Let's assume they're not idiots (continued)

[This is just the latest in a series of many similarly-titled & similarly-themed posts. The shared theme involves what I'm happy to admit is a semi-delusional raw conspiracy theory. You have been forewarned!]

Why does W insist on including the "poison pill" telecom immunity provision in the expanded-FISA Protect America Act?

House Dems - to their great credit! - have made it clear that they'll not agree to this egregiously horrible retroactive immunity, but W continues to insist on it.

Why? He could probably have the rest of the not-quite-so-egregiously horrible PAA if he dropped the demand for telecom immunity.

One semi-plausible explanation being bandied about on the blogs is that W fears what might be revealed about his Administration's unlawful conduct were suits against telecoms ever to come to trial.

Why do I qualify this as only semi-plausible? A couple of reasons. First, Fed courts have already erected a very high hurdle that must be leapt for such suits to move forward, based on a Catch-22 "standing" ruling: if defendants cannot establish that they were, in fact, victims of illegal wiretapping, they haven't legal standing to sue.

Second, assuming this hurdle is somehow surmounted, the legal process is likely to drag out years, with motions and counter-motions filed ad nauseam. W will be dead & buried, happily waiting in heaven to see his Administration vindicated by history, before any evidence of wrong-doing is presented at trial.

So, why is W so insistent on this one point - a point not directly related to the intent of PAA?

W doesn't want PAA to pass!

[Warning: raw conspiracy theory ahead!]

Let's look at how W is selling this.

"Without the cooperation of the private sector, we cannot protect our country from terrorist attack."
[Press Conference of the President, 28 Feb 2008]

That theme has been repeated, over and over, both by W and by his minions: failure to grant telecoms immunity puts the country at risk of a terrorist attack (which will be the Dems fault!).

Bear with me.
Previous episodes in this series of raw-conspiracy-theory posts have suggested that W has no intention of relinquishing the Presidency next year - he has gone to great lengths to create an unlimited "unitary" Executive which he cannot afford to turn over to a Democratic successor.

How to avoid departure?

Orchestrate a terrorist attack on the U.S.!... mid-October would be good timing.

The nominal bad guys: Hezbollah.

The response:
1) Cancel elections, citing need for continuity. "The country cannot now survive the turmoil of a change in Administration."

2) Dismiss Congress. (Here's where telecom immunity enters the picture): "The Democrats in Congress are responsible for this attack! Acting under the Constitution's Article II authority, I am adjourning the Congress."

he [the President] may, on extraordinary occasions, ... adjourn them [both Houses of Congress] to such time as he shall think proper
[Article II, section 3, U.S. Constitution.
note: the ellpisis ("...") is important!]

(Again, bear with me. Yes, this is delusional, but I have supporting arguments!)

The stage is being set today.
From NYT Op-Ed page:

Bracing for Revenge
By RONEN BERGMAN
Published: February 18, 2008
Tel Aviv
THE assassination of Imad Mugniyah, the Hezbollah terrorist, in Damascus last week was a warning that even the most elusive prey can be hunted down — given skill, determination and patience on the part of the hunter.
...
At Mr. Mugniyah’s funeral on Thursday, Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, threatened to retaliate against Israel, saying, “Let it be an open war anywhere.”
...
There are precedents. It was on Feb. 16, 1992, that Ehud Barak, then chief of staff of the Israeli military and now minister of defense, gave the order for two combat helicopters hovering over south Lebanon to rocket a convoy in which the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Abbas Musawi, was traveling. Sheik Musawi, his wife and his 6-year-old son were killed. The response was not long in coming: for five days, Katyusha rockets rained down on northern Israel. A 5-year-old girl was killed.

This was only the beginning.
...
On March 7, he [Ehud Sadan, chief of security at the Israeli embassy in Ankara] was blown up by a bomb planted under his car. The authorities arrested several members of Turkish Hezbollah...
...
Ten days after that, Mr. Mugniyah’s men blew up the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 people and wounding more than 220. Two years later, in July of 1994, a suicide bomber struck at the offices of a Jewish community organization in Buenos Aires, killing 85.
...
Only the severest of countermeasures by the intelligence services of Israel and the United States will prevent last week’s assassination, justified as it was, from costing a vastly disproportionate price in blood.

A prominent Hezbollah terrorist was killed in Syria. We should expect retaliatory strikes against us!

Wait! There's more!

Analysis: Hezbollah and Iran: New threats?
By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI Contributing Editor
25 Feb 2008
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Should the close and ongoing alliance between the Lebanese Shiite organization Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran be a cause for concern to the West?

Particularly in the aftermath of the assassination in Damascus earlier this month of a top Hezbollah operative, indeed, say a number of observers, all threats should be considered seriously.

Ah, yes! Hezbollah is allied with Iran! (It's all the Democrats' fault!)

A very compelling nexus: Dems refuse to expand FISA, Iran is bad, Hezbollah is Iran's friend, Hezbollah will avenge leader's death...

Democrats obstruct PAA, causing us to lose intelligence that could have prevented the attack.

W asserts Article II dictatorial power!

Yes, I admit - it's delusional. But does anyone deny Cheney could orchestrate this simple plan?