AUMF is not a declaration of war

* the NYT says that the Liberty Tower has "iconic status" - is that true? i cant recall ever hearing of it. about the only memorable landmark on the LA skyline is the groovy spidery air-traffic control tower at LAX

* digby makes the same point i did about the 'open-mike': "Isn't he terrific? Even in private he is exactly the same as he is in public. Boy oh boy, it sure is a good thing he didn't say anything controversial, though. That "technician" (who is coincidentally named Karl Rove --- go figure) would have been given a first class ticket to the woodshed. But our preznit is the same stalwart patriot no matter who he is speaking to so that technician knew he had nothing to worry about."
i'm reminded of that guy who secretly recorded phone-calls with the preznit.

* for newer visitors to the site - i occasionally do a "highlights from the server log" thing. today's highlight is someone googled "quitters what they want which is nothing" - I'm number the number 1 result!

* glenn: " There are two extremely common legal misconceptions which are almost always spouted by Bush defenders when defending the NSA program: (a) if a President has the "inherent authority" under Article II to engage in warrantless eavesdropping, then this means that Congress is without power to limit or restrict that power (the simplistic Powerline defense); and (b) the AUMF constitutes a declaration of war."

* glenn: "The DoJ -- somewhere along the line and for strategic reasons that I confess I haven’t been able to figure out fully yet -- decided it was important for them to take the position that the AUMF is not a declaration of war."