Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

Rove to the Rescue

For 26 minutes, after calling for civility
in politics in a packed speech before the Republican National Committee, Mr.
Rove offered a lacerating attack on Democrats that other Republicans said was
a road map for how the party would deal with a tough electoral environment.
Mr. Rove sharply criticized Democrats for their opposition to tax cuts and Mr.
Bush's Supreme Court nominations, but he left little doubt that once again –
as has been the case in both national elections since the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks – that he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue
in 2006. Mr. Rove speeches this early in an election year have proved to be
accurate predictors of what Republican candidates would say in the fall, and
thus every seat in the ballroom at a downtown Washington hotel was filled. He
lacerated Democrats for what he described their “cut and run” policy
on Iraq, for blocking a renewal of the broad antiterrorism law known as the
USA Patriot Act, and for challenging the legality of the administration's widespread
use of warrantless wiretaps in the face of widespread criticism. “The United
States faces a ruthless enemy, and we need a commander in chief and a Congress
who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America
finds itself in,” Mr. Rove said. “President Bush and the Republican
Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats.” “Let
me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody
in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling
and why,” Mr. Rove said, referring to the program in which the National
Security Agency eavesdropped on conversations without getting a warrant from
a judge. “Some important Democrats clearly disagree.” …
In
Preview of G.O.P. Campaign, Rove Tears Into Democrats

Do you need any more proof?

The Republicans are going to come at us on national security in
2006 and every year after that until we stand up and fight this fight.

Does anyone really believe we're going to win this battle
by changing the subject? It hasn't worked so far.

It's not about domestic issues, especially considering we just
got Osama stuffed down our throats again. Speaking of Osama, where is the Democratic
Party's response? John Kerry can't do it alone.

It's terrorism and 9/11 front and center, with illegal wiretappings
on top of it all. The Bush Justice Department's rationale on their illegal wiretapping
is a doozy and they shared it with the country today.

… The analysis released Thursday by
the Justice Department, with comments from lawyers throughout the department,
expanded on the legal arguments made in two still-classified legal opinions
as well as in a slimmer letter that the department sent to Congress last month.

The basic thrust of the legal justification was the
same – that the president has inherent authority as commander in chief to
order wiretaps without warrants and that the N.S.A. operation does not violate
either a 1978 law governing intelligence wiretaps or the Fourth Amendment
ban on unreasonable searches.

This month's Congressional Research Service report
was particularly critical of the administration's claim that the N.S.A. program
was justified by a resolution passed by Congress three days after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, authorizing the use of “all necessary and appropriate
force” against those responsible for the terrorist acts.

The research service report found there was no indication
that Congress intended to authorize warrantless wiretaps when it gave President
Bush the authority to fight Al Qaeda and invade Afghanistan. But the Justice
Department did not back away from its position in Thursday's report, saying
the type of “signals intelligence” used in the N.S.A. operation
clearly falls under the Congressional use-of-force authorization. …

But Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple
University, said in an interview that he considered the eavesdropping program
“a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting
illegally,” and he said there appeared to be a broad consensus among
legal scholars and national security experts that the administration's legal
arguments were weak.

The foreign intelligence law passed by Congress in
1978 represents the Bush administration's biggest legal hurdle, he said. “When
Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think
of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional
power to supersede that,” he said.

Two leading civil rights groups brought lawsuits this
week aimed at ending the N.S.A. program, and several lawyers representing
defendants in terrorism cases are also seeking to challenge the program on
the grounds that it may have been improperly used in criminal prosecutions.

Mr. Reinstein predicted that the court would ultimately
declare the program unconstitutional. “This is domestic surveillance
over American citizens for whom there is no evidence or proof that they are
involved in any illegal activity, and it is in contravention of a statute
of Congress specifically designed to prevent this,” he said.

Legal
Rationale by Justice Dept. on Spying Effort

The actual document is offered up by Raw
Story (pdf) and has as its foundation the attacks of September 11th. You
don't have to be a lawyer to digest the theme, tone and ongoing terrorist threat
it is meant to convey, with the president's power woven in for the sake of the
country. In the first two paragraphs of the document, 9/11 is mentioned three
times. But on page 3, Gonzales actual goes through what happened on 9/11 as
background, telling the story, as if anyone reading this legal fairy tale wouldn't
already know the bottom line. The rest is pure literary concoction.

Justice states that “the attacks of September 11th 'created
a state of armed conflict.'”

Funny, I remember George W. Bush telling us all to go shop.

