(Note: God's column will be back next Friday.)

I'm looking for someone who understands politics and the law better than me, to explain away what I'm finding to be quite the puzzlement. Obviously, there's something here I'm missing, right? And that's where I'm hoping you, dear reader, come in.

I mean, to wit:

--Bush has a secret program to have the NSA spy on Americans domestically, without a court order. This is revealed by the NY Times. Obviously a hand-in-the-cookie-jar moment, and arguably quite illegal.

--So the justice department launches an investigation into who exposed the spying to the media, while the administration basically accuses the leaker of treason. By implication the NY Times is little better, having aided and abetted treasonists (free press, as has become usual, notwithstanding.)

--New for '06, the administration will now be applying pressure to journalists, punishing those who break stories unfavorable to said administration by forcing them to (a) reveal sources, or (b) go to jail. Because, you know, when reporters print the truth, the terrorists win.

--Bush actually says of the leak perpetrator, direct quote, "My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program, in a time of war."

In a time of war. Such gravitas. Only... only... only it ISN'T wartime. There was no declaration of war, we are not AT war. Now granted, we are in an ongoing occupation of the country we invaded. But invasion and occupation isn't being at war, and besides, we all know Bush doesn't mean to imply that we are at war with Iraq. Indeed on CNN, where I saw him say this, the reporter led into the story by referencing the "war on terror." Trent Duffy, White House Deputy Press Secretary, released a statement about the matter talking about how, hey, Al Qaeda's playbook isn't on page one, so obviously the "war" Bush thinks we are at is with Al Qaeda (or, as he likes to call them after he's put on his Darth Vader pajamas, the "doers of evil.")

There. I don't think I'm leaving anything out.

So what I've got is this: a president breaking the law; blaming the guy who caught him breaking the law; criminlaizing the conduct of catching him breaking the law; and, waving away any suggestion that his own behavior was illegal with the caveat that we are at war. Only, oh yeah, we're NOT actually at war, which I have to figure cinches the deal that said behavior is indeed therefore illegal.

But no one seems to be calling for an investigation into the president's behavoir, which would obviously follow from all this. So then surely, I must have this wrong, must be leaving something out. Can anybody help me get a handle on all this?

Thanks.

Labels: The politics