The Bush Embolism II

The injection of machismo from the Karen Hughes emergency political medicine bag is not working. The President talks tough at a news conference, grimaces from the Oval, and whisks Vice President Cheney back from his Iraq photo opps to snarl. But the rip in the primary blood vessel of the Bush Administration - the one that traces American fear after 9/11 to make its infectious course through our body politic - is growing wider, and the killer stroke is taking its inevitable and tragic course.

The more the crooked and corrupt heart beats, the faster it pumps, the more oxygen it drains from the dying brain of this worst of American presidencies, the more blood spills uselessly upon the remains of justification, and decency, and legitimacy. Signs that, although it began with just a slight paralysis, a hitch in the step, the Bush Embolism grows (I'll note silence from the conservative libertarians who normally post comments on this blog) and this scandal of spying on Americans without the benefit of law or court is a death sentence:

- George Will tightens the strangling, bowtie noose on the leader of the party he loves.

- Noted lefty soft-shoe specialist Bob Barr hurls his worst at the leader of his own party: "The American people are going to have to say, 'Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.'"

- The more moderate Republicans are united. Here's Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania via Reuters today: "I have grave doubts as to its applicability ... they raise very fundamental questions ... about privacy and the Bill of Rights."

There will be hearings. This tear in the artery wall is growing rapidly, and I don't think there's a chance of closing it now. Especially as it begins to leak the names of the groups the Bush Administration considered threats capable of "another September the 11th." So far, that enemies list includes PETA, a Catholic workers group, and some rabid environmentalists. Finally, Bush has lost even security jock Jonathan Alter - go read his jagged Newsweek stab-wound and see if you can't see the gathering pool of blood on the snow.

UPDATE: Hell knows no fury like a justice scorned, or so my lawyer friends tell me anyway. So now the secret court that administers FISA is incensed over Bush's illegal end-run, and it seems like these judges ain't a gonna take it lying down.

Comments

[Zzedar]

"What about the metaphor? Any way to kill it?"

-- Joanie Caucus, Doonesbury

[Tom K]

Tom:

Having read Dick Morris' column in today's NY Post just before this blog, I can only conclude that you would like to see the Brooklyn Bridge destroyed.

I trust the penumbral emanations of the Presidential War Power are strong enough to fight through the absence of a "war" (in the sense that term is used by the Constitution), and take appropriate pre-emptive action with respect to those, like yourself, who would subordinate the claimed needs of our leaders to the county's founding principles.

[Tom W.]

Good one Tom, your sarcasm barely shows! (And I also sense a clever allusion to the transit strike in your remarks).

[Tony Alva]

This whole new attack on the president’s actions following 9/11 will ultimately backfire on those who are sponsoring this inquiry. I'm betting that most Americans would say that desperate times call for desperate measures. The president made a command decision in light of events and future presidents will now be apprehensive about following their instincts when decisiveness is what we needed and will need again no matter who’s in the White House.

Going down this road is a big, big mistake. Go ahead, hold your hearings. Roast Bush over a fire. When the Iranians have developed their bomb and are aiming it at us, I hope the president doesn’t look back on this period and wonder if he should delay finding out what the launch date is because he needs to muster a vote in congress first to conduct phone surveillance.

Geez…

[Tom W.]

But Tony, he already HAD the power - you're just giving me the talking points there - FISA is an incredibly powerful Federal surveillance law, indeed one that has made true libertarians (and I am not one) nervous for years.

You're creating a wildly false choice here: either non-judicial wiretapping of Americans or a nuke, express from Iran. C'mon!

[bodkin]

because he needs to muster a vote in congress first to conduct phone surveillance

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! *THWACK!*

FISA allows the NSA to get a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER THE FACT. Nobody needs to ask congress for anything.

(You may now return to sewing the fur collar onto Bush's coronation robe.)

