diss traskchuns of buddy don: grate book n other news

i caint seem to git my nose out frum a book name of the beatles by bob spitz that my step daughter give me. ifn ye lack the beatles or jes wonta know a lil more bout em, this is a grate book to read. ye larn lots of new thangs, lack how lennon n mccartneys grandparnts cum over to liverpool frum ireland durin the irish tater famine.

in other news, i almos wonted to say, 'et tu, george?' whenever i red the beginnin of a bit o'punditry writ by george f. will. in a articull name of No Checks, Many Imbalances, mr will sez thangs lack this:

Besides, terrorism is not the only new danger of this era. Another is the administration's argument that because the president is commander in chief, he is the "sole organ for the nation in foreign affairs." That non sequitur is refuted by the Constitution's plain language, which empowers Congress to ratify treaties, declare war, fund and regulate military forces, and make laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of all presidential powers . Those powers do not include deciding that a law -- FISA, for example -- is somehow exempted from the presidential duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

lack mos folks that kin read n understand plane english, tiz obveeus that mr bush dint foller ('broke') the law. he makes a purty good case usin lots of hi-falutin wurds. then, to make shore ye know whose side hes on, he ends thisaway:

Immediately after Sept. 11, the president rightly did what he thought the emergency required, and rightly thought that the 1978 law was inadequate to new threats posed by a new kind of enemy using new technologies of communication. Arguably he should have begun surveillance of domestic-to-domestic calls -- the kind the Sept. 11 terrorists made.

But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.

i bolded the part that sticks in my craw: we know he broke the law, but were jes spozed to sit by n change it but never questchun whuther we spozed to make laws by havin the presdint disobey em n then after the fack, change the law? n do it without 'stigmatizin' the brakin of the law in the furst place?

that dont add up. it also ignores how if mr bush thanks he kin brake that law without no stigma, how minny otherns is he a'brakin without our knowin bout it?