Fighting The War We Are In
Amidst all the cries from the moonbat left that George Bush has committed a crime against the Constitution via the terrorist surveillance program that he has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, one question remains unaddressed: Just what was the nefarious intent behind his “criminal” activity?
If indeed, as many would have us believe, it was for the purpose of listening in on the private lives of average Americans, the program must be considered a colossal failure, as it only seemed to focus on foreign agents of terror and their points of contact within the United States. Unless, of course, the listening in on terrorists’ conversations was just a “test run” in anticipation of the program’s real purpose of listening to college students call home for money.
That there was no criminal intent suspected on the part of the administration is made more than evident by the simple fact that no one within the halls of power in Washington wants the program to stop. The vast majority of Senators and Representatives from both parties are emphatic that the program should continue – though the ongoing effectiveness of the program has been severely compromised by its very revelation.
The only caveat that any such “leaders” are adding to their endorsement is that the program should be retooled to come into compliance with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But one suspects that this caveat is just a way for Bush critics to admit that the administration’s rationale for the heretofore secret program is sound – without really admitting it.
After all, if the program is retooled or reconfigured, then it can hardly be considered to be the same program that even Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle say should continue. If anything, it is the statutory law – FISA – that should be reconfigured to better deal with the reality of the war in which America currently finds itself.
Indeed, the administration’s contention that restricting itself to the confines of the FISA law – which, it can reasonably be argued, would impinge upon the president’s constitutional authority/responsibility to protect and defend the nation – would not provide the agility necessary for a quick response to unfolding events is supported by the much ballyhooed 9/11 Report. That bipartisan report noted that the Commission’s investigation revealed problems in “managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.”
It has been noted many times that one of the most oft-repeated failures of leadership, both civilian and military, is the tendency to always want to fight the last war. George Bush has shown time and again the value of electing a President that hasn’t been quarantined in the insulated confines of Washington for decades. He and his advisors have shown a willingness to “think outside the box,” without necessarily deferring to “Washingtonian Custom” on issues ranging from the momentous – Social Security – to the mundane – more cost-effective ways of printing government publications. But never has this trait been more valuable to the exercise of his duties than it has in this matter. Many of his critics are insistent on fighting the last war, while he tries desperately to fight the current one.
Granted, acknowledgement of the necessity of such a program as this requires a willingness on the part of the public to invest a substantial measure of trust in one who wields such power, as could be said regarding any number of other presidential powers as well. But all the evidence suggests that said public currently does have such confidence in George Bush, at least in greater measure than they have it in his most vocal critics on Capitol Hill.
If indeed, as many would have us believe, it was for the purpose of listening in on the private lives of average Americans, the program must be considered a colossal failure, as it only seemed to focus on foreign agents of terror and their points of contact within the United States. Unless, of course, the listening in on terrorists’ conversations was just a “test run” in anticipation of the program’s real purpose of listening to college students call home for money.
That there was no criminal intent suspected on the part of the administration is made more than evident by the simple fact that no one within the halls of power in Washington wants the program to stop. The vast majority of Senators and Representatives from both parties are emphatic that the program should continue – though the ongoing effectiveness of the program has been severely compromised by its very revelation.
The only caveat that any such “leaders” are adding to their endorsement is that the program should be retooled to come into compliance with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But one suspects that this caveat is just a way for Bush critics to admit that the administration’s rationale for the heretofore secret program is sound – without really admitting it.
After all, if the program is retooled or reconfigured, then it can hardly be considered to be the same program that even Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle say should continue. If anything, it is the statutory law – FISA – that should be reconfigured to better deal with the reality of the war in which America currently finds itself.
Indeed, the administration’s contention that restricting itself to the confines of the FISA law – which, it can reasonably be argued, would impinge upon the president’s constitutional authority/responsibility to protect and defend the nation – would not provide the agility necessary for a quick response to unfolding events is supported by the much ballyhooed 9/11 Report. That bipartisan report noted that the Commission’s investigation revealed problems in “managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.”
It has been noted many times that one of the most oft-repeated failures of leadership, both civilian and military, is the tendency to always want to fight the last war. George Bush has shown time and again the value of electing a President that hasn’t been quarantined in the insulated confines of Washington for decades. He and his advisors have shown a willingness to “think outside the box,” without necessarily deferring to “Washingtonian Custom” on issues ranging from the momentous – Social Security – to the mundane – more cost-effective ways of printing government publications. But never has this trait been more valuable to the exercise of his duties than it has in this matter. Many of his critics are insistent on fighting the last war, while he tries desperately to fight the current one.
Granted, acknowledgement of the necessity of such a program as this requires a willingness on the part of the public to invest a substantial measure of trust in one who wields such power, as could be said regarding any number of other presidential powers as well. But all the evidence suggests that said public currently does have such confidence in George Bush, at least in greater measure than they have it in his most vocal critics on Capitol Hill.
posted by JeffreyH | 11:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home