2) There are two things which you are not recognizing. First, the announced policy of the current administration is that it has the right to seize anyone at any time in any place and detain him without charge indefinitely by labeling him an enemy combatant. There are no checks on this power: it is within the sole discretion of the executive branch. Secondly, the administration has violated the existing laws regarding surveillance and continues to do so. Finally, the administration is reportedly using rendition to a far greater extent than ever before to send suspects – some of whom were innocent and later released – overseas to torture prisons.

The second thing you are not recognizing is that this is an administration which can’t get anything right. From the Iraqi occupation to Katrina to last week’s meeting with Hu, it’s the F Troop of Presidential administrations.

My point is this: we have a system of government which has always valued transparency, due process, and balances among the three branches of government (at least in theory – Japanese were incarcerated in WWII, etc.). You are quite willing to allow an incompetent administration to do anything it chooses, in secrecy, provided they stick a national security label on it. I would never take that bet.

3) You are right that polling results aren’t the ultimate criterion of how effective a President is. I’m sure that Churchill’s approval rating was pretty dismal at the end of his administration. The fact that Bush is about as popular as bird flu doesn’t necessarily indicate his ineptitude. His actions do. However, I think that Bush has compromised our national security in ways too numerous to name. An effective President would safeguard our nuclear plants, power grid, water reservoirs, air cargo, rail lines, and chemical factories. An effective President would have a muscular Homeland Security department, and would not trust the leadership of FEMA to someone who can’t find his ass with both hands. Invading a country which did not attack us tied down our resources to fight terror, strengthened our enemies, and gave Al Qaeda the best recruiting tool it could hope for. I think that George Bush has compromised our security both here and abroad. Since you mention Clinton: I guarantee that he would have done far more in truly protecting us than Bush has ever done. That’s why “I loved Clinton so much,” and that’s why I feel differently about his successor.

Hey, you sound just like the NYT – amazing coincidence here, I’m sure. As for your statement, you should read the history of our intelligence operations, beginning with the OSS and Wild Bill, through William Casey’s tenure at the CIA. If you still think these revelations (coupled with the NSA leaks) don’t seriously compromise our intelligence, then you’ve got political blinders on that would be more suited for the horses running the trifecta at Churchill Downs.

“Now that less than a third of the American public approve of Bush’s administration…”

So I understand that you’d prefer a President that compromises our national security in the guise of being more popular with the all – important polling results of the moment. Now I understand why you loved Clinton so much…

2) First of all, I don’t see how the revelation of the existence of torture prisons compromises our intelligence operations. If anything, the prospect of being sent to Egypt or Syria to be tortured is a pretty strong disincentive from doing evil. Secondly, if these prisons did not exist, the government would most certainly deny it.

3) I admire your blind faith in the ultimate wisdom of the current administration. Now that less than a third of the American public approve of Bush’s administration, you’re one of the few left to carry the flag.

And of course I wasn’t suggesting the information was false, but if it was, then bravo -the classic definition of an intelligence sting.

…” there would be a firestorm of protest loud enough to bring down governments.”

Ah yes – share the fantasy.

“The fact that the US government has not (to my knowledge) denied the existence of secret prisons overseas is an implicit acknowledgement that they exist…”

The favorite leftist ploy here – by not commenting on classified information that could seriously compromise our intelligence operations, you’re de facto guilty as charged. Orwell would be so proud of you.

2) The cite in post nine is irrelevant. First, none of the countries which were previously identified in the press as being used for extraordinary rendition are in Europe (the countries identified were Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekhistan). The article suggests that Poland and Romania were also involved, although both deny it officially. In any event, I would not expect a European anti-terrorist bureaucrat to know much about what happens in Egypt or Morocco.

There is also an obvious reason for him to deny the existence of these camps. If any European government admitted to running secret prisons for America, there would be a firestorm of protest loud enough to bring down governments.

The fact that the US government has not (to my knowledge) denied the existence of secret prisons overseas is an implicit acknowledgement that they exist. If they did not exist, you could bet that the administration would protest as loudly as Bush did when he promised to find those who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity (although this now is as convincing as O. J. Simpson’s vow to find “the real killers.”)

Are you suggesting that the CIA is giving polygraphs to its employees to find the source of leaks which were based on false information?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/world/europe/21rendition.html?ex=1303272000&en=039e409dd7ddfc67&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

There’s your ultimate confirmation from your bible, Peter. Of course, the guy could be lying…at any event, that woman’s going to be put on ice.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/06/98061701_tpo.html

She was the special assistant to the President? She was appointed by the guy who tried to sneak out classified intelligence IN HIS PANTS?

And you’re going to continue to insist that, oh no, her politics had nothing to do with her actions? Wow, let’s get that tank ready for you to dive into – the water’s cold in there.

What are you claiming now? That she didn’t do it in the first place, that we’re all jumping to conclusions, how dare we impugn the integrity of this modern day Joan of Arc? What kind of furious backpedalling are you engaging in here?

Newsweek (the most rabidly anti – Bush pub there is) is now reporting that Porter Goss personally oversaw this investigation, so one would tend to think that they caught her red – handed. If not, then huge PR mistake by the new guy – highly unlikely.

Funny how that little sworn statement problem keeps getting in the way of her upcoming hagiography – funnier still is watching her defenders fall all over themselves, while they go completely into the tank on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601.html