Anything would be better than this speech.

At the risk of seeming cynical, we gave into evil when we (apparently) re-elected this bozo in 2000.  

NBC reported that Cindy Sheehan, yes the mother of the killed american soldier in Iraq that camped out at Bush's Ranch in Texas, was to be guest of a female congresswomen out of Califorina.  They have reported that she has been arrested on Capitol Hill.  I wonder what legal consequences will result of this?

A few very quick 'live blogging' thoughts:

1. The focus on the grandiose vision aiming to "end tyranny in our world" is even stronger than in previous SOTU addresses.  Even the election victory of Hamas doesn't seem to have given him much pause about the freedom crusade.  The choice isn't necessarily between "isolationism" and an unrealistic crusaude to remake the world in our own image, the way Bush is trying to frame it -- we can stay engaged in protecting our security without getting so deeply involved in how other countries govern themselves.  The victories of fundamentalists in the Palestinian territories and Iraq, and the evidence of strong support for fundamentalists in Egypt (and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon) have validated 'realist' concerns about pushing for rapid and catastrophic change in the Middle East -- Bush doesn't seem to have grasped this at all.

2. The part about warrentless surveillance is utterly absurd.  Most of the members of the intelligence oversight committees weren't briefed.  And FISA gave them the authority they needed, so why bypass the FISA court?  It was just a bunch of 'half-truths' strung together -- and in its totality, it was downright dishonest.

3. Explicitly framing our fight against terrorism as a war against "...Islam" is a huge mistake.  Putting the word "radical" before it doesn't help -- this is going to be translated into Arabic, and the headlines are going to say "war against...Islam."  That's not a good way to frame it, and contributes to the sense many Arabs and Muslims have of the need to push bach against outside encroachments against the Dal al-Islam -- which is the primary recruiting tool of terrorist groups.

so if I understand this correctly...we are going to war again?

The words "God bless America" never sounded so good. Thank god it's over. Most tedious address I've ever heard.

Oh, BTW: I think you are right about Islam, et al. Probably a mistake in an international context. 
But we know what Bush is schematic is: "freedom" vs. radical Islam. The problem now is that Al Qaeda is not the problem in the context of, say, Palestine or Iraq. The problems are more mundane, but less tracticble also.

so if I understand this correctly...we are going to war again?

How can we be at war and going to war at the same time? Don't you remember this awful GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR? We have a war president, a commander in chief, a buffoon in command. (Sorry, I got carried away with PATRIOTISM there.)

Did you understand his reference to prior presidents also eavesdropping as he had?  Is he  arguing that any foreign eavesdropping justifies his domestic wiretaps?

Arguably, it's a moot point -- since the statute which controls this is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).

Even if you posit that it was legal before that (a point I would not concede), it would still be a violation of the FISA statute today.

Again, in its totality -- what he said was just downright dishonest.  

I didn't bother to watch any of the speech.  I have seen enough of this president and this administration to know that there was going to be zero substance to anything he said.

The sooner people accept the fact that deception and misdirection are the mainstays of this White House's public relations strategy, the less damage they can do.

In order to deciper their actual motive in any of their myriad legislative and/or propagandistic endeavors, one must do no more than to imagine what Monte Burns would do on the Simpsons.  That's who's running our country: heartless oligarchs, a monarchy.

Pay your taxes, but don't expect any benefits.  Those will go to the highest bidder, and the auction is taking place on K Street.

SOLD!! To MZM's Mitchell Wade!

SOLD!! To Big Pharma!

SOLD!! To Halliburton!

You get the picture.  We're fucked.  We need a revolution. 

We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy.The only way to control our destiny is by our leadership – so the United States of America will continue to lead.The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.Together, let us  lead this world toward freedom. We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world. We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. Fellow citizens, we have been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We will lead freedom’s advance.

No Mars promises, I'm happy to report -- though this is the first State of the Union address to specifically mention switchgrass.

SOTU: "Stuff's On The Upswing!"

sigh...

Same Old Tortuous Undulations....

Leading the world through developing talent.....where?  Our schools are being gutted.  Our scientific research programs are being gutted.  Here in the 14th District, Fermilab has laid off 90 people, lost funding for their BTeV project, and the DoE budget somehow doesn't have a line item for physics research after the new European collider goes online.  Grad students are all going to Europe.  Thanks Denny.  Thanks, George.

So much for scientific research or leading in, well, anything besides gasoline consumption.

One word summary:

Boring.

