Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A Discredit to the GOP


Fred Jones

Recommended Posts

A Discredit to the GOP

Editorial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601903.html

THE BUSH administration's distortion, for political purposes, of the Democratic position on warrantless surveillance is loathsome. Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.) have expressed legal doubts about the surveillance program. Do they, too, have a "pre-9/11 worldview," as Mr. Rove said of the Democrats?

Believing there should be constraints on unchecked executive power is not the same as being weak-kneed about the war against terrorism. Critics are suggesting that President Bush should have gone through normal procedures for conducting such surveillance or asked Congress to provide clear legal authority for the National Security Agency activity. They are not contending that such surveillance shouldn't be conducted at all. No leading Democrat has argued for barring this kind of potentially useful technique.

But you wouldn't know that to listen to the GOP spin. "Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting last week. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." Mr. Mehlman named names. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" he asked.

Maybe, as a matter of crass political calculation, Mr. Rove and Mr. Mehlman are correct that Democrats criticizing warrantless wiretaps will pay a price in the November elections. We don't pretend to know. What we do know is that the country is in the midst of an important debate about the reach of presidential power and the scope of civil liberties in wartime. For Rove & Co. to try to turn this into just another partisan political skewer discredits their administration and their party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Discredit to the GOP

Editorial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601903.html

THE BUSH administration's distortion, for political purposes, of the Democratic position on warrantless surveillance is loathsome. Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.) have expressed legal doubts about the surveillance program. Do they, too, have a "pre-9/11 worldview," as Mr. Rove said of the Democrats?

Believing there should be constraints on unchecked executive power is not the same as being weak-kneed about the war against terrorism. Critics are suggesting that President Bush should have gone through normal procedures for conducting such surveillance or asked Congress to provide clear legal authority for the National Security Agency activity. They are not contending that such surveillance shouldn't be conducted at all. No leading Democrat has argued for barring this kind of potentially useful technique.

But you wouldn't know that to listen to the GOP spin. "Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting last week. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." Mr. Mehlman named names. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" he asked.

Maybe, as a matter of crass political calculation, Mr. Rove and Mr. Mehlman are correct that Democrats criticizing warrantless wiretaps will pay a price in the November elections. We don't pretend to know. What we do know is that the country is in the midst of an important debate about the reach of presidential power and the scope of civil liberties in wartime. For Rove & Co. to try to turn this into just another partisan political skewer discredits their administration and their party.

Debate = bad.

Demonizing = good.

This is how we roll now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Discredit to the GOP

Editorial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601903.html

THE BUSH administration's distortion, for political purposes, of the Democratic position on warrantless surveillance is loathsome. Despite the best efforts of Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, to make it seem otherwise, Democrats are not opposed to vigorous, effective surveillance that could uncover terrorist activity. Nor are the concerns that they are expressing unique to their party. Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.) have expressed legal doubts about the surveillance program. Do they, too, have a "pre-9/11 worldview," as Mr. Rove said of the Democrats?

Believing there should be constraints on unchecked executive power is not the same as being weak-kneed about the war against terrorism. Critics are suggesting that President Bush should have gone through normal procedures for conducting such surveillance or asked Congress to provide clear legal authority for the National Security Agency activity. They are not contending that such surveillance shouldn't be conducted at all. No leading Democrat has argued for barring this kind of potentially useful technique.

But you wouldn't know that to listen to the GOP spin. "Let me be as clear as I can be -- President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said at the Republican National Committee winter meeting last week. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." Mr. Mehlman named names. "Do Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when those terrorists dial their sleeper cells inside the United States?" he asked.

Maybe, as a matter of crass political calculation, Mr. Rove and Mr. Mehlman are correct that Democrats criticizing warrantless wiretaps will pay a price in the November elections. We don't pretend to know. What we do know is that the country is in the midst of an important debate about the reach of presidential power and the scope of civil liberties in wartime. For Rove & Co. to try to turn this into just another partisan political skewer discredits their administration and their party.

If more people start reacting like this Mr. Rove might have to scale down the "pre-911 worldview" spin. I hope more people start calling their scare tactics out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got anything to say on the merits?
Of course not because as you know Predicto that Editorial, is pretty much right on the money.

The law is written so that wire taps can be done without prior court approval. It is only needed after the fact, 72 hours I believe. There is no obsticle and there is no party advocating the position of "no wire taps." This is a debate about checks and balances, not wire taps versus no wire taps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reporter yesterday made a comment about Nixon claiming that the President can basically do what he wants and is not accountable for his actions. It sounded just like what Bush is claiming now.

What has pissed me off about the right is their attitude that if you aren't with us you are against us attitude. No debate, no disagreement, just brainwashing. I also don't like the fact that if you disagree with the establishment you are labeled a liberal.

With that said, what goes around comes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an Op-Ed.

