why on earth does the fate of the PATRIOT Act matter to him?

It's perceived as a defeat, of course.

Just not getting his way is enough to piss off a tyrant.

Camoflauge.

"why on earth does the fate of the PATRIOT Act matter to him?"

What those guys said above - power, getting his way, etc.

Oh, wait ... that was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

To avoid what sociologist Jurgen Habermas calls a legitimation crisis.

Bob

Because it makes what he does legal if not constitutional. Legality promises him a future PR benefit when his actions see the light of day and that is just too juicy to ignore today.

So why does he care about torture?? Power. Why does he want to bomb Al Jazeera? Power.

As long as he can hide behind the claim that any action that opposes him is "endangering the lives of our citizens" he can continue his reckless, profligate powergrap.

The aftermath of Katrina is a better clue to how well the country is being protected.

What are you saying? *Of course* the President loves the law! He is so very very sad when he has to break it to save each and every one of us for a torturous death! Or, at least to not have to go to a judge to get a wiretap request rubber stamped.

As far as I can tell, Bush and his crack legal team think that it wouldn't matter...
But it does matter...

The administration has asserted that the Times revealing the existence of the surveillance program puts American lives at risk.

Obviously the PATRIOT act reveals related activities in the GWOT that were previously unauthorized--in a public law no less--and thus endangers the lives of our citizens.

Therefore, the PATRIOT act should be jettisoned, and all such activities should be authorized and conducted in secret, by executive order. Any other course endangers the lives of our citizens.

Keep in mind the bill they rejected EXPANDED USAPAT, including the Meth Act and added further limits on civil liberties not in the existing law.

Democratic Senators proposed a three-month extension of the existing law to prevent expiration while further negotiation took place. Bush and the GOP rejected that!

So it's their fault these provisions are expiring because they rejected the interim solution!

Don't forget that; don't let folks forget it!

H. L. MENKIN SAID IT BEST WHEN HE REFERED TO POLITICAL PEOPLE AS POLTROONS AND PURVEYORS. BRASS MONKEY

It's a political question, not a legal one, in this case. Even if he doesn't care that much whether the legal authority conferred in the act is explicitly granted, he and his flacks think they can use the act as a club to bash Democrats, to show they aren't serious about defending the nation. From Rove's point of view that's really what the Patriot Act, like the whole War on Terror, is all about.

Isn't it fun having a White House where the political team runs policy to this extent? We have a President who demands support for policies because they're supposedly in the national interest, appealing to our understanding that such policies must reflect a real assessment of the national interest. But they're always really tailored to screw the White House's domestic enemies.

Why can't we have a President of all the country? This President acts like he's running a hostile occupation, more than anything else. If you're not a loyal follower, then he's not offering you anything, really -- he's trying to destroy you. That's what he does.

As others have said above, it's the appearance that counts, not the reality. This is entirely consistent with Bush being a compassionate conservative (while shifting revenue away from the poor), an evangelical Christian (who never goes to church), an opponent of torture (except when it's really, really necessary), and a phyiscally fit guy (okay, that's probably accurate.) People are impressed by what they can see, not what goes on behind the curtain.

My take is: the more legal authority he has to do stuff means that he can push the extra-legal stuff even further.

>>But since the President apparently feels that he doesn't need to concern himself with what's legal...

What argument or facts led to this conclusion? I must have missed something, Kevin.

For Bush and Rove all politics are a wedge. Language alert: irresponsible, cannot afford, endangers lives, delaying tactics.

This can only mean one thing: Democratic Obstuctionists.

Let me point out that with the swell new powers of the Patriot Act we have yet to try and convict a single terrorist. (Six guys playing paintball in Ithaca don't really count.) On the contrary, we have in fact made it harder for the courts of our allies to convict terrorists.

Let me also point out that without the powers of the Patriot Act any number of our security agencies were able to gather the salient facts about the plot to attack us on 9/11. Recall that within a week of the attacks, we knew just about all there was to know -- who was involved, where they had been, which flight schools they went to. Since that time we have learned nothing of consequence about the attackers themselves. We have learned a great deal of consequence about the fact that absolutely none of this information was acted upon by an administration that we hell-bent on protecting us from the Soviet Union.

It indeed does not matter to him, as the Yoo doctrine enables him to do whatever he wants to secure our homeland.

All this is just some bones thrown to the bitter enders of the left wing to keep them engaged in their hatred of the President so they do not try to mess of something real.

