First logical fallacy news story

Why start with a hard one? I went straight to FOXNews.com and picked the first story about Bush.

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday defended the use of a domestic eavesdropping program and called for Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act.

In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war. The report said Bush had authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of e-mails and phone calls of some individuals in the United States without court warrants.

"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda."

The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

Holy crap this is rich. Ok, lets start easy.

Democrats to stop their "delaying tactics" and reauthorize the controversial Patriot Act.

The syllogism is:

The patriot act has not been reauthorized
Democrats do not approve of the patriot act
Therefore democrats are using delaying tactics to prevent its passage

1. Red Herring: There are enough republicans to pass the law, so the conclusion does not lead logically from the premises.
   
2. Appeal to tradition: Democrats are more likely to vote against the president than Republicans
   
3. Shifting the burden of proof: Prove its not just a tactic to delay and not a fundamental objection

In a year-end news conference at the White House, Bush called the leak of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, first reported in The New York Times last Friday, a "shameful act" disclosed in a time of war.

Lets look at this one:

The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable
Someone leaked information about it
Therefore the leak is shameful

1. False premise: The (illegal) eavesdropping program is honorable.
   
2. Invalid Proof: Leaking information on an honorable program is shameful
   
3. Appeal to emotion: "In a time of war" Completely irrelevant to domestic spying

"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy," Bush told reporters. "This program has targeted those with known links to Al Qaeda."

Holy crap. This is so fun.

We are only targeting people with links to Al Queda
We are not targeting other people
We know who is in Al Qaeda

Wow, that is rich. Well, why don't we arrest them if we know who they are? Afraid of stepping on their civil liberties? HA! But wait, here's more

The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy
The US Constitution demands free discussion of ideas
Therefore, the US Constitution helps the enemy

-or- (my personal favorite)

The free discussion of ideas helps the enemy
Radical militant terrorist Muslims are the enemy
Radical militant terrorist Muslims support free discussion of ideas

1. Appeal to Probability: We probably aren't violating people who aren't terrorists, so you are not violated
   
2. False Premise: We are only targeting people with links to Al Qaeda. Right. So we aren't targeting innocent Americans. And we know who these Al Qaeda people are AND we aren't doing anything!
   
3. Negative proof: Proove we aren't targeting only people that are members of Al Qaeda!
   
4. Guilt by association: If we are targeting you, you have links to Al Qaeda
   
5. Post Hoc: If you ever join Al Qaeda, because we were spying on you for so long, we were spying on you because you were in Al Qaeda.
   
6. Special Pleading: Trust us, these indescretions are important because they are a matter of national security
   
7. Poisoning the Well: We are only watching terrorists, so only terrorists will complain that their civil liberties are violated. What were you saying about civil liberties?
   
8. Proof by assertion: We only target the enemy. We do not spy on good Americans

The program will continue, Bush said, adding that he has reauthorized it more than 30 times. "And I will continue to do so for so long as our nation faces the continued threat of an enemy that wants to kill our American citizens."

I'm kinda tired of hitting these. Should I reverse course and hit only the accurate premises?

There is an enemy that wants to kill citizens
We protect citizens
Therefore we must spy on citizens

-or-

I authorized the program to protect citizens from enemies who want to kill citizens
Citizens have not died since I authorized it
The program protects citizens

-or-
??
I secretly authorized the program 30 times
The program must be good?

1. Special pleading: The program is OK because I authorized it 30 times
   
2. Red Herring: Its the program, not the lack of terrorists, that keeps people safe
   
3. Negative proof: Proove the program hasn't saved lives!
   
4. Appeal to emotion: Enemies want to kill American Citizens!
   
5. Appeal to authority: Bush knows what best will protect citizens, therefore since he says its good, its good.
   
6. Appeal to tradition: I authorized this program 30 times
   
7. Post hoc: Enemies have not killed citizens since I authorized this program, so the program protects citizens
   

Wow, this is fun, and easy. Let's play. Are there any Republican apologists out there who would like to debate these points?