Union State

In his fifth State of the Union address, President Little George tried to slow down and steady his aim. He thought, for kicks, he'd try to sound non-partisan (even finding the word "compassionate" in an old trunk from 1999 and bringing it back into use) and not present any wildly flawed or deeply unfair initiatives.

So far so good.

But even the most doe-eyed red state zombie can't possibly believe that he wants to make nice with anyone. That's half the reason they love him.

In a system of two parties, two chambers and two elected branches, there will
always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a
civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To
confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of good will and
respect for one another, and I will do my part.

Isn't that funny? The Bubble Boy King who will hear no nay-sayers or dissent wants to have a debate. And don't be all angry-fied.

Of course, you can never have a "debate" when one side tells viscous and destructive lies. How can you debate, in any tone, when a government refuses to reveal any information? When truths that will hurt them politically are withheld from publication.

So you go ahead with your "facts." When you nail us for stuff we mess up bad, we'll withhold the really bad stuff. And we'll just lie about the whole thing anyway, and then deny that we lied. And when you really pin us down by catching all the lies and somehow finding the truth that we tried to shred, we'll call you names and smear you.

Hell, we'll just smear you anyway. But don't be angry!

This years SOTU speech was pretty tame stuff. Democracy blah blah blah. Tax cuts, great economy, and a note to not be isolationist. Apparently, being violently unilateral and becoming more hated in the world than Islamic extremists is preferable to not doing anything outside our borders. I'm not sure the families of our 2,200 martyred soldiers and 30,000 sacrificed Iraqis would agree. They'd probably preferred we'd just stayed home and been isolationist.

But the best part was the stuff about criminal wiretapping. To wit:

It is said that prior to the attacks of Sept. 11 our government failed to
connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the
United States placed telephone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did
not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack,
based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute, I have
authorized a terrorist-surveillance program to aggressively pursue the
international communications of suspected Al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to
and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional
authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.
Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. This
terrorist-surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains
essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who
are talking with Al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit
back and wait to be hit again.

Isn't that sweet? "Previous presidents?" Who - Nixon? I think he got in trouble for doing that same thing. And for all the false FDR claims they make, the broken law was from 1978, not 1938.

"Members of Congress have been kept informed?" A handful of Representatives and Senators, all sworn to double secrecy and told they could do any research, talk to anyone, or have any staff involved. Congress is not there so you can tell them 'by the way, we're doing a bunch of stuff, don't tell anyone.'

The Constitution (lift your foot, Georgie, and you'll see it) mandates congressional oversight. Congress must know and approve, not just get a note stuffed in their locker.

This could be the end of the Junta, if there are still Americans in the Congress. No court has approved warrantless wiretaps. The legal justification put forth by Chief Torturer Gonzales has been laughed at by everyone outside the Junta.

When hearings start on this, we will have the start of a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. Chairman Arlen Spectre and the committee will have no choice but to move for impeachment as the executive either claims that it's legal or else withholds documents and refuses to cooperate. There will be no choice but to move for impeachment.

The whole thing will move to the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court, which will either convict Georgie and affirm that America still exists and that we live by a nation of laws under a constitution, or else they'll declare that the president is really unlimited and that all that "freedom" talk and the 1776 revolution was just a joke. Then we can move in an orderly jack-booted fashion to a Mussolini-style government.

And end up the same way they did.