Point/Counterpoint?
But at long last, the Post Editorial Board has finally found something to be outraged about -- the fact that the judicial opinion issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor yesterday isn't scholarly and "complex" enough for the intellectual tastes of Fred Hiatt. What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness.
This is some good stuff. I like the way Greenwald builds his arguments, even though it does seem like he slides a little into very common anti-Bush/Iraq war rhetoric at one point. At least it's all connected together. I kind of like this post about discourse here in the Nation's Capital.
And now for a word from the "other side"...
Federal Judge Rules In Favor of Terrorists
It should come as no surprise that Judge Anna Digg Taylor was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter back in 1979.
Why is the American Left so determined for us to lose the war on terror? The Terrorist Surveillance Program has prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives... Why do Democrats oppose preventing terrorist attacks and saving American lives?
Well, nice to see that's all supported clearly by facts and is totally "scholarly and complex." (Really, though, read down into the comments, there's some really scary/funny stuff in there.)
