Jeff Goldstein Loses His Shit

But in a good way.

He's outraged about the leftwing media and Democratic Party's unceasing efforts to sabotage this war, and he's firing with two pistols, John Woo Style.

He posts this comment by Steve in Houston:

I believe that the majority of those on the left and a good number of libertarians believe, quite simply, that we aren’t at war; or that if we are, it’s “war� instead of war, and besides, it was based on lies so it really isn’t a war. Also: Halliburton. And anyway, we started it.

With that as an assumption, they then act in ways that are utterly baffling to those of us who believe we are in a war that has many fronts, not all of which are physical.

If you begin with the assumption that, say, the New York Times thinks the war on terror and the war in Iraq are just a bunch of bullshit, then this kind of reporting makes complete and perfect sense. Same with Dean’s and Murtha’s and Pelosi’s and Kerry’s pronouncements.

It’s the kind of fundamental difference that I’m afraid can never really be bridged, much like that between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.

It’s going to take another attack for it to perhaps change, but even then, the left and many of the Dems have an out - that Bush obviously put us in greater danger. They’ve already set up the theorem, they’re just waiting for the proof. A little attack, say a mall bombing, would do just fine. If it’s in a Red State, that actually might be better. That might “wake people up� to the real danger to life on Earth.

They’ve seen that their constituents can absorb a 9/11-style attack, and they’ve seen that the victims of such attacks become even more resolute in their hatred of George Bush and Republicans.

If I’m a terrorist, feeling all bummed by my comrades getting greased along the Euphrates, I’m really trying to find a silver lining. Fortunately, the infidels are cooperating:

-- I now no longer need fear any kind of physical coercion; the Dems have basically put me in the same position as Nigel Tufnel’s guitar: It’s never been played. Don’t touch it. Don’t even point. Don’t even look at it.

-- As a potential martyr, I know I won’t need to comply with a treaty I never signed; I won’t be incarcerated for much more than a fortnight; I won’t be returned to my country of origin; and I won’t be placed in some allahforsaken Caribbean gulag where they pee within 20 feet of my plastic-encased Koran.

-- I also know that if the kufr find my Blackberry, they can’t really do much about checking on my contacts at Harvard and Georgetown. I’ll lose my speed dial to Ahmenedijad (sp?) and Dana Milbank’s (or is it Dana Priest’s?) e-mail address, but I can always rebuild my contacts list.

It’s great. I get all the benefits of being an American citizen and still get to plot its violent demise.

But the whole post is worth reading in full, expecially the bit about revealing classified information, which -- I hate beating a dead horse, but... -- the left seems to believe it's allowed to do if done with the justifiable intent of subverting America's national security.

He calls for a strong pushback against this vile assumption. How the hell did this ever become an assumption in the first place?

Mr. Bush: Assign a Justice Department prosecutor to begin investigating these leaks and prosecuting all those responsible for them or stand accused of silently aiding and abetting the enemy.

And, Uhh, This? The New York Times and its political wing, the Democratic Party, is very excercised about Bush's impliedly-illegal-and-unconstitutional approval of warrantless eavesdrops, but, see, there's this little detail:

50 USC 1802:

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year[...]

Yes, the approvals being questioned were cases of a foreign speaker and a speaker in America. But plainly these were for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence.

Some may claim Bush employed a loose reading of the statute, but no one can claim he acted plainly unconstitutionally. An executive would be derelict if he did read his powers as expansively as possible in an era of terroristic warfare.

posted by Ace at 05:48 PM

| Access Comments