"Some of the loopier elements of the Democratic Party have even suggested the wiretaps are grounds for impeachment. But the more we learn about the practice, the clearer it is that the White House has been right to employ and defend it."Just so I understand the normal and logical progression of things [according to the WSJ and conventional wisdom], it is more thoughtful to read, research, digest, and educate yourself on an issue than to jump in head first and run for the nearest microphone or liberal rag that will print your editorials. Makes sense. Use the old axiom of "engage your brain before you engage your mouth." Got it.
"No one would suggest the President must get a warrant to listen to terrorist communications on the battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. But what the critics are really insisting on here is that the President get a warrant the minute a terrorist communicates with an associate who may be inside in the U.S. That's a loophole only a terrorist could love."That's a loophole that Democrats believe is vital to the sanctity of the constitution and civil liberties as granted by the Bill of Rights. Of course, it goes without saying we must first protect the nation, so we can continue to enjoy the freedoms applied to us through the Constitution. The Constitution quickly becomes a worthless piece of paper the moment it no longer has a country onto which it can apply its' laws. That and I am sure the founding fathers put our liberties before the liberties of terrorists. Of course, I can't say for certain...just a hunch.
"To the extent the President's critics are motivated by anything other than partisanship...Some critics have argued that the surveillance now at issue could have been conducted within the confines of FISA. But that doesn't appear to be true."I must disagree with the Wall Street Journal, for a brief moment here. I would have reworded the previous quote a little differently. "The President's critics are always motivated by partisanship and have tired to justify their rhetoric by arguing that the surveillance now at issue could have been conducted with in the confines of FISA. But that doesn't appear to be true." It a subtle change, I know, but one that more accurately conveys the true intent of the Democrats.
"Other critics accept the President's inherent power but say he still should have asked Congress to approve the wiretaps. But some in Congress were informed of the wiretaps and did nothing to stop them...The way the Members have played politics with the Patriot Act is another reason not to give Congress a chance to micromanage war-fighting decisions."Can I get an Amen, brothers and sisters? Trot out the selective outrage when it is most convenient. When the ranking Democrat on Senate intelligence, Jay Rockefeller, first found out about the wiretappings the US had just started a popular war. Clearly 2003 would not have right political climate to attack the President on such a grave issue as the destroying of civil liberties [emphasis on the sarcasm]. The better course, at least according to Democrats, is to wait for 2 years and see if the public opinion polls start to shift to the left. Brilliant. Democrats are so outraged by actions of the Bush administration that they do exactly nothing about the wiretappings until 2 full years later. Beautiful. Selective outrage at its' finest.
I strongly urge you to take the time to fully read the Wall Street Journal's entire editorial. I believe you will come away with a better understanding of what President Bush did and why he did it. Click away NOW!
[my hat's off to Protein Wisdom for the heads up on the WSJ editorial].
No comments:
Post a Comment