So, the Senate judiciary committee is holding hearings, and the first witness up is John Dean (Yes, that John Dean of Watergate fame) who is going to say that this is worse than what Nixon did.
I want to know how Dean knows more about the program than anyone else who is not working it. Could it be that he is making it up?
I thought so.
But here is the $64,000 question. Should the censure hearings go forth, and yield nothing, could Feingold be censured by his fellow senators for bringing a frivilous motion against the President during war?
Hmm.
1 comment:
Steve, No. Feingold will remain untouched. As for Dean he was plugging his pathetic books, one of which is upcoming for release and the other which I think has been released and has sold as many copies as my epic sci-fi coffee table book series about the evolution of novelty store rubber vomit and aerosol fart cans.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
If I may be so bold as to paste:
(Caveat: I think the article I link to here is what you are discussing in your post. It is Friday Night, 10:20 p.m. and I have had 3 glasses of wine and am in an expansive mood and intricate detail is not high on my list of priorities at this juncture.)
Here is yonder paste:
"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order."
Hopefully this will help shed some light on the situation. If not....Help!! I believe John may be related to Howard.....
Post a Comment