FLAIT

After what George Bush and his administration has done and gotten away with the last five years...the lies, the crimes, the arrogance, the incompetence, the indifference, the spin, the manipulation, the immaturity, the hypocrisy, the divisiveness, the partisanship, the nasty tone...I thought I'd seen it all.

Well, I was wrong.

The pathological arrogance, hypocrisy and chutzpah coming out of the White House these days is so far off the charts, that it's not only insulting, but a slap in the face to every American; at least to those with a brain.

Consider the double standard:

When someone in White House leaked the identity of a secret CIA agent, Bush didn't give a damn. But when the New York Times reports that Bush is ignoring the FISA court and wiretapping American's without a warrant, he calls it a breach of "national security" and demands a "full investigation."

What a hypocrite!

And keep in mind, it's the Republicans that have always been cautious of unrestrained government power (my god, if hypocrisy was dirt, this White House would be the biggest mountain the world!).

To minimize the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, the GOP tried to spin it by saying she was "just" a CIA "desk jockey." But nothing could be further from the truth.

Plame was a WMD expert - quite valuable to this administration and their "war on terror," no? - and her identity so secretive, that she had a cover story: she "worked" for a firm in Boston (which was nothing but a CIA front.)

So leaking her name not only compromised other agents using the same cover, but all of Plame's contacts.

So damage was clearly done. And her career was over.

But instead of getting to the bottom of that egregious breach of "national security" himself, and determining who is responsible for such a treasonous act, Bush thought it was more important to spin. And yet, he wants to investigate the Times for breaching "national security" when there was no breach.

Yup, makes sense to me!

Terrorists already know we're trying to listen to their conversations so the Times didn't expose anything...except, of course, a criminal president blatantly violating the Constitution.

If publishing this story is such a breach to "national security," then why isn't it a breach to report that the military is adding protective armor to humvees in Iraq? Doesn't that help the insurgents the same way the Times is "helping" terrorists by reporting that we're trying to listen to their communications?

Uh oh. Last week the media reported - ah, I mean alerted - the terrorists that the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier left port in San Diego on a mission to fight the "war on terror!"

That's called illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

But wait there's more!

If Bush went to the FISA court and got warrants like he's supposed to, the Times wouldn't have had a story because there wouldn't have been a story. So Bush is blaming the Times for catching him in his own criminal activity!

What nerve. What arrogance. What a dick!

According to Bush logic banks should remove all their security cameras.

It's obvious what's going on here. But since mindless and gullible Republicans are well, mindless and gullible, let me explain it to them:

1) Bush knows he's doing something blatantly unconstitutional.
2) He needs to keep it secret, just like any other criminal who needs to keep his activities secret.
3) He puts a "top secret" label on his blatantly unconstitutional activity.
4) If and when the story is leaked, Bush can use the "best defense is a good offense" strategy by invoking 9/11 and calling it a "breach of national security" (how convenient).
5) The Karl Rove propaganda machine will spin it as the "liberal media is endangering the lives of Americans."
6) Bush's brainwashed base gobbles it all up.
7) Bush's brainwashed base scream: "liberals are soft on terrorism!" just like their trained to.
8) With the help of the complicit conservative media and the so called "liberal" media, the real story gets lost in all the spin.
9) Bush gets a pop in his poll numbers for inferring that "liberals hate America" (October, 2008 insert: here) and "love the terrorists."
10) Bush gets away with another impeachable offense (that's about half a dozen by my count...so far).

Mission accomplished.

So let me see if I have this straight: it's alright for Bush to violate the Fourth Amendment, and ignore the First Amendment by ridiculing, intimidating and perhaps even wiretapping those who dare oppose him. And yet, he allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, won't ban .50 caliber guns and ammunition (which can put holes in manhole covers and 747's, in flight), won't bar terrorists that are on "watch lists" from buying guns, and won't look into the gun purchasing records of suspected terrorists and detained foreign nationals, because they're "infringements" on Second Amendment rights (and Republicans have the nerve to say "liberals are soft on terrorism").

Yup, sounds like more Bush logic to me!

But wait! There's even more Bush arrogance, hypocrisy and chutzpah!

When Bush signed the anti-torture bill last week, he added a "signing statement" to the law which basically says he can ignore it any time he wants (May 2006 insert: Since he's been in office, Bush has added a signing statement to over 750 laws passed by Congress).

Who the hell does he think he is?! Can you imagine what the Republicans would be screaming if Clinton pulled something like this?!

So after showing the country what he thinks of the the Fourth Amendment, "due process" and the "rule of law," here's what George Bush thinks of the "separation of powers" and "We the People..."


Same to you Mr. President. Same to you.