I've wondered for quite some time why there hasn't been a greater cry for Bolivian-style leftward lurches in the mainstream body politic.

Local evidence

Oil dipping significantly...gas and heating oil supplies actually up...what's the world coming to?

It must be true if both Unocal stations in town--the only two big-oil stations in town and where prices have exceeded $2.60 a gallon for weeks now--have dropped nearly 10-cents in a week. Hasn't stopped them from being over-priced relative to everybody else, but progress is progress.

The Good first Step

The Mahdi Army whines...

Mahdi Army fighters said Thursday they were under siege in their Sadr City stronghold as U.S. and Iraqi troops killed or seized key commanders in pinpoint nighttime raids. Two commanders of the Shiite militia said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has stopped protecting the group under pressure from Washington and threats from Sunni Muslim Arab governments.

The two commanders' account of a growing siege mentality inside the organization could represent a tactical and propaganda feint, but there was mounting evidence the militia was increasingly off balance and had ordered its gunmen to melt back into the population. To avoid capture, commanders report no longer using cell phones and fighters are removing their black uniforms and hiding their weapons during the day.

Of all the Charlie Brown's in the world, you're the Charlie Browniest!

Aargh!...yes.

Or is it?

Filling in

It's my co-blogger and fan-in-mourning Sim who is better known for early-morning Hitch-fests. Given that he's in mourning and abstaining from all things blog related, I figured I'd take a stab at it.

Hitchens appeared on Hugh's show yesterday, drawn into a discussion about Iraq; most specifically about ever-present comparisons to Vietnam. The most vivid and thought provoking moments came at the end, when pressed on the question of culpability should we leave and Iraq fall into chaos:

HH: Christopher Hitchens, when we went to break, I posed to you this question. How is it possible for anti-war activists, as you were during Vietnam, to not be culpable for the Cambodian holocaust, and at the same time that those arguing for cut and run today would in fact be culpable for the chaos and the slaughter that would follow in Iraq, if their advice to cut and run was in fact followed?

CH: Right. Well, deep breath, then. The American enterprise in Indochina was, I think, foredoomed by one thing, namely its direct inheritance from French colonialism in that region. The French empire should never have been restored after 1945. I think if President Roosevelt had not died, it wouldn’t have been. The United States should not have tried to come to its rescue, and shouldn’t have tried to succeed it. It’s not America’s role to succeed Western colonialism. It’s its role to help those colonies to become emancipated. And we missed that chance, and having missed it, engaged in a war where terrifying and illegal methods of warfare, like carpet bombing, the use of chemical defoliant, like Agent Orange, and other terrible war crimes were committed. And part of the reason why Cambodia went to year zero was that it had been half bombed back into the Stone Age already. And I’m sorry that should be on the conscience of anyone who supported the war, which I did not. But thought I don’t try and evade the responsibility for what the other side eventually did, not just in Cambodia, but also in Vietnam, but there was never any chance of keeping Vietnam partitioned, and it shouldn’t have been tried. Now furthermore, no American interest was really involved there. We were told we were fighting against the Chinese takeover, whereas the best insurance against Maoism in Indochina is always Vietam. That’s been proved many times since then. So none of this applies in the case of Iraq, where we went to overthrow a hideous dictatorship that was a local aggressor, a sponsor of international terrorism, had used weapons of mass destruction inside and outside its own borders, was hated by its people, and was in thoroughgoing breach of all important United Nations resolutions. None of this, by the way, was the case with the government of Vietnam. Where furthermore, let’s not be shy about it, we do have a crucial interest, first in keeping the Gulf open, and its oil available, not just for us, but for everybody else, getting it pumped again, particularly important to pump Iraqi oil, because we need to undercut the monopolies of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the area. That’s a vital interest. Second, I don’t think that a single Democrat who doesn’t agree that we are in fact in some kind of war, however defined, with Islamic extremism, and not just in the Middle East either, but in Indonesia, and on the streets of European capitol cities, and that it is completely out of the question to concede a country of the importance of Iraq to these people. We cannot allow them to take over, first for humanitarian reasons, the country would be destroyed, and the people would be put to the sword, and second, because, well, for the advertised reasons. It’s just too strategically and economically important a country to let that happen.
HH: Now that part I understand.

