Worley Watch: Challenger Surfaces

A Democrat has finally stepped up to challenge Nancy Worley. poliscizac at AlabamaElections broke the story.

The Associated Press ran a story Friday night.

I'm glad to see that the Democrats are finally showing some sense about Worley.

Scott McClellan: Compassionate Conservative?

Let me see if I get this straight. Scott McClellan said what today? From the Washington Post:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan was in fine fettle yesterday morning when he strode smiling into the briefing room and made a joke about Vice President Cheney's hunting accident.

President Bush, he announced, would be on the South Lawn to honor the national champion University of Texas Longhorns, whose football jerseys are burnt orange and white. "The orange they're wearing is not because they are concerned that the vice president will be there," the spokesman deadpanned.

The reporters, who had tormented a stone-faced McClellan about the episode on Monday, guffawed at his newfound levity. "Although," McClellan continued, pointing to his orange tie and eyeing the loaded-for-bear reporters, "that's why I'm wearing it."

At the time, McClellan was unaware (or at least he didn't acknowledge it if he was) that the victim of the shooting had developed complications and suffered a minor heart attack. But still, even without that knowledge, it seems very insensitive to me to joke about the misfortune that has befallen the victim.

And to think that conservatives were all up in arms when Tom Toles released his cartoon about Rumsfeld's "battle-hardened" army.

Maybe in their world, only the military deserves the compassion of conservatives.

Constitutional Conundrums

Do we really have conservative Americans saying that Muslims should be tolerant of the Danish cartoons - even if the Muslims do not agree with the depictions made in the cartoons? Are these Americans actually preaching that Muslims should be respectful of freedom of speech and liberty and in general, when many conservative Americans have long argued against free speech when they don't like the speech and have long argued against individual liberty when they don't like the liberties being exercised?

Wiretapping, Part 2

On this morning's edition of Meet the Press on NBC, I hear from members of Congress that they knew the operational details - some, if not all - of the wiretapping program that has drawn so much fire. So, I'll have to retract the comment I made yesterday about Bush not informing congressional officials about the program.

The more interesting part is that Senator Roberts, who has defended the president's authority to implement the surveillance program, said that the Bush Administration was targeting the calls of known Al-Qaeda operatives outside the country who were making calls into the United States. His comments seem to confirm Cal Thomas's position that the NSA was listening not to random Americans, but only to those Americans who have ties to known Al-Qaeda operatives.

If this is true, then - as I said yesterday - I'm glad to know the effort is more targeted than we may have originally been told. However, I'm still left wondering why, if the efforts are targeted, the NSA can't get approval from the FISA court in the 72 hour window allowed in the law after the surveillance has been conducted.

I also disagree with defenders of the president's program that disclosing the program has hurt national security.

I think that it's better that Al-Qaeda operatives know we have the technology to listen in on them - and that we are. Since they will never know when there conversation is the one to be monitored, they will chill their own communications and thus we can disrupts their plans.

This is not unlike our own military or intelligence services avoiding unsecured lines so they won't tip off anyone who may be monitoring those devices.

And frankly, I would much rather chill - or, preferably stop - communications between Al-Qaeda members rather than let it go on and hope that the NSA detects some information that may be of use in stopping an attack. If the NSA misses the information, then the effects can be devastating. But if we stop the communication - or make communication more difficult - then we may be able to stop the planning in its tracks.

Wiretapping

Here's where my concern over the "wiretapping" scandal comes from: the Bush Administration will not give enough details about it, even to U.S. Senators and Congressmen & Congresswomen, so that a thorough assessment can be made of whether the surveillance program meets constitutional muster.

Despite Bush's tight lips, though, plenty of people seem to think they know what the program entails, presumably from leaks, most likely from speculation or wishful thinking.

For example, James Risen, who helped break the story for The New York Times, has described the surveillance program on MSNBC's Hardball. He told Chris Mathews that the program involves the government getting access to communications hubs or nodes and listening to the full conversations of up 500 people at a time. Apparently, according to Risen, these are randomly selected conversations.

