This Week in the Fifth Column

The DisLoyal Opposition's post-Alito hearing hangover didn't last long. Rather than sag into a pit of demoralization, the lefty denizens indulged in a little primal scream therapy (okay, a lot of primal scream therapy), and on their favorite topic, the GWOT.

It began with Walter Cronkite (The Most Distrusted Man In America) channeling Jack Murtha:

"It's my belief that we should get out [of Iraq] now," Mr. Cronkite told reporters Sunday, echoing his 1968 plea for withdrawal from Vietnam. Difficulties on the ground in Vietnam led Mr. Cronkite, who, as the face and voice of the CBS Evening News, took too seriously the notion that he was "the most trusted man in America," into the swamp of defeatism. Others, including President Lyndon B. Johnson, bought the hype, too: "If I've lost Cronkite," LBJ is said to have said, "I've lost Middle America."

This time it's not difficulties on the ground, but a hurricane. "We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States," he said. "Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home." And what should we tell the Iraqis, who believed us when we said we would not abandon them? Mr. Cronkite, now 89 and retired, suggests we tell them: "Our hearts are with you."

Oh, that's convincing. A national valentine will be of tremendous use by the fledgling Iraqi government against the Syrians, Iranians, and their terrorist proxies, the latter of whom are going down for the third time and sure could use a lifeline such as Uncle Walter is urging. He certainly is brimming over with confidence in his own country's capabilities too, isn't he? A hurricane or two comes ashore and we have to abruptly abandon all our overseas commitments to handle the reconstruction - which of course has to be entirely nationalized instead of allowing the private sector to do the job quicker, better, and cheaper. Perhaps that's why "Middle America" is with George W. Bush and the GOP these days.

They sure as hell aren't with this crackpot:

In an alternate universe, coverage of Al Gore's speech in Washington Monday might begin with the former vice president's ringing defense of the virtually unlimited exercise of presidential power in times of emergency. "The threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the executive branch with swiftness and agility," Gore told the audience at the Daughters of the American Revolution Constitution Hall. "Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the president to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not."

An alternate-universe report might note that Gore's position — stated by the man formerly a heartbeat away from being commander-in-chief — boldly contradicted the claims of Democrats who argue that, in the NSA-al Qaeda surveillance matter, the president's authority to order warrantless surveillance of possible terror suspects is tightly bound by the limits imposed in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Gore's speech might then set off an intense debate among Democrats about the extent of presidential authority.

But that's the alternate-universe version. While Gore actually did say the words quoted above, that soundbite was just one small part of a long speech in which Gore argued just the opposite, that President Bush not only does not have the authority to conduct the war on terror as he has been doing but that his policies have crossed the line into criminal acts. The President has been "breaking the law repeatedly and persistently," Gore said, and his war on terror has "brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of the Constitution." Gore stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment, but he seemed to be suggesting it — and the crowd certainly seemed to be thinking about it — when he said that Congress should hold hearings into "serious allegations of criminal behavior on the part of the President, and they should follow the evidence wherever it leads."

The spectacle of the man who was Bill Clinton's most strident and fanatical defender (and bagman) throughout all his boss' various and sundry scandals (but especially his impeachment) putting himself over as a born-again believer in the "rule of law" is just too adorable for words. But as Byron York goes on to examine at great length, Fat Albert's address was as incoherent as it was caustically partisan. While recommending the appointment of another independent counsel to investigate "Spygate," (and citing the "Plamegate" investigation as a precedent - which, as memory serves, was a probe into....an allegedly illegal leak of allegedly classified information - ooops....) and demanding the establishment of "new whistleblower protections" to guard "anonymous sources" who illegally leak critical national security secrets (so much for "restoring the rule of law"), in other passages he "uttered those few words about the President's 'inherent power' to take 'unilateral action' during an emergency.

Could that possibly be because of other words uttered by him and the administration of which he was a member back when he was "a heartbeat (or a cheeseburger and a hummer) away from the Big Chair?

In 1999, Vice President Gore Declared: "Hear Me Well - We Will Fight The Reckless Violence Of Terrorism And We Will Never Yield To Terrorism, Ever." (Joe Carroll, "Clinton Exhorts Parties to Surmount Last Hurdle," The Irish Times, 3/18/99)

At A 1996 Counter-Terrorism Event Gore Said: "The Bottom Line Is That President Clinton And I And The Members Of This Commission Have Pledged To The Families Of The Victims Of Terrorism That We're Going To Take The Strongest Measures Possible To Reduce The Risk Of Another Tragedy In The Future." (Al Gore, White House Briefing, 9/5/96)

Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: "(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General." (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)