CH: We’ve entered Iraq far too late, Saddam Hussein could have, should have been taken out in 1991, shouldn’t even probably have been allowed to stay there that long, Jimmy Carter should never have been allowed to endorse his invasion of Iran, we’re paying for the price of two generations worth of mistakes that for once, we’re there for a good reason.

HH: But Mr. Hitchens, the key that I didn’t hear answered is, once foreseeability of massacre attaches, regardless of how we ended up there…
CH: Yes…

HH: …as it did in Vietnam in 1972, doesn’t moral culpability attach to those who are indifferent to those foreseeable slaughters? And doesn’t that apply to the Cambodian holocaust?

CH: Well, I will not make this my own argument, but I’ll simply say that argument that I could anticipate being made, which is people would say well, how much worse could it get? All the things you’re afraid of are already happening, and partly because of the bungling of the occupation, and the bad planning of it. And that’s not a completely unfair point. There could come a point where everything we fear happens while we’re still there. And that is my personal fear. That’s what I wake up and go to sleep worrying about.

HH: Last question, because we’re almost out of time. Do you wake up and go to sleep ever worrying about your opposition to the Vietnam war and the holocaust that happened in Cambodia?

CH: Not to the first, no, because if it had been up to me, the war, which is what led to the bloodletting and the starvation and all the rest of it, would never have occurred in the first place. So for me, the Vietnam war was definitively over in 1954, when the French Army surrendered in Dien Bien Phu, and it was at that point that the United States should have recognized…

HH: And to the second?

CH: …Ho Chi Minh’s declaration of independence.

HH: And to the second?

CH: And to the second, well, this is what I would say now, what I hope I don’t hear Democrats saying in the case of Iraq. If since we didn’t ask for the war in the first place, don’t blame me if it all ends very badly, which it did in Vietnam, as it was absolutely bound to do. It wasn’t a just war, it wasn’t a necessary war, and it was fought with atrocious means.

HH: No culpability?

CH: None of these three things apply in the case of Iraq. It was a just intervention, and a necessary and overdue one, and on the whole, our forces have behaved with exemplary humanitarianism.

***Sigh***

And without firing a shot. One lawyers' opinion:

Is there no principle subject to negotiation? Is there no course subject to reversal? For the Bush administration to argue for years that this program, as operated, was critical to our national security and fell within the president's Constitutional authority, to then turnaround and surrender presidential authority this way is disgraceful. The administration is repudiating all the arguments it has made in testimony, legal briefs, and public statements. This goes to the heart of the White House's credibility. How can it cast away such a fundamental position of principle and law like this?

It seems odd, given the President's attitude with regards to questions of Executive authority. I'm with Levin; I don't get it.

Update: Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy has a theory:

I'm not entirely sure I know what to make of Attorney General Gonzales's letter today about the NSA surveillance program, but I wonder if I'm quirky in reading it possibly to mean that DOJ found a judge who was willing to approve the entire TSP program under FISA.

...

The letter also says that as a result of this development, the President no longer needs to and will not reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program.The letter also says that as a result of this development, the President no longer needs to and will not reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

...

If this does involve a blanket order approving the entire program, it would seem to be a very clever move by DOJ. It would achieve four things, as I see it. First, it would make the TSP program very difficult to challenge. I gather no one would have standing to appeal the FISC order to the FISA Court of Review; even if the FISC order is unlawful, it's unclear as a procedural matter how it could be challenged. Second, it might moot the pending NSA litigation, or at least render any opinion in that case of very limited consequence. Third, it puts the Administration in the position of having obtained a court order, so that even if the order is unlawful it's "the judge's decision" rather than the Executive's. And fourth, it might help persuade the press to focus elsewhere; the press would be sure to present this as a concession to the Administration's critics (as the N.Y. Times did today), and the press is likely to be much less interested after they think the Administration has backed down.

Of course, whether this is true depends on whether the Administration obtained some kind of blanket order or plans to get orders on a case-by-case basis. And it's unclear when or if we'll know which occurred.

Another case of the Bush sucker-punch?: George W. Bush knows much more information about these topics than his domestic political opponents do. At the moment, they are betting a lot of their chips on one side of these questions.

True then, maybe true now. Who knows?