However, others have claimed that the program targets only suspected terrorists or terrorist accomplices. For example, in today's paper, The Birmingham News printed a column by Cal Thomas in which he says that the government is listening to only those calls between suspected terrorists outside the country and other individuals inside the country.

As an average American citizen, I have no idea whose description is right. If it's Risen, I would be very concerned. Not because I have any secrets to hide. But our Constitution does provide us a right to privacy, and that applies even if I'm only talking about whether Auburn will beat Bama this next season.

If Thomas is right, then I would at least be a bit more relieved, knowing that the surveillance efforts are more narrowly focused and more reasonably targeted to serve the national security. However, it would seem that if Thomas is right, then the Bush Administration has no reason for not going to the FISA court to get the search warrants ahead of time - or in the 72 hours allowed after emergency taps are made. Well, unless the Bush Administration is wondering if it can trust the judiciary to protect national security and do the right thing.

Of course, here's the problem. We cannot even evaluate the merits or demerits of the program - to know whether Risen or Thomas is right - because Bush has cloaked the whole program in a national security "need to know" cloud and apparently is not willing to let even legislators with security clearances know the details.

Americans seem to continue to lose sight - more and more each day - of what the founders wanted to accomplish with the Constitution. And the importance of accomplishing those things.

But should I be surprised that many Americans take the attitude that they have nothing to hide and so they are willing to relinquish a level of privacy in the service of the national good?

Am I surprised that yet again, we are told that if a majority is willing to sacrifice constitutional rights or protections, we in the minority are ignorant or unconcerned about our country's safety?

And all of this from an administration that claims to believe in the rule of law, not of men.

(And in case you are wondering, Auburn will beat Bama by 5 this year.)

Worley Watch: Campaign Finance Edition

I know you've been waiting for me to comment on this. So here it goes.

Candidates for public office were required to file their campaign finance reports this past Tuesday. Strangely enough, Nancy Worley (D-AEA) reported taking in only $14,400, compared to Beth Chapman (R) raking in about $94,000.

Even stranger was that about half of Worley's receipts were from a loan to herself. She reported loaning herself about $6,900.

It appears that Worley's reputation is making the rounds and her support - and funding - is drying up.

Battle-Hardened

Tom Toles and the Washington Post has taken a lot of criticism for this cartoon:
Critics contend Toles is making light of the people in the military, especially those who have been wounded in the line of duty.

When I first saw the cartoon, that was not my reaction at all. When I saw it, I first noticed the wounded person. When I saw it was a cartoon about the military - because of the "Dr. Rumsfeld" - I knew it was a cartoon about all the service people, men and women, who are being maimed while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And I "got" the point Toles was trying to make by showing Rumsfeld label the soldier as "battle-hardened."

And what is that point?

Too often, the Bush Administration has issued comments that spin away the realities of war.

Remember Rumsfeld's comments about inadequate armor to protect our soldiers in Iraq? How he said you "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have"?

More recently, Rumsfeld claimed that the military is not having a problem recruiting or retaining soldiers. However, he didn't acknowledge the role of the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy on retaining soldiers or the effect of lowered standards (or should we just say "relaxed" standards?) on boosting recruiting numbers.

We all know that war is a horrendous experience for the men and women we send into battle. And even that description may be an understatement for those who come home terribly disfigured or maimed. We know it is an understatement for soldiers who come home dead - and for their friends and family.

However, respect and honor for our service members should not be used as a political tool to stifle dissent over how a war is prosecuted - or whether we should have gone to war in the first place.

Our military serves a democratic (albeit republican) form of government. Thus, the soldiers fulfill missions that are prescribed through open and free debate of their society's citizens.

To try to stifle that debate is to undermine the foundation of democratic self-governance - and to undermine the government that the military represents.

It seems that is the greatest way one can show disrespect and dishonor to our military.

Want a fry with that?

The Birmingham News ought to know better than to call on the Legislature to fix the laws that allow Milton McGregor's sweepstakes operation.

And the public shouldn't want the Legislature to fix this problem.

Knowing the Legislature and the way it "handles" problems, legislators would end up outlawing the Monopoly game at McDonald's - and we just can't have that (with or without fries)!