Three word summary:

Boring as hell. 

What part of the constitution gives him that power, in a way which could not be restricted by federal statute?

I know the administration's arguments -- and they're completely specious.

You know, usually these speeches have a number of lines with a nicely turned phrase that one can take away,

Can anybody think of a single one? 

George Bush saying that "America is addicated to oil" is about like Pablo Escobar telling John Belushi he has a cocaine problem.

FISA is a statute passed by Congress. As such, it can not take power away from the President that is given to the President via the Constitution. Thus, the NSA wiretaps are legal if both of the following are true:

You know, usually these speeches have a number of lines with a nicely turned phrase that one can take away,

Can anybody think of a single one?

Now that Suck-Up Sammy's on the court, anything goes. Remember, the President disregards the laws, and the President interprets them.

The idea there is no alternative to oil, comes largely from think tanks funded by Big Oil.

The fact is the EU is already making the conversion to renewable energy. The technology is real, it’s feasible, and it’s becoming a reality there. The EU is in phase one of its long term plan, and is already transitioning to produce 15% renewable solar and wind. That experience will help them attain higher renewable technology in the future.

We've been stalled for decades in large part due to Big Oil lobbying which has hamstrung any effort to develop alternative energy, and basically put their profits above the good of the nation. That's not changing, the GOP is infested with energy lobbyists.

It’s very similar to the reason the Japanese are leading in hybrid technology. Our auto makers opted for short term profits on SUV and such. The Japanese invested long term in efficiency increasing technology, and they did so in part because the government leans on them to fold the national interest into whatever they do. By comparison the GOP has been preaching deregulation and the glory of profits for decades.

Right now, they have the lead in many key technologies, from wireless, to hybrids, to alternative energy, etc. etc. The only way we’re going to catch up, let alone surpass them, is if we start putting our national good above the profits of the oil industry, and I don’t think this GOP can.  All the education in the world won’t take us more competitive if we continue allowing companies to putt their profits above the national good and buy out our politicians.

Speaking of education, how much does anyone want to bet all the new education initiatives Bush and the GOP put forward is designed to privatize schools and undermine the public school system.

Well, pal, you saw the response, and frankly- "we could do better".

You got your wish of a calm, reasoned, approach.  Nothing confrontational, just bipartisan heaven.  Just  reinforcing the "wussie" image of Democrats.

No calling out Bush on the lies, no outrage at being lied into war (after all, it's big business here in "Ol Virginny").  No outrage at being spied upon (after all, most of those high-tech defense jobs that make the spying possible ended up right inside the beltway here in "Ol Virginny). Not even a a parallel jab at the former Republican governor that cut taxes to the point that we in Virginia were 8 billion in the hole.

Yes, you out there in the rest of the country, we Virginians solve all our problems together.  We're so close that you really can't tell us apart.  Except we're better managers and more competent than republicans...sort of ...because we're bipartisan and the best managed state in the union.

Except for the traffic.  We could do better. 

mmpost99 -

That's a lot of baloney, and one of the most bald faced lies, or just plain ignorant comments I've seen. What are you just copying and pasting RNC talking points?

Bush doesn't have any constitutional authority to wire tap Americans without warrant. Not in time of war, not ever. War powers do not make Bush above the law.

Not even Specter, a Republican, has in any way claimed he has such powers. In fact, Specter has specifically said he's bery concerned that by current indicatiuons Bush has broken the law, and that it may be an impeachable offense.

mmpost99, what are you doing on this site?  There are plenty of good conservative sites to hang around.

Ellen,

I AVOIDED the lying SO@.. oops, I missed it too.  But, I too would like to come back down to Mars. 

More importantly, when will someone other than a few N.O. bloggers start to question that $85b figure he keeps tossing out.  Congress has allocated $67B of which some goes to things like repairing military bases, so it's not all even reconstruction money.  Now Bush has added on another $18B based on estimated national flood insurance payments and other expenses.  Flood insurance payments aren't aid any more than collecting on your homeowner's insurance is.  Everyone, national Dems, La. & Miss. officials, etc. seems to accepting the number.

Alright, let's have a little fun:

The cases cited in the powerline article:

1.  US v. Clay.  Powerline says:

"United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), in which the court held that federal statutes prohibiting wiretapping do not '[forbid] he President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.'That seems obviously pertinent."

Indeed it does seem obviously pertinent. . . . until you notice that the US Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit on that case.  Know what that means?  US v. Clay, 430 F. 2d 165, isn't the law!  Whoops!