Without the ability to defeat all political enemies then the terrorists will win. -George W. Chimpster

I missed something. What are we supposed to be afraid of now ? Is there some national emergency on-the-go ? Domestically suffering from b.s. and lack of openness and accountability : that's the real emergency.

If it's so important, then why did he promise to veto a proposed three-month extension of the original Act while the new one undergoes revisions?

Because he's a big liar; no more need be said, really.

Because it makes what he does legal if not constitutional. Legality promises him a future PR benefit when his actions see the light of day and that is just too juicy to ignore today.

Exactly right. Very good, millionth monkey!

The answer is found in the Scorsese film The Gangs of New York:

BILL THE BUTCHER: "Why don't you just use police to kill your political opponents?"

BOSS TWEED: "No, Bill, God, no! The appearance of the law _must_ be upheld ESPECIALLY when it's being broken."

YOU LIBERAL COWARDS DON'T GET IT. THE TERRORISTS WANT TO STRAP US DOWN AND PUT THEIR BALLS IN OUR MOUTH AND MAKE US LICK THEM AND TONGUE THEM AND TELL THEM WE LIKE IT LIKE IT A LOT AND THEN THEY WANT TO BE LIKE CLINTON AND MAKE US GIVE THEM ORAL TO ANAL CONTACT. AND YOU LIBS AND YOUR FELLOW TRAVELLERS AT THE NEW YORK TIMES WANT TO LET THEM.

Roddy McCorley,

Good points - Patton wants to erect his own Bridge of Toome and solve all problems.

And then you LIBS WANT TO PUT BINDER CLIPS ON MY SCROTUM AND THEN SLAP MY ASS WITH A HARDBACK COPY OF "IT TAKES A VILLAGE" WHILE JERKING ME OFF.

Because if the senators don't vote FOR the Patriot Act, then they're not Acting Patriotic. And the terrorists have won.

Patton, Osama bin Laden is counting on people just like you to bring down America for him. He thanks you for doing your part. He asks that you keep up the good work.

By the way patton, I'm glad your doctor finally found the right combination of meds, it's really been a great benefit to your overall disposition. As opposed to this other poster "ASS MONKEY".

Patton, Osama bin Laden is counting on people just like you to bring down America for him. He thanks you for doing your part. He asks that you keep up the good work.
Posted by: Roddy McCorley on December 18, 2005 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

b-but, Osama's been forgotten. . .

patton's been making a lot more sense lately.

Perhaps Patton, er PATTON!!!, would enjoy "hanging out" on that Bridge of Toome. Could sate her masochistic urges. Schaife might even write a catchy tune about it; sort of an "Up the narrow streets he stepped......hemp around his/her neck" - although in your case, it would probably be more like a certain Horst fellow song regaled in the Schaife offices.

Here I came looking for rational comment, perhaps something about absolute power corrupting absolutely or something positively or negatively Machiavellian and what do I get? SOMEONE COMING TO A BRIDGE AND JUMPING OFF IT. Oy.

The Heretik,

Not asking for much of a jump - The Absolute Power Brits of their monarchy didn't ask Roddy to jump that far.

VIRTUALLY ZERO (0) TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. NOW, SHOULD ANYTHING HAPPEN, LET THE SENATORS WHO FILIBUSTERED - I.E., DID NOT EVEN PERMIT THE MATTER TO BE DECIDED DEMOCRATICALLY (SOME DEMOCRATS, EH) - LET THOSE SENATORS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS BE RESPONSIBLE!

Why do people continue to insist that 4 years without an international terrorist attack on the US is some sort of monumental feat, as if we've been attacked relentlessly before or something?

"VIRTUALLY ZERO (0) TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11"

Then who was Bush spying on in the US?

Osama_been_forgotten:

Er, uh, Osama Bin Laden has not been forgotten, he's been neutralized; with negligible casualties, I might add. It's called gaining practical advantage without cost; its called victory in what matters rather than in what does not; its called winning qua winning, and not caring about your inane obsession with finding fault with President Bush for not authorizing another meathead Clintonista Somalia assault.

But, planes are leaving every day; why don't you get Osama, tough guy.

The Objective Historian

Just an update from here in the Black Hills; we are about ready to clear the timber and begin adding the faces of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to the Memorial so that the six greatest presidents in American history may be duly recognized. We hope you'll all make it to the dedication ceremony.

