I don't usually use my blog to forward other people's stuff, or link to other websites or anything like that. It's usually just a kind of soapbox. ButI felt this was too good to keep to myself. It's an op-ed piece from the Miami Herald.

AFTER 9/11 Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If,back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed,then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat-- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informedthat our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas-- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

Ifsomeone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no AmericaI know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

Allof these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appearsmore concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attackon Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America'scharacter than I once believed, because I would have expected such actionsto provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torchesat the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone whowould suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasmsof despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considersthe law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expectedthis nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rightsmovement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrouscampaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principlesof liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

PresidentBush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizenson at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification?He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law,constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Isthat America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are thereno principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would haveremembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up alittle liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have usexcuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror''-- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic,an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught everyperson guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow'sfirst-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fightinginfection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it willstrike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilegeto defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weighin: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bushstokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things hisextralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. Weare neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt downits enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately,our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holdingfast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bushclearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?