Clay v. U.S., 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

2.  U.S. v. Butenko.  Powerline says:

"Another relevant case is United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the court held that no judicial warrant was necessary where 'surveillances ... were 'conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.''

Sounds good. . . . until you realize that this case has been superseded by, wait for it, the FISA of 1978.  ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Barr, 952 F.2d 457 (US App. DC, 1991).

D'oh!

3.  US. v. Truong. Powerline says:  (long quote with internal blockquotes, sorry)

"Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows:

In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.

The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

Good language, but not on point.  In the very same case, the court also says:

because individual privacy interests are severely compromised any time the government conducts surveillance without prior judicial approval, this foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be carefully limited to those situations in which the interests of the executive are paramount. First, the government should be relieved of seeking a warrant only when the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators. [] In such cases, the government has the greatest need for speed, stealth, and secrecy, and the surveillance in such cases is most likely to call into play difficult and subtle judgments about foreign and military affairs. When there is no foreign connection, the executive's needs become less compelling; and the surveillance more closely resembles the surveillance of suspected criminals, which must be authorized by warrant. Thus, if the government wishes to wiretap the phone of a government employee who is stealing sensitive documents for his personal reading or to leak to a newspaper, for instance, the absence of a foreign connection and the importance of individual privacy concerns contained within the Fourth Amendment lead to a requirement that the executive secure advance judicial approval for surveillance.

So, the holding is not nearly so broad as the jokers at Powerline would have you believe, and in fact, the court says that the government is relieved of seeking a warrant only when the surveillance is a foreign power or its agents or collaborators.  Of course, it is not clear what is meant by "collaborators" as that term is neither defined nor explained by the court.

4.  U.S. v. Duggan:  Powerline quotes Duggan saying:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

In support of this proposition, the Court cites 5 cases from lower courts, but nothing from the Supreme Court.  So, it's not conclusive.

Regardless, the Court in that case found that FISA was constitutional.  So, if FISA restricts the President's power, and FISA is constitutional, then it is constitutional to restrict the President's power.  Thus, the President does not have unlimited power to conduct surveillance however he wants but he must follow the law.  

And that shows the fault in your reasoning:  Although the constitution may grant some power to the president, it does not follow that it is therefore impossible for the power to stripped from him.  In fact, at least one of these cases says that it is best to leave the decisions in cases like these to the legislative process in order to ensure the correct balance of power between the President, Congress, and the judiciary.

5.  Last case:  In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001.

This case is inaccessible via Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.  I'm guessing that it has no precedential value.  

So, there's your caselaw for you.  All wet and full of holes.  

And that's not to say anything about whether the surveillance was "performed to obtain foreign intelligence," which, since it was conducted against American citizens, is highly suspect.

mmpost99 -

You are not "wrong" on the case law, since you have not actually cited any case law.  You are, however, wrong to blindly trust Powerline.  That post is informative, but it is also very misleading.  Here is why:

All of the cases they cite are specifically about monitoring foreign communications.  Read the quotes they provide.  Every one uses the word "foreign".  That is important, since there is a very clear distinction between warrentless wiretapping if it is domestic (definitely illegal) and foreign (definitely legal).

In the current situation, one party is domestic, and one is foreign.  None of the cases that powerline cites deal with this specific twist.  

And a quick thought experiment makes clear how silly the president's argument is.  If you, a US citizen, call (or receive a call from) another US citizen in the US, the president must obtain a warrent to tap your phone.  Nobody is contesting this.  If, however, you call (or receive a call from) someone outside of the US, the president claims that you automatically forfeit your civil liberties, and the government does not need any due process to listen to your call.  

This is absurd on it's face.  However, if you really want some caselaw, consider Youngstown CO vs. Sawyer, in which the majority opinion said:

When the President takes measures

incompatible with the expressed or implied

will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb,

for then he can rely only upon his own

constitutional powers minus any constitutional

powers of Congress over the matter. Courts

can sustain exclusive presidential control in

such a case only by disabling the Congress

from acting upon the subject. Presidential

claim to a power at once so conclusive and

preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,

for what is at stake is the equilibrium

established by our constitutional system.

Did you understand his reference to prior presidents also eavesdropping as he had?  Is he  arguing that any foreign eavesdropping justifies his domestic wiretaps?

No he's talking about "wholly domestic" (which his aren't) warrantless searches of US citizens by previous administrations for National Security reasons. That info has been out, y'all are just blinded by hatred and haven't bothered to look.

