With the President willfully breaking the law to go around the FISA court’s apparently crippling requirement that survelliance warrants be applied for within 72 hours, how far did the President’s cooperation go before he decided to declare himself above the law? I see that there have been some warrants rejected and/or modified by the court. Is there a record of requests being tardy? Was there any serious negotiations by the Administration to get the three days changed to a week? Is the “Six Degrees of Osama Bin Laden” game not sufficient justification for the members of the FISA court? If so, what reasons, if any, are the Bushies giving for spying?

I’m sure some of these questions have been already answered by the daily twists in this case, but I’m really looking forward to seeing them answered in Congressional investigations. An incriminating soundbite is worth more than a million hard-hitting NYT exposes. Once the hearings begin, I’m gonna make a game out of it. Every time an Administration official invokes his/her fifth amendment right to hide the truth behind denying the American people their fourth amendment rights, I’m gonna take a shot of gin (I can’t do whiskey or tequilla). If I’m lucky, I won’t even remember who this “Bush” guy is by the end of the hearings.

By the way, what part of “the President ordered subordinates to break the law” do the wingnuts not understand? I know they’re all about defending Joe McCarthy now, but I was still under the impression that the only people who still defended Nixon were the Watergate “experts” (I prefer the term “criminals”) that were trotted out a few months ago to call Mark Felt an asshole. What maligned historical figure is next up for the GOP spit-shine treatment? George Wallace for blocking the integration of Alabama schools? Andrew Jackson for the trail of tears? Is there anything too embarrasing to get the historical revisionism treatment? Perhaps we should ask Trent Lott and Ollie North.