Wiretaps and FISA - What is the Conservatoid Rationale?

[bryant69]

I'm pretty good about following right wing talking points, but I'm not sure I've seen this one answered. What is the downside, from the Conservative point of view, to working throught the FISA court. I mean, I know why I think President Bush didn't want to. But what is the reason they are giving? Does anybody know?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BushOut06]

1. You should rephrase that - what is the RW ass-kissing rationale

Even many conservatives are downright against this.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. There is no *REAL* downside

[izzybeans]

3. I've heard I don't have anything to worry about. I've done nothing wrong

and I've heard "He's the president and he should do what he needs to do to protect us from the evil Chinpokoman. Whatever it takes. I mean that was my high school football teams slogan anyway. It got us to the sectional final. Man if coach would have put me in in the fourth quarter then we would have one state. I would a married a movie star."

That rationale usually devolves into some wierd high school sports fantasy right before they set up their tripod camara and attempt to throw a spiral.

[KittyWampus]

8. Nominate Your Response As "Best Post O'The Day"!

Funny, well written and definately on point.

[izzybeans]

17. Thanks!

South Park and Napoleon Dynamite were my muse. I thought adding them together fit the scenario.

Now I need to learn to edit my posts.

[RufusEarl]

4. Gonzales and the Admin keep saying, he's protecting the people.

Well my argument is his took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, shouldn't that be Bu$h's first intention?

[nolabels]

6. Funny thing is I just don't feel like a sheep yet

:shrug:


http://www.nrhc.org/oldphotos/postcardsSH01.shtml

[confludemocrat]

5. "Conservatoid"? I like it. Or call them right wing.

But conservative is too respectable a word to use on these people. Especially since they have now moved from "liberal" to left wing in how they describe us. I think that means their focus groups are liking that word again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Why don't we face the facts that if we left it up to the Republicans,

they would take Ann Coulter's position and kill all the liberals.

[Armstead]

9. The Scaredy Cat rationale

"We're scared...So President Bush can do anything he wants to protect me."


That's basically it.

[bryant69]

10. That's all I've heard too

But the obvious response is "OK, I want that too. I certainly want us to be aware of what al Qaeda is doing. But why couldn't Bush have accomplished that legally by working with FISA?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Armstead]

14. Because the Scardey Car Rationale doesn't allow for nuance

To them "the right to do anything to protect me" means just that. They don't about whether it is legal or illegal, or the long-term repercussions. It's an absolutist argument.

It is based on two things:

1)Calculated manipulation by the GOP/Right Wing message machine. They don't care about anything but power, and they will do and say anything to get it.

2)Emotion overriding reason by the sincere but misguided KoolAid drinkers who buy into it.

[bryant69]

16. Well the question is how many kool-aid drinkers are there

and how many incompetents do we have getting out our message. This is an obvious comeback, and if they don't feel the need to craft a response to it (beyond "booooo!") than that doesn't bode well, it seems to me.

[kentuck]

11. The rationale is to protect their leader....

They say it would tie his hands and slow him down and keep him from protecting us from the evildoers.

[JHB]

12. The rationale: To protect us, they need Absolute Power

From what Gonzalez said the other day, apparently anything less than Absolute Power requires too much paperwork, which could concevably slow them down enough that the Evildoers would get away.

Why do you want to let them get away, you pointy-headed intellectual! This isn't some theoretical debate! It takes action! We need to MOVE! NOW! You can pussy-foot around if you like, Senator, but we're not going to let you sit there and sell out the United States of America! Gentlemen!

(/'Otter', Animal House)

[woo me with science]

13. that about sums it up. nt

[rpgamerd00d]

15. bryant69, this is the sum total of their position, simplified :

1) We can do warrantless tapping because:
...a) FISA says it is exclusive Except as authorized by other statutes; and
...b) The Authorization to Use Military Force (vs. Afghanistan) is exactly that statutorial exception (this is BS by the way)

2) The reason they didn't just use FISA was because its not fast enough. FISA applications take days, weeks and even months and are "an inch thick" and all have to be individually signed by Gonzalez. (this is also complete BS)

So, for the Dems to score a guarenteed, 100% Impeachment of Bush, they need to only do two simple things:

1) Prove the AUMF is not an exception to FISA (This is 95% of it, right here)
2) Prove that FISA could have been used, EITHER by proving it is not slow (not preferable) OR proving that it could have been modified as needed if they had just asked (PREFERABLE). (worth some extra points, could be ignored so long as they accomplish #1)

N'est pas?