In 1994, President Clinton Expanded The Use Of Warrantless Searches To Entirely Domestic Situations With No Foreign Intelligence Value Whatsoever. In A Radio Address Promoting A Crime-Fighting Bill, Mr. Clinton Discussed A New Policy To Conduct Warrantless Searches In Highly Violent Public Housing Projects." (Charles Hurt, "'Warrantless' Searches Not Unprecedented," The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

"One Of The Most Famous Examples Of Warrantless Searches In Recent Years Was The Investigation Of CIA Official Aldrich H. Ames, Who Ultimately Pleaded Guilty To Spying For The Former Soviet Union. That Case Was Largely Built Upon Secret Searches Of Ames' Home And Office In 1993, Conducted Without Federal Warrants." (Charles Hurt, "'Warrantless' Searches Not Unprecedented," The Washington Times, 12/22/05)

President Bill Clinton: "(T)he Attorney General Is Authorized To Approve Physical Searches, Without A Court Order, To Acquire Foreign Intelligence Information For Periods Of Up To One Year ..." (President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12949, "Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches," 2/9/95)

Apparently Al Gore doesn't believe that ALL presidents do not have the authority to order warrantless surveillance for national security purposes; just REPUBLICAN presidents. And his far-from-SRO crowd of rabid quisling zealots ate it up like cats in a tuna vat.

The ACLU, however, doesn't even recognize that paper-thin a distinction in its determination to facilitate the nation's destruction:

A federal lawsuit was filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to block President Bush's domestic eavesdropping program, which the group calls unconstitutional electronic surveillance of American citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit against the National Security Agency. The ACLU, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and several individuals, seeks a court order that declares the program illegal. [emphasis added]

Well, well, well. Why am I not surprised to see the ACLU joining forces with an Islamic front organization. Powerline has more:

The asserted interest of the ACLU, its Michigan affiliate and the individual board member plaintiffs of the ACLU Michigan affiliate appears to derive from their representation of terrorist detainees and their communication with others of a similar bent. ACLU Michigan board member Noel Salah, for example, complains that the NSA program has caused him to curtail his communications with "Palestinians under Israeli occupation" and inhibited his "efforts to promote peace and justice in this country."

The "Center for Constitutional Rights," an ACLU ally, raises a similar objection:

CCR complains that the NSA surveillance program has compromised its representation of terrorist detainees and others. The CCR plaintiffs complain, for example, that their representation of terrorist clients has been inconvenienced by the NSA program in that the attorneys are now "compelled to undertake international travel to avoid the risk of jeopardizing the confidentiality of privileged communications."

So, in essence, the plaintiffs' ostensible complaint is that al Qaeda is being "inconvenienced" more in their attempts to commit mass murder against American civilians than the ACLU and CCR are in their attempts to defend al Qaeda and other jihadi operatives. Oh, how our hearts ought to bleed for them.

It comes as no surprise that, just as the ACLU was founded by communists, the CCR has similar radical left origins:

CCR was founded in 1966 by William Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Morton Stavvis, attorneys who...were either members of the Communist Party or politically allied with the radical agendas of the new left....One of its primary missions now is the representation of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo.

And, sure enough....

Among the individual plaintiffs in the CCR lawsuit is Rachel Meeropol, a CCR attorney better known as the granddaughter of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, both executed as Communist spies.

Brother Trunk's conclusion?:

The ACLU and CCR lawsuits appear to be part of a closely coordinated legal attack on measures and means that have proved instrumental to the defense of the United States. The lawsuits also appear to represent the distilled essence of the merger between radical Islam and the radical left that has taken place in the conduct of hostilities against the United States.

That would make the American Left traitors, wouldn't it? And you know what? A majority of Americans agree:

Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's decision to wiretap suspected terrorists operating inside the U.S. without first obtaining a court order - and a solid plurality believe those who leaked news of the secret operation are "traitors," a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found....

In another stunning finding, the Fox poll found by that a margin of nearly 2 to 1, the American public believes that those responsible for exposing the super secret surveillance program have betrayed the country.

Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA's cover "traitors," while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were "whistleblowers."

By a margin of 42% to 34%, even Democrats agreed with the "traitor" label. [emphasis added]

I used to think that another mass terrorist attack would be damaging to the Bush Administration because, unlike 9/11 which was building all through his predecessor's second term, this one would be entirely on his watch. But no longer. With each successive fit of seditious rhetorical excess, the Democrats have climbed further out on a really rickety limb. The NSA leak has them hanging from it by their fingernails. If al Qaeda pulls off another major strike here after that deliberate national security breach and the Donks' attempts to politicize it in the teeth of overwhelming public support for the wiretap program and the Patriot Act, woe be unto anybody on any ballot in '06 and beyond who has a "D" after their name. Truly I say unto you, it will be better for the Whigs on the day of political judgment than it will be for them.