Congressman Rob Andrews

Regarding Andrews' press release: This clearly represents a sharp turn left, right into the policy gutter for him. It is very sad. The only thing I can think is that he has had an angry message delivered to him from the lunatic left of his party, and has now volunteered to carry their water.

Dino has raised two very legitimate questions -- the answer to the first is that it has been very obvious to anyone with any sense that the left has wanted to lose the war from the beginning. And I don't just mean in Iraq.

The answer to the second question is that they must want us to be sitting ducks, because there is no other reasonable or even credible explanation for their actions.

That raises a third question. We have not suffered a terror attack on our soil for five years now. In spite of the consistently relentless efforts by Democrats nationwide to drum up hatred for the President, and to undermine nearly every effort this Administration has made to protect us, we have remained terror incident free on our soil. So, someone has been doing something right, and on a damn big scale. They know that and they can't stand it.

With recommendations like this from Andrews, one can only wonder what pushed him to this?

Why should we not also begin to suspect that it is now the hope and the wish of the nutroots of the left that we are attacked again, and that we are hit hard?

I never thought I would arrive at the conclusion that significant numbers of Americans would actually wish their country severe harm and hardship. But the hard left wing in this country, now comprising a substantial chunk of the activists in Democrat party, have so completely lost their bearings (as well as their marbles) that they cannot be said to have this country's welfare at heart.

The decision by that judge in Michigan is already being roundly ridiculed by legal scholars throughout the country because it is so thin and essentially meritless.

Even the liberal Washington Post today editorially tagged it a "misfire."

The plaintiffs were apparently forum shopping by working to steer it into her court. That may surface as a serious issue, because she has reportedly attempted this sort of thing before, i.e., in an attempt years ago to circumvent normal federal case assignment procedures in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases.

This case will not stand . . . and Congressman Andrews will have sacrificed a piece of his credibility.

Well, I'm sure that is a significant part of it.

The old expression "cutting off your nose to spite your face," just doesn't seem to be adequate to explain the phenomenon. You can survive cutting off your nose. Oh, you'll get a couple of funny stares, but reconstructive surgery is downright amazing these days.

For insurgents within a political party to trash and reject their recent standard-bearer for acting as a leader, however, is just plain nuts.

And now, with only a few notable exceptions, the rest of the "leaders" within their party are quickly disassembling any remaining facade of decency in the way they treat Senator Lieberman. A new article in The Hill describes it in shocking detail.

I know there are polls showing disaffection with Republican candidates, but this kind of venal behavior can, and I believe will turn the electorate sour on the Democrats for years.

It looks like Congressman Andrews really jumped the shark on this one, right along with the New York Times

.

It seems the paper trashed the usual order of priority in truly Alice in Wonderland fashion, first by publishing a gushing editorial, and only then following it up today with a more careful analysis

Well, there you have it, folks . . . "First the sentence, then the verdict."

Whoops! Now, even the gray lady is looking more than a little ashen when it comes to this ridiculous decision.

As was reported in the first few graphs of today's (August 19th) story by Adam Liptak, "Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision,"

"Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge's conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision's reasoning and rhetoric yesterday.

They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government's major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments."

And, in line with the suspicions of many that the decision was rushed and most likely procedurally mishandled by the Judge for less than salutary reasons, the paper also reported that:

"Some scholars speculated that Judge Taylor, of the Federal District Court in Detroit, may have rushed her decision lest the case be consolidated with several others now pending in federal court in San Francisco or moved to a specialized court in Washington as contemplated by pending legislation. Judge Taylor heard the last set of arguments in the case a little more than a month ago.

Oh well, Congressman. So what? Back to the drawing board!

Say, do you have an election coming up any time soon?

Anyone who would like a clear analysis of just how outrageous Judge Taylor's opinion is, should read this article by Andrew C. McCarthy in the latest National Review. Andy was the lead prosecutor with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of NY, who successfully prosecuted the blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, for seditious conspiracy following the first attack back in 1993 on the World Trade Center. He knows first hand what he is talking about.

Gee, I'm surprised Congressman Andrews didn't read about it. It was in all the papers! But by endorsing this horrible decision, Congressman Andrews has apparently joined ranks backing those who would like to get on the phone and chit chat with terrorists, and to be able to do so without fear that the Feds could quickly pick up on it. That is what the plaintiffs in this case said . . . their "rights" are being hindered in talking to terrorists because the terrorists know this NSA program exists.

Say, where is Acting Senator Menendez on this one? Senator . . . you agree with Congressman Andrews?

In response to a belated acknowledgement by the New York Times

that the decision by Federal District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, is now more than just constitutionally suspect, but is tainted by a conflict of interest that the Judge had, one related to the ruling, the public has a clear right to expect that Congressman Rob Andrews will now address all of the issues that have surfaced in the past few days regarding this ruling.

He should issue a new statement clarifying his position on this case, together with an explanation of why he took the position he did. That statement should contain a frank acknowledgement of whether he was asked by one or more Democrat party leaders to take this public position.

Today's editorial, taken together with a recent series of published articles and public positions taken by legal experts, both those in favor of, and those opposed to the NSA program, shows that the Congressman erred in so wholeheartedly endorsing the ruling by the Judge.

Given the indisputable fact that this program has saves American lives and provided this country and its citizens an extra measure of protection against terrorist actions, Congressman Rob Andrews frankly owes all of us an explanation.