NSA and 9/11

I've been watching the NSA hearings on C-SPAN today (note that it hasn't been given comprehensive coverage on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News, though I did learn a lot from Matt Lauer's review of last night's Super Bowl commercials. Thanks, Matt!). I’ve been struck by Senator Sessions' (R-AL) appalling approach during news conference given during break. Before the Senator's comments in the news conference, he had a relative of a 9/11 victim give a speech about how she believes that the NSA program is important and could have prevented the attacks--the implication being that her husband would be alive today. This has been argued by the President, Vice President Cheney and others. Regardless of whether this is true or not (and I believe it is ridiculous to think that other failures outlined by the 9/11 Commission and others would have been non-factors), the method of evoking 9/11 in this manner is sick. It's manipulative and theatrical. It does not raise the level of debate as the President supposedly aims to do. It simply appeals to our basic fears, angers, and sympathies.

From Bush’s State of the Union Address:

“In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part.”

Is the basic emotional response sought by presenting victims of 9/11 not similar to this level of debate discouraged by the President?