No Problem for Al

When the attack dogs in the GOP come after you, you know you've done something right. And in this case, the White House gave Al Gore the perfect opportunity to extend the news cycle:

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

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."

It took him only a few hours to come back with that statement. And it's not a defensive statement. There's no need to be defensive when you're THIS much in the right. The President is engaged in illegal behavior. Period. "Clinton did it" doesn't make it legal (and it's not even true). Gore turned this around beautifully, and showed how the "Clinton did it" gang are dangerous because they don't base their decisions on what the law is, but what they can plausibly blame on other people.

Incidentally, this bit from the Gore speech is so choice I thought I'd revisit it:

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

My grandfather worked on battleship hulls during combat as Japanese ships fired torpedos and missiles all around him. This terrorism thing is a problem. It's not the end of the Republic as we know it. It's not a reason to suspend the law. Nothing is (neither was WWII, as the Korematsu decision affirmed).

Peter Bergen, the man with the craziest-sounding laugh of any terrorism expert (if you saw him on The Daily Show you'd agree), also said this:

BLITZER: Should there be a change in attitude after 9/11?

BERGEN: I think the short answer is no. I mean, the nation has faced much more serious crises than 9/11.

We faced an existential crisis in the Cold War and with the Nazis; 9/11, obviously, was a very big deal, but I think we need to have some perspective.

We're not in a situation where our enemies can simply annihilate us as the Soviets could. Certainly, they can do us a lot of damage. But we have to, sort of, weigh that against the fact that we also want to live in a society where constitutional -- the Constitution is paid attention to.

We're finally getting some pushback on this "9/11 changed everything" nonsense. In a way this shows just how far Bush and his political style has fallen. To question this principle is to question his entire Presidency. If you make the case that "9/11 represented a threat. Radical Islam is a threat, no different that the other threats and challenges we've faced and met throughout the life of our nation. And we will succeed," the entire Potemkin Presidency falls apart. Torture, domestic spying, unnecessary wars of choice; if 9/11 didn't change everything, none of these crimes have even a shred of credibility.

Good for Bergen for telling it like it is. Good for Gore for being the conscience of the Democratic Party, for fighting back. I'll be real honest here, I went Nader in 2000. I should like the chance to give Gore a vote for President at some point in the future.