There has been much discussion about the successful labeling of the NSA program as international antiterrorism surveillance rather than domestic spying. Polls revealed on this morning’s talk shows show that framing the program in terms of terrorism protection affects the attitudes about the program favorably. I expected the labeling to be cleverly and aggressively pursued by the President. The Democrats cannot win this fight and shouldn’t try to. They cannot argue against the value of surveillance to prevent terrorism.
But President Bush has failed to justify why warrants hamper the government’s ability to protect Americans and continues to authorize a program that needlessly circumvents our tools of accountability. Americans lack the means to ensure that the NSA is spying only on known terrorists as claimed by the White House. Democrats must publicly ask the following of the President: how do we know that you’re only spying on known terrorists? They must ask this loudly and frequently. They've not done so to date.
Despite shameful attempts to mislead people into believing that briefing 8 members of Congress ensure protections against executive abuse--and this is one of the most dishonest, dispicable moves I've seen from this president so far--I believe that people will respond to this threat to our constitutional right to checks and balances. The question is will Democrats be successful in reminding them that it is at risk.
2 Comments:
I believe the lack of a cohesive plan from Democrats to combat terrorism leaves them open to claims of being soft on terrorism, and as a result, this is a losing battle.
If Democrats, for example, offered a cohesive and effective plan to combat terrorism AND questioned the president on why he persists in circumventing FISA, then they'll have something. Until then, they'll just be labeled soft.
This dispute will quickly become a legal dispute that Americans have little patience for - whether the President had authority under the September 14th resolution, and if FISA's restriction of his authorities thereof are constitutional.
Score 1 more for Karl Rove.
Agreed. I'm a Democrat and I have a plan:
1. Admit that we were wrong to occupy Iraq given the justification provided. Don't admit we were misled or lied to; just admit we were just plain wrong to do it.
2. Offer continued reparations for our mishandling of Iraq. And admit that we bombed Al Jazeera and are ready to bomb them again (apologize, of course).
3. Apologize to US citizens for having to pay said reparations (can blame Bush here).
4. Admit that our "interest" in the middle east to date has not been humanity but, rather, oil. And make the argument that humanity is at stake and act on that argument by actually funding initiatives to solve our "addiction" to middle east oil by 2010, not 2025.
4. Establish a consistent policy that supports democratic ideals and oil independence by sanctioning Saudi Arabia and the like.
5. Recognize and support the existance of Israel without promising unconditional alliance.
In all, completely redirect our framework for middle east politics. Admit we've made an "unstable" region less stable and promise to pay the price for doing so.
Post a Comment
<< Home