Just in case Republicans still wonder why the GOP routinely garners less than 10% of the African-American vote, the reactions of some of their leading lights to the Supreme Court's Guantanamo detainee decision should provide a quick reminder.  While John McCain Friday simply called the Court's Boumediene ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," right-wing legal analyst David Rivkin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were much more specific.  The Court's restoration of habeas corpus, they insist, is worse than the infamous Dred Scott slavery case which helped precipitate the Civil War.

David Rivkin (former Justice Department official with the Reagan administration) is already using "Democratic inclusion" when it comes to promoting the new FISA law. His agenda is to make the FISA law permanent.

Today, the House Judiciary Committee holds this hearing beginning at noon EDT: VIEW LIVE WEBCAST

Wednesday 07/11/2007 - 12:00 PM | 2141 Rayburn House Office Building | Full Committee Hearing on: The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials | By Direction of the Chairman | List of Witnesses - also listed at the end

Statement of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV (ret.)

To the House Committee on the Judiciary

July 11, 2007

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, members of the Committee,

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you at this hearing on the possible abuse of Presidential authority in the commutation of I. Lewis Libby, convicted on four counts of lying to federal investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice.  

I want to shine a spotlight on a couple of the lesser players in the Scooter Libby truthiness squad -- two second-string Gollums that slithered across my TV screen this week, defending Libby and Bush with a classic litany of Plamegate lies.

I should be immune by now to this crap. But sometimes I'm still astonished to hear a Republican prosti-pundit explain that Valerie Plame was not covert and that the CIA has never said that she was. Just how dead does your soul have to be to lie on national television about a matter like that? Lies so easily disproved.

The scene was media-whore central: Hardball. The right-wing hacks were two odd little men: Ron Christie, former adviser to Dick Cheney, and David Rivkin, former DOJ official under Bush 41. Both despicable liars.

No conspiracies here, but I do want to take a look at how the New York Times' standards have seriously eroded recently.

And since we're talking about rational discourse, I'm picking a piece from their Op-Ed page today that illustrates one of the classic logical fallacies: the red herring.

SHORTLY after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush ordered surveillance of international telephone communications by suspected members of Al Qaeda overseas, even if such calls also involved individuals within the United States... Judicial warrants for this surveillance were neither sought nor obtained... The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view.

Did you spot the red herring?

Anyone who has seen David Rivkin in action knows that he is a Bush apologist extraordinaire. Robert Levy of the CATO Institute I am not familiar with. They debated Bush's shredding of the Constitution. Now, in my view, Levy fumbles a couple of questions and answers, but even then, Rivkin is routed.

I present it here for your consideration. And also to demonstrate how extreme Bush's actions are and what lackeys the "conservative" movement is with regard to Bush. Their argument is Bush did it, must be ok.

Update [2005-12-27 16:18:30 by Armando]: The funny part is Joshua Adler of The Corner, who linked to the debate, writes:

The Federalist Society has posted the beginning of an exchange between frequent NRO contributor David Rivkin and the Cato Institute's Robert Levy on the domestic surveillance controversy. It's an interesting back and forth, and the FedSoc promises there is more to come. Incidentally, this sort of exchange is one of the reasons I've been so involved with the Federalist Society over the years -- ever since attending portions of a FedSoc conference at the Yale Law School when I was an undergrad. Both Rivkin and Levy are FedSoc regulars, and yet they have profound disagreements over the Bush Administration's activities.

but he links to folks "critiquing" me - even though Levy holds my views. That is the ultimate in an ad hominem approach to argument. Levy is a "great guy" (read Republican) so his argument is to be treated with respect. I make the same argument and Adler is "not impressed." Frankly, a good argument is a good argument, and a bad one is a bad one, whoever it comes from. For instance, from Orin Kerr, or Cass Sunstein.

Today the Op-ed page of the NY Times sports a column by former Reagan era Justice Dept attorney's David Rivkin and Lee Casey. In a space roughly the size of 2 Marathon bars (ummmmm, caramel and chocolate) laid side-by-side, these 2 neocon hacks trot out every tired excuse for Bush's illegal wiretapping and surveilance of American citizens. These 2 offer the sort of legal argument that we refer to in courtroom parlance as "specious" or "moronic". But the great feature of this shotgun defense is that it's a chance to debunk the right enmasse.

So come along, and we'll look at each con argument presented in "Unwarranted Complaints" below. We'll start with this: This program was adopted by direct presidential order and was subject to review every 45 days.

Saturday's Washington Post contains an Op-Ed piece by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, identified as "Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush."  

Clearly, their work is part of efforts to establish talking points which dismiss the entire Plame outing as a minor matter, unworthy of the attention given to it, and to portray Mr. Libby as a dedicated public servant who was "only doing his job" in support of the Administration, and hounded by a "partisan," "uncontrolled" and overzealous special prosecutor.

But this Op-Ed is so filled with distortions and in some cases outright lies, that it demands a response including references to the facts we know. The Post  apparently is not up to the task, even though some of the facts I will cite come from their own pages.  More below the fold.