Head Custodian, Mount Rushmore

HCMR,

As the entire "Monument" is an abomination and theft from the Lakotahs, why don't you place one on each end "mooning" each other? Would more fully convey their contributions to this great nation.

What's a puzzlement is why hilzoy thinks Clinton's impeachment would ever raise the bar on Bush's impeachment.

What's a puzzlement is why hilzoy thinks impeachment could ever be experienced as a "trauma" (America as sensitive, weak sister?), rather than the healthy, cathartic, mechanism of restorative justice it was intended to be.

What's a puzzlement is why hilzoy hasn't already inventoried Bush's multiple acts and decisions that clearly rise to, and exceed, the sufficient and necessary standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

They surely far and away exceed Bill Clinton's. Any double standard in this regard does extraordinary damage to the nation -- and to the law. Worse, it serves to falsely and misleadingly shore up the extremely poor judgement of pundits, pols, and pollsters who deny their obligations, before the law and especially considering their oath to uphold the Constitution, to undertake and carry out impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.

SF: of course they exceed Bill Clinton's. He should never have been impeached.

Er, uh, Osama Bin Laden has not been forgotten, he's been neutralized; with negligible casualties, I might add.

He is laughing at your silly ass.

And planning the next attack. Thanks to George W Bush, Failure in Chief.

One interesting aspect of the impeachment argument is that most posters only talk about Clinton and the possibility of Twig's comeupance.

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was purely political - Actually, I wish they could have succeeded in nailing him - only Senator Ross from Kansas saved him - however, "high crimes and disdemeanors" - they went after him because he fired Secretary Stanton in defiance of the Tenure in Office Act - as well as his vetoes of the Freedman's Act and the Civil Rights Act and his opposition to the 14th Amendment.
The Tenure in Office was eventually found to be unconstitutional.
If the average person even remembers Johnson and the impeachment, that person would probably believe that he had done something particularly vile and criminal. The Radical Republicans went after him for political reasons and stretched the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.

VIRTUALLY ZERO (0) TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

. . . Unless you count occupied Iraq as de facto "US Territory" - with its 50+ attacks DAILY on average.

Good thing we're fighting them over there, where it's only brown-skinned people and the children of poor people dumb enough to sign up for the National Guard being killed in Georgie Forgery's illegal, fake war.

My point about Johnson, is that if they were able to go after Johnson on, what appears, to be political disagreements, then there is a huge case to be made for going after Twigless for criminal considerations.

After all America has invested in the so-called "GWOT" it's pretty disgraceful that London and Spain got attacked.

If the strategy is supposed to stop innocent people from getting hurt, it seems like it's taking quite the wrong tack.

I know it's pretty pointless to argue this obvious stuff with the meatheads who won't recognize it, though.

We've had our fair share of terrorist activity since 9/11, just not by Muslims.

there is a huge case to be made for going after Twigless for criminal considerations.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on December 18, 2005 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. The huge case would have something to do with the fact that he not only broke the law, he did so flagrantly.

He cooked up a war under false pretenses to take advantage of a bogus justification that he supposedly can violate our rights during wartime. Not only can he not violate our rights during wartime, but it's not even wartime, because the reason for the war was BULLSHIT.

Even entertaining the bogus notion that impeachment talk is "political" is absurd at this point. This fucker is a worse traitor than benedict arnold. And his little dog Cheney too.

Swan,

London and Madrid - Well, at least they haven't hit Peoria.

Just like no Mig-17s hit Houston in 1970.

Maybe if the Patriot Act lapses there will be a window in which his criminal ass won't be covered and the opposition (we the people) will be able to uncover ALL of his malfeasance. I might be wrong but I doubt it.

After all America has invested in the so-called "GWOT" it's pretty disgraceful that London and Spain got attacked.

Posted by: Swan on December 18, 2005 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

I think you are taking the 'World's Policeman' definition a bit seriously here.

-------------

VIRTUALLY ZERO (0) TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11"

Then who was Bush spying on in the US?

Posted by: James on December 18, 2005 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

There've been several arrests in the US on terror...if you haven't noticed.

Osama_been_forgotten:

Well, if you and your so very smart friends succeed in eviscerating the Patriot Act and thanks to the New-York-Times-aiders-and-abettors-of-traitors and the CIA-leak-traitors, Bin Laden might be able to coordinate something here with renewed confidence in what he's up against and what he will no longer have to consider.

