A hypothetical conversation between Kristol and Schmitt.Kristol: Gary, this is bad. What can we come up with in a few days?Schmitt: Well, Bill, I've got some arguments sitting around about how the President actually has unlimited powers in times of crisis...Kristol: Is it the old "Commander-in-Chief" argument? Everyone's making that one.Schmitt: Sort of. You know the President's oath?Kristol: I think I can remember. How does it go again?Scmitt: He swears "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."Kristol: Uh, Gary, the argument is that he violated it.Schmitt No, no, you're wrong....

I have very little to add to the just hues and cries of outrage after Bush's press conference. Kieran Healy nails the narrative. Ezra Klein overviews the deceit:So Bush's only justification for his program is speed. Fine. Which is why this can't be said enough: FISA allows for immediate wiretapping without the consent of a judge. All you need to do is, three days later, go get a warrant.Let's put this another way. Say Bush gets word of a potential hostile element. And let's assume he's got a time machine. Under FISA, he can dispatch an aide to get a warrant, then step in his machine, travel...

Did you catch the President tonight? I cannot believe he did not specifically address the issue of domestic spying, though I realize it was the subject of Saturday's radio address. Before long, he may regret both yesterday's defiance and today's silence. We'll see.In any case, the President did make some interesting comments. For example, it is noteworthy that despite appearances, Bush apparently doesn't mind criticism -- so long as the critics aren't "defeatists." We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a...

More outrage from conservatives and liberals alike. Tony Arend rounds out some of the legal issues. It becomes more clear by the hour that Bush's actions were illegal, despite the spinning (and weaving, and dodging) of his defenders (hit tip: LGM).The current line of counterattack is twofold. First, impugn the integrity of the New York Times (not the most difficult task these days). Second, call the people who are leaking information about our out-of-control Executive branch treasonous swine. The second is meritless on its face. The larger fact is, however, that the "attack the messenger"...

President Bush acknowledged this morning that he ordered illegal surveillance of US citizens.In a rare live radio address, Bush defended the practice as a "vital tool" in defending the United States against another such attack.The presidential order was first reported in The New York Times on Friday. The report said the order allowed the National Security Agency to track international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without the court approval normally required for domestic spying....Bush said his order was constitutional and has been carefully reviewed by legal authorities....

So many things going on in the world right now that I'd like to comment on, but can only link to. On top of grading and writing it looks like my sister-in-law could be having her first child any minute now. With that in mind I thought I would recommend some reading this morning. Enjoy.Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances: Democratic House leader Pelosi is ethused by the lack of a coherent position on an Iraq War exit strategy by Democrats, stating that while they are preparing a comprehensive agenda platform for the 2006 midterm elections it will not include an exit strategy for Iraq....

Reuters:Say what?Did Bush say, in effect, "I'm to blame for the bad intelligence"? Is he taking the blame for using bad intelligence? I know he didn't take the blame for Iraq's enduring struggle against poor intel.Turns out, none of the above:"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I am also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities and we're doing just that," he said.What Bush actually said is that he was responsible for the decision to invade, and that he's...

Holiday preparation, grading and related work has seriously cut into the hard-hitting, serious analysis of international political events that I would like to do right now (and I suspect that goes for my fellow members as well as posting has have been a bit slow lately). So for the time being I am forced to vent on that warrior of Christ, Bill O'Reilly.The Daily Show just did a typically hysterical bit on the conservative pundit's 'War on Christmas'. In it, they replayed an old interview O'Reilly did with marketing and advertising expert Philip Nulman. In typical fashion, O'Reilly laid out...