The reason Bush officials have believed they can simply break the law with complete impunity is because the Beltway culture in which they operate believes that.

But there is another aspect to this “culture” on the right. They also believe that their political opposition should be prosecuted for “bogus” crimes, even when there is no real evidence to pursue the case.

We saw that in the Justice Department’s prosecution of their Democratic opponents just prior to the election. The lack of evidence didn’t stop them from filing charges, nor did it bother them in the slightest.

And it should be noted that while they put “perjury” in quotation marks for Libby and treat it as a big joke, that same charge of “perjury” suddenly becomes a very serious crime when they accuse Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame of it.

Said one right-wing blogger citing the case laid out by Bryon York in the National Review:

Should this evidence not be the basis for dismissing the suit? Furthermore, should this not be the basis for trying Plame, and perhaps Wilson, on perjury charges?

FrontPage (and others) while insisting upon Libby’s absolute innocence are totally convinced of the guilt of Plame and Wilson – the facts be damned.

“He’s a Democrat,” said Karl Rove of Wilson and that’s all they really need as proof enough of their guilt.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/228049.php

Are England and Australia (or other allies) also having this same debate? England tries its terrorist suspects in civilian courts, is there outrage over that policy there? Are there calls for them to stop doing so and adopt the new “American” position that such trials aid the “jihadists” or is this (as I suspect) a distinctly American debate?

There is a concerted effort in the U.S. media to keep the American public in constant fear. Without that campaign National Review’s call to adopt the “ends justify the means” philosophy that permeates the “ideology of lawlessness” wouldn’t make any sense or have any appeal.

I think that is what distinguishes the U.S. from its allies on this topic – a systematic campaign of fear that our dysfunctional media not only doesn’t put into perspective, but actively participates in.

Oh, dear. In a new post at Powerline, petrified Paul M. says this case proves that the courts can no longer be trusted with any cases involving “national security” because they aren’t as scared as he is and thus don’t understand the “war on terror.”

He gives us a choice between committing suicide and abandoning the Constitution. For him, it’s just that clear – and so is his contempt for the Constitution.

He also suggests that Congress gave absolute power to the President to imprison anybody without trial forever when it authorized the AUMF because it said he could use “all necessary force.” Funny, I don’t think Congress ever thought that abandoning our Constitution was part of the “necessary force” that they gave the President.

The President certainly seems to have taken it that way though.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017923.php

This "manly" obsession has been going on for quite some time, but it does seem to be progressively worse, and more explicit.

In one of Glenn’s earlier posts he quoted Sadly No’s take on a Mark Steyn column that basically came down to this: that “the West may lack the stones to do what it really needs to do: commit genocide on the filthy wogs."

That’s what Lieberman and the neo-conservatives really want. When they talk of “manly” actions they are talking about the acceptance of torture and genocide.

Is America ready for their new bumper sticker slogan?

Real men love torture and genocide.

Those who oppose those actions aren't "wimps and sissies" - it's just that they haven't lost their basic humanity. That's the real difference.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/crazed-face-of-neoconservatism.html

I was reminded of the movie Fight Club that dealt with the psychological emasculation of men in modern society. The lead character created a character that embodied his repressed masculinity – and it is just this sort of fantasy character that all these frightened insecure white men of the GOP are looking for in presidential candidate.

In the movie, though, they actually establish a club for men to engage in real fist fights. However, in the faux-macho world of Reynolds, Steyn, and Goldberg they don’t do anything more physical than furiously peck away at their keyboards calling for torture, genocide and more wars.

It may make them feel good, but there is nothing remotely masculine about it at all. Sadly, that is the best they can do.