TOH

Osama_been_forgotten:

For someone typing on his computer you sure seem eager for someone else to go on a ineffective suicide mission in the mountains of Pakistan and/or to have Americans, whatever race, dying instead of those Iraqis whose country will most directly benefit from this unfortunate violence. If you want to go after Bin Laden, enlist and volunteer for that mission. If you want fewer Iraqis to die and more American soldiers to die, enlist and be one of those self sacrificing soldiers who steps in front of a explosive device to spare an Iraqi. If you want civilian Americans to die rather than Iraqis, self-immolate outside the White House in protest to prove it. Otherwise why don't you . . . stop being a hypocritical, non-sensical, typically self-oriented anti-Iraq II War fool [I had to really focus on being cordial there].

The U.S.A fought its Revolutionary War and it's Civil War; the Iraqis now must and it's going a lot better for them thanks to the U.S.A.

TOH

It's a cudgel to beat the Democrats with, another opportunity to smear them as "traitors."

Patton:
"THE TERRORISTS WANT TO STRAP US DOWN AND PUT THEIR BALLS IN OUR MOUTH AND MAKE US LICK THEM AND TONGUE THEM AND TELL THEM WE LIKE IT LIKE IT A LOT"
--

Is Scooter Libby writing a new book?

Does being objective mean making oodles and oodles of grammatical mistakes?

He should never have been impeached

A President lying under oath isn't grounds for impeachment? Yeesh.
Progressives and Impeachment

DOH!

We've had our fair share of terrorist activity since 9/11, just not by Muslims.
Posted by: Boronx on December 18, 2005 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, the first bit immediately after 9/11 was the attrocious act of economic terror by the fascist corporatist fundamentalist jihadists for Mammon, Ken Lay and Andy Fastow. Millions lost their savings to these evildoers.

And Bush sat their with his thumb up his ass for that attack too.

Because its only in your bubble world, he has no legal basis.

The Objective Historian: ...Bin Laden might be able to coordinate something here with renewed confidence in what he's up against and what he will no longer have to consider.

Every time I hear something like that, amplified by the silence of the administration, my cynical side wonders what you would do without Bin Ladin out there.

There've been several arrests in the US on terror...if you haven't noticed.
Posted by: McAristotle on December 18, 2005 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't notice - BECAUSE THEY'RE SECRET!
I guess we just have to take Bush at his word that he's doing his job. Like he didn't do on 9/11, like he didn't do when he bankrupted Harken. Like he didn't do when he joined the National Guard. Like he didn't do when he swore to uphold the constitution.

I guess we have to take his word that these people are actually guilty of something, since he hasn't succeeded with one single trial against these people. I guess we have to take his word that none of the suspects who was illegally and secretly detained and tortured, didn't provide false testimony to stop the torture. Bush is so trustworthy, I can't see why anyone would doubt him. I mean, look how well the whole Iraq war thing turned out, Saddam really DID have WMD. Right?

Well, if you and your so very smart friends succeed in eviscerating the Patriot Act and thanks to the New-York-Times-aiders-and-abettors-of-traitors and the CIA-leak-traitors, Bin Laden might be able to coordinate something here with renewed confidence in what he's up against and what he will no longer have to consider.Posted by: The Objective Historian on December 19, 2005 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

The confidence he gets is from laughing at how he's turned the US into a Fascist state, and how Bush ignored him and attacked the wrong fucking country.

For someone typing on his computer you sure seem eager for someone else to go on a ineffective suicide mission

Gee, I don't see YOU signing up TOUGH GUY!
One more Yellow Elephant in a herd of Yellow Elephants.

in the mountains of Pakistan and/or to have Americans, whatever race,

Yes, it's SOOO much better that it's those brown-skinned muslims dying than Americans. Because American lives are worth more. Is that it? you disgusting racist scum. I'm glad you've finally shown your true colors - though it wasn't out of courage, you just forgot to keep your racism hidden, like you usually do.

dying instead of those Iraqis whose country will most directly benefit from this unfortunate violence.

I don't see their country benefitting. Now they're going to be a client state of Iran, and Christian Iraqi's are being slaughtered or chased out of their homes, (60,000 have already left the country). And women can now enjoy the tender protection of husbands who have the right under Sharia to beat them. And if they ever do get a few days respite from pipeline bombings, and any oil ever gets out of there again, the profit from the sale of the resource that belongs to the Iraqi people will instead be embezzled by their oil minister, Chalabi, a convicted embezzler, known murder, counterfieter (at US taxpayer expense) and Iranian Spy - close confidant to your wise leader, Bush.

