Reminders from Brooks & Bush

Within the last week we have been reminded of who the Republicans are and what they really believe.  In his defense of his felonious breaking of laws covering domestic wiretaps, Bush made is abundantly clear that he does not believe in the rule of law.   He also proved that when he swore on the bible to uphold the Constitution, he lied.

David Brooks, in his Op-Ed piece of yesterday, "When Big Brother Is You" made his disdain for democracy itself clear. His article purports to outline the President's options in fighting terrorism, and concludes that the Bush's had no choice but to break the law.

But Brooks never really examines the option of actually obeying the constitution. He says that if you were to ask Congress to change the law, the result would be "legal rigidities and leaks that will destroy the program." Typical of Brooks, no evidence is offered to support these assertions.

Why would the law have to be full of legal rigidities?  If Bush feels it necessary to get rid of the secret courts and the warrant system, why doesn't he openly present his case to Congress and the people? Everyone recognizes that there have been enormous changes in technology since 1978. The American people would be open to the idea of streamlining a cumbersome system - if it actually were cumbersome.

Why would leaks "destroy" the program? Is there any reason to believe that bin Laden's behavior would be effected in any way?  The current law requires a review by a secret court  after a wiretap has been conducted and the court issues a secret ruling. Bush's habit has been to (illegally) skip that review, by not advising the secret court of the secret wiretapping.  Now that this process has been leaked to the press, can someone explain to me how the program has been "destroyed"?  Brooks does not even try.

Clearly Bush does not believe that the program has been "destroyed", as he has vowed to continue on with it. (Former alcoholics do not give up programs easily.)

So the Constitutional approach is dismissed by this administration and its lackey on the Op-Ed page, without any rational argument or reason.

Synopsis: Bush & Brooks are against the rule of law, the constitution and democracy.

On an angrier note, I really resent Brooks' deliberate attempts to mislead. In his article he pulls a couple of whoppers. He described Bush as being in a "perpetual state of high alert." While on a vacation, this President was advised that a terrorist organization that had attacked the U.S. both at home and abroad, was "determined to strike in the U.S." He stayed on vacation. High Alert?  Brooks Describes the current law thusly: "FISA judges usually issue warrants quickly, and when appropriate, retroactively." In 25 years, out of 14,961 applications, they have disapproved four times. An appeals process was established 25 years ago so that the government would have recourse if it felt it had been unfairly judged. This process has never been used. Brooks' use of words like "usually" and "when appropriate" to describe this is deliberately misleading.

Comments

[ThatGayConservative]

You wouldn't mind going through and listing the laws Bush violated, right?

Better yet, can you refute Powerline's article pointing out the constitutionality and legal precedent which backs up what was done?
Can you explain why Jamie Gorelick endorsed Bush's actions back in 1994?

[Rob Schellinger]

BTW,

"While on a vacation, this President was advised that a terrorist organization that had attacked the U.S. both at home and abroad, was "determined to strike in the U.S." He stayed on vacation. High Alert?"

There was nothing to act on. It was based on old intelligence from the late 1990s and was way too vague to act on. With that in mind, a better question would be "Why didn't our sovereign lord BJ act on the intelligence?

The PDB lacked "the three Ts of tactical intelligence, target, timing and type of attack. You can't stop an attack without all three.

Furthermore, as Richard Miniter wrote:
"Where was the warning here? A warning is a prediction about a future calamity. Yet not a single sentence in the PDB speaks of the future. Instead, every sentence is about the past or the present. A warning implies a degree of alarm. Yet every sentence is as passive as an encyclopedia entry."

You, sir, are a liar. Worse than that, you know damn well that you're lying. Either you know that you're lying or you're a minless liberal tool toting the DNC/MorOn.org lying points.

[bbbustard]

I have to say that I do resent waking up Christmas morning to find myself characterized as minless. I, in fact, am minfull.
But as this morning is Christmas, I wish all my readers a Merry one. Tomorrow I'll deal with those good Christians who spend Christmas Eve speaking of blow jobs and calling people liars and tools.