This kind of smackdown is long overdue

And I'm not talking about Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy's smackdown of Alberto Torquemada Gonzales yesterday, though that was some might fine smackin' too:

Leahy:

And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."

Feingold:

It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.

So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commericals making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where?

Heh. "Random bloggers." First of all, I read a lot of progressive blogs, and NO ONE BLOGGER has opposed all eavesdropping. The position from the left side of the fence is that surveillance is to be conducted within the bounds of the 1978 FISA law, and is not to be conducted without cause. In other words, fishing expeditions consisting of monitoring every activity of law-abiding Americans in the hope that some random terrorist will be caught by pure accident are NOT acceptable. That's a far cry from "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists."

But as fabulous as Russ Feingold is, we expect this from him, and he always delivers. What we DON'T expect from the newspaper that gave us Judith Miller and still gives us Adam Nagourney is a refusal to accept a non-apology apology from an Administration official:

It is hard to render a convincing apology when you are not really apologizing. Consider Charles Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of state for detainee affairs, who has been trying to spin his way out of his loathsome attempt to punish lawyers who represent inmates of the Guantánamo Bay internment camp.

Last week, Mr. Stimson expressed his “shock” that major American law firms would represent terrorism suspects, hinted that they were paid by unsavory characters and suggested that companies should reconsider doing business with them. On Wednesday, Mr. Stimson said he apologized and regretted that his comments “left the impression” that he was attacking the integrity of those lawyers.

It was not just an impression. It was exactly what he did. Mr. Stimson actually read out a list of law firms during an interview with a radio station friendly to the Bush administration.

The rest is here (fair use and all that).

I read Stimson's apology, and couldn't believe what I was reading. I also heard the recording of what he said, and there is absolutely no question what he meant. For him to say that he didn't mean that corporations should boycott law firms that provide pro bono representation to people the Administration deems unacceptable is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has any. And it's high time the Times stood up and refused to accept the Administration's lies, backtracks, and bifurcation.