It's “against this unfolding background of events in the
fall of 2001″ that the president announced the NSA illegal spying on American
soil.

Funny, but he forgot to tell Congress about its depth. Our president
should be reminded that the Congress is the first branch of government; they
move him, not vice versa, regardless of the spinelessness of the bunch currently
serving.

So, how very convenient that Alberto Gonzales stepped up today
to announce the indictment
of domestic terrorists. Get the message? In the middle of NSA wiretapping
charges that revolved around domestic surveillance what we get is — insert
drum roll here — domestic terrorists rounded up. Enemies are among us,
but not to worry, we got 'em! In the process, Gonzales is trying to protect
the president's flank from those wacky left wingers who are giving bin Laden
his talking points, according to Chris Matthews & Co. at MSNBC, as these
talking nitwits conveniently forget Patrick J. Buchanan, Chuck Hagel and many
other conservatives against the war in Iraq.

The challenge for us is that the American public is confused, flummoxed
and in a state of terror, so they'll likely side with the commander in chief
every time. The details are distressing, life is busy, and besides, what can I
do? they say. But this type of the sky is falling we better let daddy protect
us thinking is how a republic turns to ruin. However, in an emergency, mommy is usually looking to daddy too, unless, of course, mommy is armed, angry and on alert.

What
choice is the American people being offered today?

We have to engage in the national security debate and make our case. To that end, taking the Tim Kaine approach to responding
to our president after his SOTU speech is a huge mistake. Democrats are using
these opportunities as throw away moments. Mind you, I have nothing personally
against Tim Kaine, glad he won. But he's not a national security guy — he's a
governor. He won't be able to make the case against a commander in chief touting that the threat of terrorism gives him the holy authority to wiretap American citizens,
especially with Osama dancing his devil's taunt in everyone's head.

What does Dick Cheney have in common with
Democratic campaign consultants?

This is not a trick question built around hairline,
health or hard-nosed philosophy of government. Instead, what unite the vice
president and the opposition-party operatives are their fears of the fallout
from the National Security Agency eavesdropping scandal. Cheney, of course,
is not talking, so his views have to be inferred at a distance. But the Democratic
consultants are outspoken about their political concerns over the warrantless
wiretapping furor, as long as their identities are protected by don't-use-my-name-in-print
anonymity.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on
illegal eavesdropping, scheduled to begin Feb. 6, come at a time of intense
soul-searching by the lost-in-the-wilderness Democrats. Having failed to mount
a coherent and consistent opposition to Samuel Alito — the long-feared judicial
nominee who would destroy the balance on the Supreme Court — the party's
leadership may be tempted to drop the wiretap issue if the first few days
of hearings do not deliver any vote-getting revelations. But politics sooner
or later becomes a test of character and not merely a paint-by-numbers exercise
in low-risk electioneering. These are key weeks for the Democrats to decide
whether they believe in anything other than polls and the frail hope that
the Republicans will self-destruct.

Fear
of spying, by Walter Shapiro

Everyone understands what it's like to lose a hard fought battle. What Americans do not understand is equivocating
because you think you'll sink in the polls, or you have to offer up a red state
winner to prove you can be like the guy sitting next to you in the pew or synagogue
on the sabbath. (note: Faith is a good start, but being armed with big guns never hurts.) Sometimes you have to stand up and fight regardless of the odds
on the outcome. This is one of those fights, because until we make our case on national security we will never earn the power to lead.

Democrats blew it on Samuel Alito, unless they actually get the
spine and votes to mount a filibuster, Ben Nelson or bust.

However, we absolutely cannot afford to fold and hope to fight
another day on the NSA illegal wiretapping issue. Just read Karl Rove's quote
at the top of this post again. The Republicans are going to stuff national security
down our throats until we learn to mount a counter argument. Then remember that
Dick Cheney & company are worried about this issue too, because it could
be the whole ball of wax. However, they'll never let you see them sweat, while
never giving up until the very last play in their bag of dirty tricks is exhausted.

A cornered, wounded beast is the most deadly. Cheney, Rove and Bush are all worried about the NSA illegal wiretapping issue, because they need 2006 badly; or from Bush
to Rove to Norquist to Abramoff to Delay, to every other dirty liaison of the Bush-Cheney machine, Republicans will be investigated. Until Bush walks out of office a man who was finally
shown to be a paper president, but because of a great campaign and a spineless opposition became a
king.

Karl Rove is ready for action and he's calling the Democrats pussies.
Meow like Kaine, or growl like Gore, even John Kerry of late, but we can't do
both and win.