Cutting the Bullshit

Let's cut the crap, shall we?  Seriously.  I get sick and tired of people on the right and the left screaming past each other about story after story, with both sides unwilling to talk about what's really going on, because they know that getting down to brass tacks would embarrass both sides.

Latest case in point: The NSA spy story.  Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, has been posturing about this story.

Sure, there are those on the right who really do want the Prez to have fascist powers and believe he's doing the right thing to stop terror.

And sure, there are those on the left really worried about civil liberties, wiretapping the phones of innocents, and gray areas of constitutional case law.

But that's not where the vast majority of people are living and dying on this issue.

No, this issue--like so much else--is about nothing less than Iraq, oil, and the future war on Iran.

But wait, you say.  These issues are only tangentially related as elements of foreign policy, you say!  Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

In logic, we call certain kinds of arguments syllogisms: these arguments are of the "If A, then B.  If B, then C.  Therefore, if A then C" variety.  Airtight logical truths, if based on true premises.

Well, the Republicans have a syllogistic defense of Bush's spying.  It goes something like this:

"If we are at war, then Article II of the Constitution suspending certain legal civil rights technicalities applies.  We are at war.  Therefore, Article II of the Constitution applies."

Now, as Democrats, we can scream until we're blue in the face about civil liberties, and technicalities of constitutional law.  And senators can even hold hearings about it.  But it's not going to matter a whit of difference.  You know why?

I'll tell you why: because the American public doesn't give a rat's ass if some Americans who get calls from overseas, especially from the Middle East. get their phones tapped--warrant or no.  Most Americans don't even have a passport.  And if the law-breaking isn't of the "I never had sex with that woman" when he really did variety, the American public isn't going to care too bad about that either, especially if his own lawyers in justice back him up.

The Republicans know this.  They know it inherently.  And they're banking on it.  In fact, they're gleeful that Democrats are taking this story up, because it only puts national security more and more brightly into the open, and makes Dems look like they won't just "git'r'done" and do what it takes to win the war on terror.

And let me utter another harsh truth: if there's another 9/11 in this country, there's going to be a lot of Kossacks who won't care if phone calls coming in from the Mid-East are tapped or not, warrant or no warrant.
---------------------

But there is a big reason why this story is getting so much play from Dems, and even some discomfited Republicans as well.  It's just that most Dems are too cowardly to come out and talk about what this is really about:

This story is about nothing less than whether we are at war or at peace.

The truth is that IF we are at war, then this issue is a non-starter.  Lincoln broke the rules.  So did Wilson.  So did FDR.  The executive has often overstepped its prerogative during times of war.  If Bush is a criminal, so are the presidents I have just named.

But if we are NOT at war, then this president is a criminal worthy of impeachment.  And there's no beating about the bush on this issue.

The fact is that the Republican syllogistic argument is nothing less than this:

1. We have a war on terror.
   
2. The President has plenary powers during times of war.
   
3. The President's power will cease when the war ends.
   
4. The war will end when, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, "our cities no longer need police or firefighters," i.e., NEVER.
   
5. Therefore, the president has PERMANENT, UNLIMITED POWERS (to be revoked, of course, upon the swearing in of a president of the opposite party).

And guess what?  If we admit to being at war, we have already lost.  Because the American people have shown time and again that they will vote emergency powers to their Chancellor for the safety and presevation of the Republic.  And when the war is over, the chancellor has given back those powers.

But what if there IS no war?  Does one attack on American soil an entire war make?  When does the "war" end?  These are the sorts of questions too many Democrats have been too gutless to ask.

And if we are NOT at war, then what exactly are we doing in Iraq?  This administration has long used the "war on terror" cover for its illegal invasion of Iraq.  Without the cover, the whole imperial enterprise is blown out of the water.

And that, to get back round to the beginning, is what the NSA story is ALL ABOUT.  How far do the president's powers extend?  Are we really at war?  What kind of war is it?  When does it end?  When do we go back to some kind of normal?

Here's the rub: if the Bush Administration concedes that this program is unjustified, it concedes implicitly that it does not have plenary powers under Section II of the Constitution.  If it concedes that point, it concedes that the "war on terror" is not a matter of "invasion or rebellion" (as Article II states) but a matter of law enforcement.

And if it does that, then the jig is up in Iraq.
And that is why so many Republicans blindly support this executive overreach--because, as a point of logic, if this warrantless spying is unconstitutional, then so is the war in Iraq. -------------

So let's cut the bullshit, shall we?  Let's stop fighting a political battle we cannot possibly win, by conceding that we are "at war" but saying that we need to really be careful about how far we're willing to go to win.  That's namby-pamby cowardice on more levels than I can count.

There is only ONE way to frame this debate for victory:

Are we under invasion, Mr. President?

When will we know that the invading enemy has been defeated?  

When the war is over, can we have our Constitution back?  

How many countries will we have to invade before we can declare peace again, Mr. President?

And When the Democrats start asking these questions, I'll know that we have a party of righteous warriors, rather than spineless bullshitters.