It's a veritable Christmas miracle, I tells ya...
Despite its reputation for Rockefeller Republican delusion maintenance- the Chicago Tribune's editorial page delivered not one, but two barrels of insolent buckshot into the gut of unchecked presidential power.
I call your attention to two separate columns, both published Christmas day - that are so spot on, so devoid of even the slightest nod to the Wurlitzer inspired talking points, they deserve a wider audience than what they likely had over the Holiday weekend.
If I didn't know any better - I'd suspect both Steve Chapman and Clarence Page were upset at not being chosen as Kos front-pagers, and are working extra hard to brush up on their street cred for next year.
Clarence Page, who, it should be said, would never be confused with a right wing shill in any case, meticulously takes on the RNC talking points and emerges on the other side with the point ANY American should take from this NSA debacle.
He does not deny violating the now-famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Instead, he argued after the disclosures by The New York Times that he does not have to obey the FISA.
There's a law. The President broke the law. The rest is just noise.
In the context of Patriot Act renewal - Page asks the question the Tribune editorial board in general didn't ask this morning--
But if the president can do whatever he wants, why do we need a Patriot Act?
Indeed - as many have written here, FISA isn't exactly a cumbersome obstacle to national security, either:
Despite Bush's complaint that FISA courts slow down terrorist-catching abilities, FISA allows up to 72 hours of grace, if the Justice Department needs to eavesdrop immediately. And of the thousands of warrant applications filed between 1979 and 2004, FISA judges have only rejected four, according to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and two were approved later.
Finally - our man Clarence brings it home, because this is not a partisan issue about just President Bush:
The great balance of liberty versus national security should not be a partisan issue. Many principled conservatives have raised this issue, as they should. For those who still are not sure, I offer this advice: Don't grant powers to President Bush that you would not want to grant to President Hillary Clinton.
While Page tackles the issue at had, Chapman sees a pattern.
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
Smells like something other than democracy to me.
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
From Padilla to Hamdi - and even conservative scion Michael Luttig's recent smackdown of Presidential make-it-up-as-we-go-alongism - Chapman recognizes what we've been complaining about for five years:
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.
.
Hardly earth-shattering works from two writers that would never be confused with Bush lackeys, but to see such a clear and concise understanding of the issues and such a complete rejection of BS talking points and meaningless misdirection in the midwest's most widely read editorial page gives me hope for a brighter 2006.
Thanks and commendations to
Steve Chapman here,
Clarence Page here,
Or maybe an LTE of support here