The U.S.A fought its Revolutionary War and it's Civil War; the Iraqis now must and it's going a lot better for them thanks to the U.S.A.

50 attacks a day for 3 years with no end in sight, no visible progress in training Iraqis, less oil being shipped than under sanctions, no functioning economy, no functioning infrastructure, and imposition of Sharia law isn't what I would call "a lot better". But I guess religious (Church of Bush) Fundamentalists like yourself probably prefer that kind of thing. (you're probably jealous that you don't get to issue fatwas and tell believers to strap on suicide belts for the Bush Cause).

And drawing parallels between "the US fought it's revolutionary war. . . " and what Iraq is going through is a particularly dishonest and stupid tactic, (and one I'm quite used to seeing from you, Alice) because the difference is: WE CHOSE TO FIGHT THOSE WARS - the Iraqis didn't choose this war, and the outcome will not be a politically unified country, and it will not be people who are free, and all the while, they are being used for nothing more than Bush milking the political advantage from getting idiots like you fired up over killing "hajis" and his buddies are laughing their way all the way to the bank (in Barbados) with tax money that my grandchildren will be paying back at gunpoint, from Chinese soldiers, because Bush took his eye off the Chinese ball to play footsie with his contractor pals in Iraq.

And YOU'RE FUCKING MAKING IT HAPPEN.

SF: of course they exceed Bill Clinton's. He should never have been impeached.

Posted by: hilzoy on December 18, 2005 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Then why the faint heart at a just impeachment carried out in response to real crimes and on substantive grounds?

Why the pretense that -- oooh my, America wouldst swoon, and suffer "trauma," rather than actual, healthy catharsis at the prospect of lawful and functioning government?

Why the failure to recognize the national pathway, for the wake of the course steered by Bush is littered with decisions and policies that on the face of it exceed the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

What false sense of responsibility would lead you to shy away from recognizing the grounds for impeachment right where its treason blares out for your attention?

Who is there to impress by ignoring these very real grounds for impeachment? And what moral ground is gained by ignoring them (lo these many months & years?)

It's putting words in my mouth, of course, to suggest that I meant that the U.S. should be the world's policeman.

We shouldn't turn the world into a place so frothing over with terrorism that neither we, the English, the Spanish, nor all of our allies can prevent the attacks that occurred there (not to mention all these other places in the rest of the world) and Iraq in this post-9/11 world.

The right-wing basically needs to admit that the answer to anything isn't always another new gun, another new Arnold movie, andother new John Wayne movie.

At least fight the right guys. Al Qaeda still has enough of a leadership hierarchy, the newspapers say, so that "#3" Al Qaeda guys keep getting caught over and over again. That doesn't sound like a destroyed organization to me.

How come we can't catch bin Laden yet? How can we keep hitting so close to him without capturing him? I don't doubt that we're trying, but 90% of this war on terror is B.S., wasted effort and money, and the whole right-wing should know it. It's not about catching terrorists, it's about some vain, wacko dream of the neocons, or about oil profits. It's a weird, screwed-up scenario.

SF: did you somehow miss the part of the other post you're responding to where I called for Bush's impeachment?

机票查询系统
机票查询软件
机票定座系统

特价机票
北京特价机票
特价机票
飞机票
飞机票查询
打折机票

国际机票
北京国际机票
国际航班
国际特价机票

Pardon the repetition, but I'm trying to get this meme out: The Bushills, including Condi, are using "The President's powers as Commander in Chief" as an excuse - but that only means he is supreme authority over the armed forces, nothing more. Somehow Bush and his minions consider that a magical enabling mantra - I don't see why they think it can work.

Bush and his crack legal team...

Correction: that should be: Bush and his on crack legal team...

SF: did you somehow miss the part of the other post you're responding to where I called for Bush's impeachment?

Posted by: hilzoy on December 19, 2005 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Not at all.

I just can't quite fathom all the surrounding empty gestures toward 'responsibility' on the issue. A number of the premises or statements leading up to or surrounding your conclusion are worth exploring. I don't think they really constitute a rational, sound, equitable, or substantive set of reasons for arriving at impeachment as the necessary solution so very late in the game.

Worth discussing certainly.