Because Life is Precious, and God, and the Bible

I really have to stop checking the news before I get my first cup of coffee in my belly. When just the headline is enraging me, I know my caffeine buzz hasn't quite kicked in yet.

Gonzales Answers Tough Questions on Spying

Wrong.

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed skepticism Monday about the legality of President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program and suggested it be reviewed by a special federal court.

Federal law "has a forceful and blanket prohibition against any electronic surveillance without a court order," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., as he opened a hearing on National Security Agency eavesdropping within the United States.

While the president claims he has the authority to order such surveillance to protect Americans from terrorist attacks, Specter said, "I am skeptical of that interpretation."

Quick! Mary Ann! Get the smelling salts and bring me over to the fainting couch! I do declare, Specter is expressing skepiticism at something that dribbled from Bush's lips? Mercy me, I may swoon.

Wait a minute, no I won't. Something's fishy here. Look under the rope; there's gotta be a safety net.

(I'd bold parts of this, but really, the entire thing needs to be stressed.)

Monday's hearing into the NSA program got off to a rocky start when Democrats protested that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be given a sworn oath before testifying.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.

"It's not up to him," said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.

Gonzales, who was not sworn in, told the committee he would voluntarily take the oath if the committee so desired. Either way, "my answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not," he said.

Ahem.

LIES, LIES, LIES.

This is getting ridiculous. Why in the world are the Bush Administration flunkies somehow exempt from being sworn in like any other witness? The concept of "Tough Questions" simply doesn't exist when a witness has nothing to keep them from lying.

And please don't give me this "gee whiz, I'd be sworn in if you'd let me" idiocy. Your flippant regard for the law spits in the face of every American.

Specter raised the possibility that a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might have to review the wiretapping policy.

Leahy, meanwhile, said that while al-Qaida terrorists should be monitored, Bush chose to illegally wiretap Americans' conversations without safeguards to protect civil liberties.

And somehow, I'm sure, that Gonzales' answers to these "tough questions" will satisfy everyone involved that Bush did nothing wrong.

And the Democrats, true to form, show us all once again why they are the Laughingstock Party:

"My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon, and other law-abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch lists," Leahy said.

Why not just say "law-abiding Americans?" "Oh, look, they're going after BABIES. They're going after NUNS. They are BAD, BAD MEN!"

I realize he was referencing actual occurrences, but I'm getting really sick of being treated by a six-year-old by men that speak and govern as if they were five-year-olds.

Update: Tbogg shames my wordy nature with the short 'n sweet version.

More Update: Shorter Gonzales: Sleep. Obey. Consume. Sleep.

(We cross-post tonight for Singapore, we're all as mad as hatters here...)