He really said;

he is aiming to "end tyranny in our world"  ?

Does that mean he resigned?

I think I'm gonna statr a new series of posts. Patterned on the Jeff Foxworthy "You might be a redneck..". I'm try to figure out the "lead in" there's plenty of finishes...

We've been stalled for decades in large part due to Big Oil lobbying which has hamstrung any effort to develop alternative energy, and basically put their profits above the good of the nation.

You guys always forget to mention your part in the deal. How long has it been since we have built an atomic energy facility (the real reason that th EU is moving away from oil) in this country? It's because of the left and their "China Syndrome" fears.

It's amusing (in a grim way) to think of Bush and Gonzales embracing William Gibson's definition of cyberspace: 'the place where international phone calls take place'. I'd like to see that in a court pleading.

At least it's less patently offensive than Snotty McClellan's analogy to international air travel -- which is, itself, inaccurate, given that US air carriers observe federal law even when outside US airspace.

You might be a TPMCafe wingnut if... you think that strawmen make for effective argument.

Very, very sad.

Prove that you haven't. After all, you seem very confident in your knowledge of who these 'reps' are.

See the problem?

I don't think I am being disingenuous at all.  The Bush Administration claims the right to tap a phone call from an American citizen to anyon who they consider a terrorist.  We don't know who is on that list, and there is no judicial review to ensure that the NSA is only tapping legitimate terrorists.  

In other words, you cousin in Germany could be on that list, and there is no way you would know, and you would forfeit your civil liberties merely by calling him.  

The administration claims that they are only using this power on known terrorists.  And I trust them.  But that doesn't mean that the next president will constrain himself.  Perhaps he will use it on other candidates in his re-election campaign.  Since the program is secret, and (supposedly) not subject to judicial review, there is nothing to stop this.  

There is a very straightforward question to be answered: either the president can ignore the civil liberties guaranteed to US citizens by the constitution if those citizens make international calls, or he can never ignore those civil liberties.  

"Strict constructionism" is the codeword for "conservative interpretation."  It doesn't really have any independent content or guiding principles.  It just allows conservative judges to cover their tracks.

Actually, the case has been filed.  So . . .

What will be interesting is to see if it can remain in court.  The fact that the wiretaps have been completely secret up until this point creates a significant problem for challenging them.  In order to maintain a suit, you have to have "standing" to sue, which basically means that the "plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendent's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief."  ( Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 1984)

The clear problem here is that since the wiretaps are secret and have not been submitted to a court for review, no one knows who has been targeted, and so if someone files a suit without being able to show that they were they target of one of these wiretaps, the case can rather easily be thrown out by the court. Or the appeals court.  Or the Supreme Court.

So, depending on what court a plaintiff gets into, the lawsuit may be an impossibility.  Funny how your rights aren't as protected as you thought.

At least there were no references to performance-enhancing drugs.  Gee, I wish Bush would take some of those....

Whaaa?  Well, I guess it was a little deeper than "My Pet Goat."  I'll give it that much.

In Europe’s phase 1 move to alternative energy, 15% is being generated with existing solar and wind technology. They're not stopping there either, and their investment in the technology will yield efficiency improvements as well for the future. So, no, Europe’s not just reliying on nuclear, in fact they’re moving deliberately towards renewable energy. As usual, SFCWallace speaks from his ass.

Re: Europe's nuclear reactors, they’re heavily regulated for safety, to prevent a Chernobyl or 3mile Island type event. That safety regulation and oversight is vital to prevent accidents or corners cutting, and would certainly be opposed by Republicans in the US. We can't afford a nuclear Enron lobbying their Republican pals to allow them to reduce safety, reduce security, and dump waste; just to bump profits up a notch or meet some Wall Street numbers of such. Republicans have shown they do a terrible job on energy safety and regulation, and now they want to go more nuclear? Why wait for Iran to get nukes when all we need are a bunch of unguarded and deregulated nuclear reactors all over the country?

Part of the opposition against nuclear power is irrational, but that is on the fringe, hippies and such. Mainstream opposition to nuclear power stems from the ordinary public looking at the safety records of deregulated industries, scandals like Enron, and the GOP and their lobbyist friends complicity in them. Republican tendencies to deregulate, privatize, and generally throw the public welfare to the private sector is often taken to an ideological and irrational extreme. We can’t afford that with nuclear power.