[Ralph]

Tom K, we are not at war against terror. You cant go to war against a tactic. Why do you fall for that crap? The President cant just decide he wants to break the law and then say 'trust me'. Bullshit. President Bush has committed a felony - something that Bill Clinton was impeached for (lying under oath). And Nixon's impeachment charges included unauthorized wiretapping also. Those who defend Bush are fools and should be sent to a Constitutional law class. The Executive branch can wiretap and then get approval in 72 hours - which is almost always granted. The last time I checked the fourth amendment it read:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The President took an oath to protect and defend the Constution. He has violated that oath and should be punished. But these Republican children in the House have two standards of ethics, one for them, another for Dems.

[vagitarian]

I think the more apt metaphor is one of a ruptured aneurysm

[The Liberal Avenger]

One can only hope.

There is too much apology coming from pop-culture conservatives. These are the people to whom George F. Will is just a quaint old-timer. The business at hand is keep Arab savages out of our shopping malls. When was the last time a fancy-boy wordsmith in a bowtie foiled a terrorist attack?

[Tom K]

Ralph:

I don't understand what is upsetting you. The 4th Am. (which is only 4th -- less important than the right to bear arms (2d) or not to have troops quartered in your house (3d)) has two basic elements: no unreasonable seach and seizure, and no warrant without probable cause.

Bush has assured us that what he is doing is not only reasonable, but necessary, so point 1 isn't at issue. And the complaint against him is that he conducted warrantless searches: thus, no warrants were issued, so the second point isn't at issue either.

Lighten up. There are people out there who want to do bad things, and if we don't trust our government to look out for us, who will we trust?

If some search were not conducted which, if conducted, would have prevented the entire world from being destroyed, wouldn't you agree that your niggling constitutional principles would look pretty silly in the dispersing planetary debris?

Remember the advise of the real Talking Heads (not those so-called con. law scholars popping up on cable nowadays): DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT.

[Tom K]

BTW, I have little doubt that Tony is right about the popular reaction to the recent disclosures. If it ever hurts GWB, it will be only after he has been weakened by other things. Most people don't seem to mind warrantless searches too much if the person authorizing them is in a position of legitimate authority, and identifies some plausible (or plausible-sounding) justification, which isn't hard to do these days.

[Ralph]

What the hell does popular reaction, or public opinion have to do with anything?! The Nazi party was popular in Germany back in the 30s - did that make them right? So what does that tell us? This Admin has spent the past four years trying to scare the crap out of Americans - and apparently it has worked well on some people. There are some people who have cooler heads and understand the real issues here. We have the 4th Amendment because we should NOT trust the Government when it comes to violating our rights. You want a King? Then say so.

"Yo Franklin, what have you created"

"A Republic, if you can keep it"

[Tom K]

This off Drudge, indicating similar conduct during the Carter and Clinton administrations:

http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm

This is not a repub./dem. issue, it is a statist/libertarian issue. That the Dems. and Repubs. agree that federal power can be expanded, at least when they are exercising it, is no surprise.

[Ralph]

The House is still controlled by Republicans who will never hold this president to the same standards they held Clinton. Regarding the Drudge Report: I dont care if "Government officials" or "Government lawyers" think it's OK to spy on Americans for "foreign intelligence purposes". I don't care that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War either.

[Diane]

Nope, Drudge is WRONG about the Clinton thing (funny how Clinton still gets brought up -- Bush has been President for 5 years already). From Think Progress:

(What Clinton actually signed) requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Bush signed illegal orders to spy on AMERICANS. Face facts.

[DS]

Your posting has legs! I suspect many will read it, which is why I please offer this comment. FYI "balding security jock Jonathan Alter" lost his hair the hard way: he's been undergoing chemotherapy for several years to fight an aggressive cancer. He's also been loud and vocal about his support of stem cell research and wrote a column on this subject for Newsweek, which for many families (like mine) means an awful lot. Take all the pot shots you want on his reporting--that's fair and clearly you have the style to that well--but let's his bald head alone. It's earned a break.

