You know, I like George W. Bush. He's a down to earth person, who really seems genuine in what he wants for the country and firm in his belief that he's doing the right things in the middle east, and in particular Iraq. Noone could've predicted the fallout that is occurring in Iraq now (if things are as bad as the press make it out to be with the shiites and sunni's in Iraq). I believed at the time that we should have invaded Iraq, and now we can't back out. That's seems pretty simple to me.
However, regarding the NSA surveillance program and President Bush's role in authorizing it, I can't help but agree that Russ Feingold should have his day in congress to have a vote on whether to censure Bush over the NSA surveillance program, or at the very least there should be some kind of investigation into whether Bush broke the law by authorizing this program. At first, I thought that it was a ridiculous ploy by a possible presidential candidate in 2008 (who will not have my vote... or the majority of the country's vote... but that's a different story). That's the way the whitehouse chooses to spin it too. After listening to a few excerpts from some of Feingold's statements to the press and congress, I have to agree with him.
Maybe the censure doesn't need to happen to have a proper investigation into the matter, but it seems that most other investigations were initially blocked and I haven't heard a peep about the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation. If there is political opposition to this resolution just because he is our president and it would be an unpopular move, I don't think that's right at all... In that case, a censure resolution (being fully heard and voted on) seems like a good choice.
I know this is causing an artery to bulge on the neck of many of this blog's regulars. That's the way it goes sometimes though...
I think the NSA surveillance program that was in place was probably a good tool for the current law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance. I don't have a problem with that, in and of itself. I have a problem with the government and the president deciding that they need to circumvent laws that are in place to protect the public's civil liberties. It may have been inconvenient and caused a very small delay in the process of going through the procedure set up by FISA, but that's no reason to ignore the FISA law altogether.
I want for someone to investigate the constitutionality of the program and then let congress and the US Citizens deal with the president accordingly. If he is able to make decisions like that in times of war, I'm ok with it. Great. If not, then I think he needs to face some kind of consequence, though I don't think impeachment is a valid answer. I just have to agree with Feingold (though I know he has political motives) when he says that the government was intended to have seperate branches to check and balance the other branches. If one gets out of line, the other steps in and smacks its hand.
On a side note, I'd like to finally see one side be right about the domestic spying. It would be great if all the liberals could stop making sly comments about spying (and about Dick Cheney's rifle for goodness sake). On the other hand, if they're wrong, I would like to see the White House eat humble pie after saying that they've had lawyers evaluate the constitutionality of the program... and have found it to be within President Bush's powers. I don't think it's good for the country though to go on without a solid resolution on certain issues.
It's the intention of the government since its founding... how can it be so wrong?
Posted by Jordan at March 13, 2006 10:55 PM | TrackBack
Comments (2)
Here's why it's wrong:
The junior senator is jumping the gun. That's why no democrats are joining him in the cesure. Before that can happen, there has to be a clear breaking of the law. Most of the senior democrats will not say that out loud. Can he call for an investigation of the constitutionality and get support? Yes. Can he can for censure and get support? No. This is why it is a political move. He didn't go through the processes needed to acheive his goal, rather a quick and easy appearance on TV...
Posted in reply to Johnny's comment |
He may be jumping the gun. I don't think that it will even come to a vote, and I don't see that most democrats will want to put themselves on the wrong side of a national security issue (which they're viewed as weak on... except for in the ridiculous ports scandal). I think that's why they're not following Feingold in his attempt.
I think my post should have been directed more toward the theme that censuring may not be the right move, but something needs to be done to find out the legality of the surveillance program. I don't necessarily support the act of censuring the president itself, but the fact that someone is standing up and saying that the current way political leaders are handling this (looking the other way for the most part) is not going to be tolerated. That being said, you are right, I think, to say that he jumped the gun.
What got me started was reading an article on CNN where Bill frist was quoted... Here's an excerpt from the article.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, also speaking on ABC, said Feingold "is just wrong."
"He is flat wrong, he is dead wrong," said the Tennessee Republican -- also a potential presidential candidate in 2008 -- adding that "attacking our commander in chief ... doesn't make sense."
"We are right now at an unprecedented war where they really want to take us down," he said. "A censure resolution ... is wrong. It sends a signal around the world.
"The American people are solidly behind this president in conducting the war on terror."
(Source)
I think a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that anything the president does in a time of war is ok is completely wrong and people, senators in an election year included, should stand up and say that that won't be permitted.
Posted in reply to Jordan's comment |