Nuclear power has great potential but it is also dangerous. Any cutting corners could result in a Chernobyl style accident or terrorist attack. Any cutting corners on waste disposal could pollute ground waters with nuclear wasteland be an ecological disaster. I support more nuclear power, but only when we do it as state run, military guarded, and heavily regulated for safety. Not for profit, not cutting corners, not putting the public at risk for Wall Street and K-Street.  

Stand up, Sit down, Fight-Fight-Fight!  The republican cheerleaders were hyped-up to support the hypocritical/lying/moronic nonsense being spewed their way. 

Did anyone else get to the point of having to yell or make finger gestures at the tv?

suggestion: Wire the podium and every time Bush lies, we get to shoot him with a volt of electricity.  Why not make it interactive?  And for all those unkept promises, he gets one large zap at the end of his presidency.

Where does the Constitution give the President the power to disregard the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?  If you want case law, I think that U.S. v. U.S. District Court is dispositive here.

I agree with Architect, it was a strong speech.  If yoiu are willing to believe that what he says is true.

Remember he is not talking to us news-freaks.  He is talking to the rest who get very little news and have not much reason to disbelieve.

Sorry, but I don't trust GW to ONLY limit this to Osama, and you shouldn't either.  If the taps were justified, why not get a retroactive warrant?  That is legal.  If he doesn't want to get a warrant, my suspicion is that a judge would find them to be unjustified.  Why else flaut the law?

Part of the opposition against nuclear power is irrational... Mainstream opposition to nuclear power stems from the ordinary public looking at the safety records of deregulated industries, scandals like Enron, and the GOP and their lobbyist friends complicity in them.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer,  but the Eron scandal was in the late 90's and we haven't built a Nuclear power facility in about 25 years... I'm not getting the connection... unless this is that whole "straw man" thing y'all keep accusing me of. (see that's how you say you think someone is incorrect with out using foul and abusive language).

Bush actually seems to think he’s out in front, leading the charge to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  In fact, most people with any foresight could tell we were on the wrong path starting 10-20 years earlier, when Republicans lined up with auto industry lobbyists and fought all reforms to CAFE standards, reduced funding for alternative energy research, and failed to close loopholes in light truck standards that were big enough for a Hummer to drive through.  All this done to preserve the health of the U.S. auto industry…well that worked out great, didn’t it?
This has brought us to a point where one out of every six barrels of oil produced in the world is used to move Americans around, and the country spends billions of dollars each year defending its interests in oil-rich areas.  The SUV boom triggered by our shortsighted policy has resulted in smaller cars being much less safe than they otherwise would be.  Contrary to the auto lobby spin, small cars are not inherently unsafe, they are unsafe when hit by an SUV with twice the weight and bumpers that are misaligned with cars (see loophole above).

Bush actually seems to think he’s out in front, leading the charge to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  In fact, most people with any foresight could tell we were on the wrong path starting 10-20 years earlier, when Republicans lined up with auto industry lobbyists and fought all reforms to CAFE standards, reduced funding for alternative energy research, and failed to close loopholes in light truck standards that were big enough for a Hummer to drive through.  All this done to preserve the health of the U.S. auto industry…well that worked out great, didn’t it?
This has brought us to a point where one out of every six barrels of oil produced in the world is used to move Americans around, and the country spends billions of dollars each year defending its interests in oil-rich areas.  The SUV boom triggered by our shortsighted policy has resulted in smaller cars being much less safe than they otherwise would be.  Contrary to the auto lobby spin, small cars are not inherently unsafe, they are unsafe when hit by an SUV with twice the weight and bumpers that are misaligned with cars (see loophole above).

And how will we know when it happens?

Indeed it does seem obviously pertinent. . . . until you notice that the US Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit on that case.  Know what that means?  US v. Clay, 430 F. 2d 165, isn't the law!  Whoops!

Clay v. U.S., 403 U.S. 698 (1971)

Not entirely true, while the SCOTUS did reverse the 5th Circuit, it was only the conviction for evadeing the draft that was considered the court only looked at whether or not the CO claim was valid, no other  holding by the lower court was even addressed:

" We granted certiorari, 400 U.S. 990 , to consider whether the induction notice was invalid because grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioner's claim to be classified as a conscientious objector."

Whoops! 

I aplologize for letting you know the dirty secret about your wife.  Really, SHE should have told you!

Don't worry CVille, no matter how rude you are no one will say a word, the "troll patrol" doesn't apply to the left.

You might want to consider a name change though, "UnCVille Dem" seems much more appropriate!

Thanks, I try.