Mountain of Judgment

An invitation from Marshall Wittman, former Christian Coalition honcho, Heritage Foundation wonk, Bush I lackey, McCain campaign director and current DLC "independent-minded progressive" who has a really fucking annoying stylistic habit of only referring to himself in the third person as "The Moose":

"The Moose asks that we come and reason together"

So Marshall, could you send out an e-mail alert when you start using the reason you talk about? Your current argument is rooted entirely in fear. Fear can be smart, but I'm afraid you're being far too selective in what scares you. Me, I’m a multi-tasker, capable of worry about terrorists while criticizing a President who scares the shit out of me. Because foolish me, I think there’s a way to secure the nation that doesn’t happily drive 600 miles out out of its way, hop a train and hike up a mountain pass in a snowstorm just to piss on the Constitution.

Internal and external threats to American security and stability do not exist as a zero sum game. Just because an exterior menace wants to kill our babies doesn't mean that an overreaching assertion of imperial powers by the executive isn't also a grave threat to the republic. The only way you can pass off Bush's admitted violation of law is to presume innocence of both motive and execution on his part--while ignoring the news that the government has eavesdropped on domestic conversations, spied on vegans and gays, etc. Your whole paragraph divining Bush’s motives (“clearly attempting to defend America”, “certainly not venal”) smacks of the kind of religious conviction one typically finds in young earth creationists. At this late date such presumption is absurd, and your omission of context that erodes your argument is worse.

It should be self-evident by now that a clear pattern exists of Bush using his undeclared, open-ended war on terror to claim unlimited, unchecked authority against the letter of the law and the spirit of the framers’ intent. Reason would suggest--and in light of history I think it would dictate--that laws meant to guard against the possibility of executive overreach are needed, and really, really should be obeyed. Bush, master of secrecy, paranoia and weasel words (i.e. “the wiretaps you hear about need court orders”), has given the country no reason to believe him on this matter, and quite a few reasons to mistrust him. If Bush followed all the proper procedures and notifications, why are FISA judges resigning now? Why are politicians saying they were disallowed from consulting staff or raising any meaningful objections? Why did Bush go to the trouble of breaking the law if existing law would have effectively given him what he wanted anyway? How does this rationale connect to the rationale for prisoner abuse? You don’t address these questions. I wonder why not.

I find it curious that the same people who exclaimed after 9/11 that changing our way of life meant victory for the terrorists now find themselves apologizing for flagrant Presidential law-breaking and the open undermining of the rule of law in the name of national security. Was all that "Don't let the terrorists win!" talk only about shopping?

Leaving aside overheated declarations of Bush’s “evil”, the President is deeply wrong here. His vision of America, and his role within it, isn’t worth defending. Not like this. Not at this cost. Those now making the argument that “civil liberties don’t matter when you’re dead” have bent over gleefully for the terrorists. They, and all of us, should be profoundly ashamed. What you dismiss as partisan points I consider principles at the core of our government. George isn’t and shouldn’t be king. Even in the event of a Martian tripod attack.

I don’t know whether or not you’re a sincere, hawkish “progressive” or a GOP plant. It’s doesn’t really matter. Either way you’re flat wrong, so the question is moot.