I bet if I post an Op Ed from Newsmax it would be similarly dismissed by the left.

no?

Usually chom discredits it's information while he points out the source. In fact Newsmax is so often dishonest that it rarely takes much effort to point out it's factual shortcomings. Take the Kerry "troops are terrorists" Newsmax story. It took 20 minutes for someone to get the whole quote and show newsmax was taking it out of context and then adding their commentary to completely change the meaning.

Feel free to do the same here. Point out why it is wrong, and THEN rejoice over how bias the washingtonpost is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not because as you know Predicto that Editorial, is pretty much right on the money.

The law is written so that wire taps can be done without prior court approval. It is only needed after the fact, 72 hours I believe. There is no obsticle and there is no party advocating the position of "no wire taps." This is a debate about checks and balances, not wire taps versus no wire taps.

I was watching Fox News the other day and the judge on there said that current wire tap laws do not hinder in any way investigations against terrorists. Bush did not have to bend the rules to accomplish what is already provided in the law. That is what bothers me the most about the wiretapping. The administration could have gotten it done legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. Debate is forbidden. See: my post.

This isn't just a problem with Mehlman and Rove. It goes to the heart of 2 parties that want nothing better than to give the public the show that it wants. We are a culture of oversensitivity, extravagance, and adrenalization. Everything has to be a big production, even when it's political mudslinging. Just look at the TV shows. What do you see, controversy and conflict. America thrives on it. Why not in politics too? It's why I'm leaving the GOP and why I'm not becoming a Democrat, believe me.

Excuse me while I go :puke:

PS. There still is debate possible. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142603

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching Fox News the other day and the judge on there said that current wire tap laws do not hinder in any way investigations against terrorists. Bush did not have to bend the rules to accomplish what is already provided in the law. That is what bothers me the most about the wiretapping. The administration could have gotten it done legally.

Of course. This whole thing is symbolic. It's a "my dick is bigger than your's" type deal. It's the administration saying, "we're above the law, we'll do what we want, when we want, and if you have a problem you can go straight to hell."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't just a problem with Mehlman and Rove. It goes to the heart of 2 parties that want nothing better than to give the public the show that it wants. We are a culture of oversensitivity, extravagance, and adrenalization. Everything has to be a big production, even when it's political mudslinging. Just look at the TV shows. What do you see, controversy and conflict. America thrives on it. Why not in politics too? It's why I'm leaving the GOP and why I'm not becoming a Democrat, believe me.

Excuse me while I go :puke:

PS. There still is debate possible. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142603

Good observation. You are right we certainly do thrive on conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the contribution to this thread. :silly:

Yeah, but on the whole Lib at least contributes something besides empty anti-liberal rhetoric (or anti-conservative, in his case). AFC, and some of the other guys that have come out of the woodwork recently, don't even say anything that supports the conservative viewpoints. It's like they're not even conservatives; they just hate liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. This whole thing is symbolic. It's a "my dick is bigger than your's" type deal. It's the administration saying, "we're above the law, we'll do what we want, when we want, and if you have a problem you can go straight to hell."

Actually you are dead wrong, its "we're above the law, we'll do what we want, when we want, and if you have a problem you are an anti-american, terrorist-loving, traitor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wrong Des. It's just an opinion.

It makes an assumption that the taps are illegal, then draws a conclusion about the rhetoric regarding that as fact. When the reality, is that there hasnt been a determination about whether or not it was legal. I happen to believe that it is completely legal, and as such, I agree with Mehlman and Roves characterization of the Dems reaction.

Prove that the taps are ILLEGAL, THEN let Rove and Mehlman make these type of claims, THEN the editorial will be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wrong Des. It's just an opinion.

It makes an assumption that the taps are illegal, then draws a conclusion about the rhetoric regarding that as fact. When the reality, is that there hasnt been a determination about whether or not it was legal. I happen to believe that it is completely legal, and as such, I agree with Mehlman and Roves characterization of the Dems reaction.

Prove that the taps are ILLEGAL, THEN let Rove and Mehlman make these type of claims, THEN the editorial will be accurate.

Let's assume that the taps are legal. The administration is pulling a Clinton and just claiming nothing is wrong and wondering what all the fuss is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not wrong Des. It's just an opinion.

It makes an assumption that the taps are illegal, then draws a conclusion about the rhetoric regarding that as fact. When the reality, is that there hasnt been a determination about whether or not it was legal. I happen to believe that it is completely legal, and as such, I agree with Mehlman and Roves characterization of the Dems reaction.

Prove that the taps are ILLEGAL, THEN let Rove and Mehlman make these type of claims, THEN the editorial will be accurate.

Illegal or not the claim that opposition is against wire taps is a lie. I agree with you on the illegal part, that is a question that very much remains open.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...