[Kenneth Rufo]

On a related note, anyone watch Rome's first season?

[Tony Alva]

Tom,

To be honest, I've been so busy at work I haven't really had much time to study the "talking Points" of the administration and missed the presidents address this weekend. I'm simply making a point based on the few headline articles I've read in the deadtree press.

For as much of a doofus this president can be and has been, his actions whether within the letter of the law or not, we're justly warranted and I believe that most would rather have the president act in such a way when catastrophy befalls us.

[Tom W.]

DS - whoops! I think i'll do a little editing (btw I am a little thin myself on top, so it wasn't the pure cheap shot it may have seemed to be).

[JR]

The Catholic Workers are not "a Catholic workers' group." They are a network of lay workers who are committed to charity for the poor and homeless and to non-violence, civil disobedience, social justice, and pacifism. In November a number of Catholic Worker members were arrested for helping lead a non-violent protest against the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, where military officers from Latin America are trained in interrogation techniques, among other things.

No surprise that the administration views them as an enemy.

[Zzedar]

I don't understand what is upsetting you. The 4th Am. (which is only 4th -- less important than the right to bear arms (2d) or not to have troops quartered in your house (3d))....

Dude, they're not in order of importance.

[Leo]

Tom K. -

Bush can "assure" us all he wants - he assured us in 2004 that no wiretapping would be done without a warrant AFTER he gave the order to snoop on US citizens. And his track record, ain't so great quite frankly. He's a fucking L-I-A-R. Period.

Bush is also not the final arbiter of what is "reasonable" - that is for a judge to determine. What we know now is that Bush relied on advice of his political appointees against the advice of career lawyers and experts on the subject. Do you think he bothered to read the 4th amendment or the authorization passed by Congress?

This administration has proven time and again with both their words and actions that they are only interested in looking out for themselves.

And those "niggling constitutional principles" you refer to are what this great country was founded on. Might want to read the Federalist Papers.

[aqualung]

Since the FISA act allows for wiretaps without a warrant for up to 72 hours, it seems to me that the only rationale for circumventing the court is to enable spying on enemies of the administration, rather than terrorists. If the target was legitimate, the court would almost certainly give approval and issue a warrant. If Bush wants to spy on lawful but dissenting organizations, he would need to bypass FISA, which is exactly what he has been doing. We need to know exactly who and what have been targets of this surveillance...

[Tom W.]

Hey everyone, don't let Tom K. snow ya! He's just drawing ya'll out - I know TK and he's a stone cold libertarian (though with a practical streak) who is as disgusted by this as anyone posting here...but he clearly enjoys playing Cheney's Advocate (as it's coming to be known) in the flow of the discussion....don't get suckered!

[Tom K]

Tom:

I thought my invocation of the "dispersing planetary debris" would tip 'em off, but I guess the political rhetoric is so extreme these days (on both sides), it's tough to parody.

Ken R: I watched Rome, and liked it despite its many absurdities. It all ties together as, if I'm not mistaken, season MMLXVII brings the direct decendents of Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo to lower Manhattan on Sept. 11 . . .

[Tom K]

"'I don't understand what is upsetting you. The 4th Am. (which is only 4th -- less important than the right to bear arms (2d) or not to have troops quartered in your house (3d))....'

Dude, they're not in order of importance."

Tell it to Representative John W. Olver (D-MA 1st), who is one of the many who have argued along the lines that:

"The First Amendment (and by the way, the forefathers put it first for a reason, it is the one they considered most important!) . . ." Alan Keyes says the same thing (focusing on religion, rather than speech). So we've got a broad consensus that the order does matter . . . maybe that's why the 9th and 10th amendments have been progressively read into irrelevance.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that Rep. Olver, like many who share his view, doesn't consider the Second Amendment the next most important. So maybe you have a point.

[Tom W.]

I thought Rome was campy, historically inaccurate, creepy, and pretty good.

