Comey

The idea that Article II powers override the FISA law, which the administration has been using to justify its use of warrentless wiretaps unapproved of by OLC, is actually quite frightening. It really is a radical departure from any allegience to the rule of law, the constitution, and our most fundamental values. If the president is able to act soley based on his own interpretation of Article II powers, he could simply bypass the laws, and the courts, and act as an independent, total Ruler. What exists that prevents him from, for example, drawing and quartering terror suspects? Certainly not a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, nor the subsequent interpretations of that which have refined American values and law. The human race was not, unfortunately, born civilized. We grew up as a society, and we continue to grow to this day. To grant one man, at his own discretion, the power to disregard that growing process by throwing out laws that we have deemed warranted through experience and past mistakes? We forget, it seems, who brought us here and how. "Give me liberty of give me death?" Not in Bush's America.

Bush supporters seem to be arguing, simply, "well he would never do that." People assume that he wouldn't "go to far," or that the public would be (willing, and) able to prevent this if his transgressions grew too great. Yet...what about the possibility of another terror attack? This is an inevitability, some think, and are we to just abandon ourselves to a dictatorship, striking at the very heart of our society? The death blow, in that case, would be dealt by America herself, allowing Osama bin Laden and his peers the putrid reward of bombing us into another age...pre-Revolution America.

How will these supporters react when, say, Hillary Clinton becomes president? Will they sit back and allow Hillary to spy on their phone conversations, and grant her the power to imprison US citizens without due process, and to violate habeus corpus? I doubt it. I can't imagine the massive Republican exodus from their current position the day a Democrat takes over the White House. Hopefully, no Democrat will determine that the sacrifice required to provide security is worth three of the most foundational pillars of our constitutional democracy.

Missing Bush?

As much as I'd like to deny it, there are some traits and idiosyncracies that we have grown used to so much so that we may (may!) miss them when Bush is gone. I'll try and list some:

• His way of heightening the resistance to something just before he does it, thinking that somehow the loud proclamation and silent transformation will remain un-connected in the public's consciousness (the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, talking to Syria and Iran..). I feel as though this has become expected; what will we do when our president simply tells us when he is reconsidering or has reconsidered something without fearing that it will "show weakness" and "embolden" their opponents?!
• ...
• His simple...simplicity. Its so easy to detect and disect his flaws and his idiosyncrasies and his viewpoint. It makes for easily tranmittable, accessible criticism.
• And most of all: the perpetual punch-line that he has provided these last six years. Bush has been the greatest gift to political satirists since Richard Nixon. Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Jib-jab: all have thrived in this environment of presidental folly that Bush has conducted. And this satire has evolved in such a way as to complement and even suplement the "real news" for many people around the world. Perhaps it is the emotions that Bush generates, the charged political environment. This stems from many things, including the very manner in which he was elected, his background But of course, events have shaped this phenomenon as well, as Bush has overseen a terrorist attack, two wars, a massive hurricane, scandals and investigations, and various other natural and man-made disasters.

Coincidence?

The three remaining communist countries in Asia are China, North Korea, and Vietnam. The US fought wars in two of them to keep the communism of the first from spilling across the entire region: the only place it went is where WE went!

Leaving Iraq

Use intelligence well. Determine ring leaders of groups of foreign fighters. Select operational managers as well as more public figures on the local level -- they should know how serious the losses are better than our own press when this happens.

On the day redeployment ends, simultaneously take out al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders across Baghdad. At the same time, execute the same task with carefully selected al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, and begin escalating NATO troop levels in Waziristan.

This must be done smartly, secretly, swiftly, and successfully.

1) will begin the process of driving foreign fighters out of Iraq’s civil war, a process that can reasonably be expected to be continued by Iraqi Shi’is and less reasonably, but possibly, Iraqi Sunnis as well;

2) will operationally disrupt al-Qaeda plans and organization for the future (though should not be expected to decrease the level of violence, because of the obvious ease with which large-scale attacks can be carried out in Iraq)

3) will signal renewed strength and vigor in the fight against terrorists and Islamic extremism: we are dramatically changing strategy and tactics (message: fear us every moment, because, unlike under Bush, you won’t hear us coming when we come for you)

Arrange a security summit with important regional players (Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey(*), Egypt..). Iraqi rep(s)??

Leaving the Iraqis to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq will, as someone said this week, shift the onus onto the Middle Eastern population. They are the frontlines of this war in al-Qaeda’s terms; it’s time they realize this and respond