Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. Their collective silence has grown more and more revealing as the chorus of legal commentary mocking the absurd opinion has grown throughout the day.
The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor’s opinion is now a new icon of the movement.
It is clear that the Democrats are invested in her conclusion and her reasoning, a position on national security that will bind the party if it reaches a majority in either the House or the Senate, and paralyze at least some of the intelligence collection activities already underway. We have to assume that their zeal for ignorance will extend to every presidential directive not explicitly backed by Congressional mandate, and thus an understanding of the Article II war powers more circumscribed than ever in our history.
Expect a major retreat in the war on Islamic fascism across many fronts if the Dems frenzy their way to a majority in either body, and hearings upon hearings. the Church Committee will look like child’s play compared to a John Conyers or patrick Leahy-led assault on the conduct of the war, a conduct that has prevented attacks on the homeland from abroad since 9/11.
Thus it is simply true: Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
UPDATE: Tigerhawk has a run-down of reactions to the Diggs Taylor opinion. And the fellow agrees with my analysis of the political consequences of the decision.
UPDATE 2:OutsideTheBeltway notes that somebody named Steven Taylor is arguing that this post is the equivalent of arguing that Democrats are traitors. Such hyperbole –Don’t question my patriotism!”– reveals immediately that the writer does not understand the difference between incompetence/negligence and intentional harm. Trusting the national security to Democrats is like trusting a moving car to a four year old, or the management of a vast company to the junior high school business club. Neither the child nor the preteens want to wreck the car or ruin the corporation, but both results are near inevitable.
Hysterical overreaction to legitimate criticism of the “plans” of the Democrats on how to fight the war or collect intelligence always signals the accuracy of the criticism. Victory or vulnerability is indeed the choice in November, and that defenders of Democrats resent the framing and attempt to distort it underscores just how crucial the clarity is.