[Zzedar]

"The First Amendment (and by the way, the forefathers put it first for a reason, it is the one they considered most important!) . . ."

It's probably true that the First Amendment was put first for reasons of importance, but that doesn't mean the rest in the Bill of Rights were.

[Ralph]

What is wrong with you people? All the amendments are important. Are these best arguments you folks can muster defending abuse of executive power?

[zen_less]

I always thought the Amendments were in alphabetical order.

[Tony Alva]

"I always thought the Amendments were in alphabetical order."

That's good...

[brendog]

Clearly the president and his band of evil cronies have committed that high crime/misdemeanor that his opponents have been waiting for.
I say let the autos-da-fe political begin!

[Tom K]

"I always thought the Amendments were in alphabetical order."

That's ridiculous. "F"ourth would then have to come between "F"irst and "S"econd/"T"hird", and "F"ifth before "F"irst. "S"ixth would be between "S"econd and "T"hird.

Clearly you're no constitutional scholar.

[Tom K]

"I thought Rome was campy, historically inaccurate, creepy, and pretty good."

Didn't really see the creepiness, but thought it was definitely campy (esp. the out-of-nowhere sapphic relationship with Octavia and J's ex) and pretty good.

Like all historical fiction, it added to the historical record in ways that are almost certainly false. I didn't notice that it contradicted the history as to be materially "historically inaccurate", though I wouldn't necessarily be in a position to notice if it did. Do you have anything specific in mind in terms of that?

[Tom W.]

Creepy in the way Roman society was portrayed - which I'm guessing is through the lens of 20th century dictatorships and the Nazis' obsession with ancient Pagan ritual.

The everyday nature of torture within the legions - well, that reminded me of too many contempary headlines. Creepy.

No Roman scholar I, but I did hang on some of the HBO boards during the series - my understanding is that Octavia is almost entirely a creation of the screen-writers pen for the series, that few lines written about her in history describe her as (paraphrasing) a noble and virtuous woman.

Then too, the time frame portrayed - which seems to be what, weeks? - when the travels involved took many, many months and years.

Still, I enjoyed it - good cast.

[dave h.]

I'm wondering if Tony Alva has considered what would actually happen if the Iranians did get nuclear weapons. Does he really think they'd be suicidal enough to use them against a country with nuclear missile subs, nuclear artillery shells, ICBM's, nuclear cruise missiles, and old-fashioned plain ol' nuclear bombs? I do not fear Iran or Iran's potential nuclear weapons. We have a bigger army, a bigger air force, a bigger navy, and more firepower. They wouldn't use them against us unless we attacked them first.
I DO fear totalitarian governments that spy on Quaker peace groups. Here's your chance, conservatives and libertarians, to show you have principles and that you actually want to conserve the constitution and protect liberty. Read the constitution and bill of rights and tell me again how spying without warrants is legal.
Well? Do you have principles? Or are you just full of shit?

[Tony Alva]

Dave H.,

I don't think I'm full of shit.

Iran will get a nuke in the next five years. Iran's new president is capable of using it in my opinion. Would he use it against us directly? Don't know, but I believe the guy would use it against Israel.

I also think the free nations of the world are VERY worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the UN, EU, etc... will not have any luck curtailing them from getting the bomb.

The strength of our conventional and nuclear forces mean nothing if their deployment fails to deter a nut like Ahmadinejad who, again, I believe capable of pull the trigger at any sign of aggression especially after watching his neighbor's regime fall. He knows his countries theocratic days would be numbered if the U.S. were to launch an invasion.

Think Tom K. makes the case best, so I’ll refrain from being redundant. All I’m saying is that I think most people are willing to grant some leeway when desperate times call for it. I personally don’t give a shit if Dick Cheney happens to over hear my conversation on a transvestite phone sex line while rooting out f’ing terrorists and think many others feel the same.

My prediction is that Iran will be at war with someone, possibly us, in the next 5 years.