Politics

{ Interesting Article on Spying Controversy }

Found this interesting article by David Limbaugh posted on the Townhall website. Finding it hard to believe I actually stand on the opposite side of this issue from my extremely conservative brother.

The President Honoring His Oath

Are critics of President Bush’s electronic-surveillance practices concerned with the Constitution? Or are they just using any excuse they can find to accuse him of abusing his power?

If they are concerned with constitutional issues, why didn’t they object to President Clinton’s advocacy of warrantless searches -- even for physical searches as opposed to electronic surveillance -- for national security reasons? Other presidents have also defended the Commander in Chief’s inherent authority to conduct such searches.

But the critics are acting like the mere suggestion of a search without a warrant is tantamount to the establishment of a police state. What they don’t tell you is that the Fourth Amendment itself primarily guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have always recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.

That warrants are not absolutely indispensable is also clear by the very terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, which expressly dispenses with the warrant requirement in certain defined circumstances. Some scholars maintain those exceptions apply to the president’s NSA surveillance of Al Qaeda, though the administration doesn't appear to be relying on that position. Instead, President Bush finds his authority in the Constitution and in Congress’ de facto declaration of war following 9/11.

He is not challenging the validity of FISA but merely saying it does not limit his inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief under Article II to conduct such searches, when necessary, to protect national security. Congressional action, in other words, never trumps the Constitution.

But as for statutory authority, the president relies on Congress' passing its declaration of war following 9/11 to give him the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist enemy. Warrantless surveillance of Al Qaeda operatives, President Bush argues, is within the meaning of "necessary and appropriate force."

Some have objected that "necessary and appropriate force" cannot be construed to permit such surveillance of the enemy. There is no specific authorization for electronic surveillance in Congress’s "declaration," and so Congress did not authorize it.

But as Attorney General Albert Gonzalez pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdi case that the government could detain an American citizen captured on the battlefield for the duration of the war even though Congress’ authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention."

Detention, according to Justice O’Connor's opinion, is a fundamental incident of waging war. And the NSA electronic surveillance of Al Qaeda, argues Gonzalez, is "even more a fundamental incident of war" than detention.

While reasonable people can debate whether President Bush is correct in his interpretation of the law, it is extreme to conclude that he deliberately violated the law or usurped authority with his NSA surveillance program.

The president made clear that he established his surveillance program only after studied advice of legal counsel. He also briefed members of Congress, from both parties, at least a dozen times on the program. And when the practice was publicized through a despicable, nation-damaging leak, President Bush did not deny engaging in the practice but heartily defended it.

The president’s critics would be well advised to understand the distinction between constitutional criminal procedure and wartime powers. In the situation of the NSA surveillance program, as well as a host of other wartime activities undertaken by the government, the critics want to confer full-blown constitutional rights on our enemy. President Bush was adamant that his surveillance is not targeting U.S. citizens but only members of Al Qaeda or those affiliated with or supporting it.

Thank God we have a president who is mindful of his dual and sometimes conflicting obligations of protecting our civil liberties and our national security. The absence of attacks on our soil and the absence of major civil-rights encroachments of U.S. citizens since 9/11 show that he has negotiated a finely tuned balance between the two concerns. The president’s critics, by contrast, seem to be concerned with civil liberties -- for our wartime enemies no less -- to the exclusion of national security concerns.

Seriously: Why do they always seem inclined to sympathize with the enemy?

The president reminds us that he took an oath to protect and defend the United States, and that is precisely what he is trying to do. His critics seem determined to handcuff him from honoring his oath in every way possible while simultaneously castigating him for not doing enough.

In the end, their concern is neither civil liberties nor national security but the personal destruction of a president dedicated to defending the United States of America and her citizens. In their pursuit to recapture power, all other interests must be sacrificed.

written by David Limbaugh

{ Democratic Senator's Take on Iraq }

Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, just back from Iraq, writes in the Wall Street Journal: I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there.

"More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. ...

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority. ...

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory. "

{ Just a few examples of our "failures" in Iraq }

Just a few examples, for a more extensive list click here.

This Week In Iraq "One Iraqi Division, Five Brigades And 36 Battalions Have Now Taken The Lead In Their Areas, Compared To Just One Brigade And 11 Battalions Just Five Months Ago ..."

"Iraqis Now Have The Lead In Roughly 90 Square Miles Of Baghdad, An Entire Iraqi Province And More Than 450 Square Miles In Other Provinces ..."

This Year, Over 100 Leaders In Zarqawi's Network Have Been Captured, Undermining The Terrorists Ability To Communicate, Finance And Execute Attacks.

"Iraqis Are Expressing Their Freedom By Providing Information Regarding Terrorists. The Number Of Tips Rose From 442 In February To 3,341 In August."

"There Were No Independent Newspapers Or Magazines In

Iraq

Before The War. Today, There Are More Than 100."

Excerpts from an article by Mona Charen (full article here)

One Marine, Sgt. Todd Bowers, who did two tours in Iraq, described the attitude of many press types. "They didn't want to talk to us." Why? I asked. "Because we were gung-ho for the mission." Bowers, who was saved from grievous injury when a bullet lodged in the sight of his rifle (a sight his father had purchased for him), is chary about the press.

In his first tour, he noticed that members of the press were reluctant to photograph Iraqis laughing, giving the thumbs up sign, or cheering. Yet Bowers saw plenty that would have made fine snapshots. In Baghdad, Al Kut and Al-Nasiriyah, Bowers reported no signs of anti-American feeling at all among Iraqis.

Fallujah, of course, was different, as the city was a hotbed of terrorism, and the battle of Fallujah was one of the fiercest engagements of the war. During the battle, Bowers found himself sharing a ride with an embedded reporter for the AP. He was asked what he thought of the destruction. Bowers responded that it was "Incredible, overwhelming. But it definitely had to be done." He also stressed that because the enemy had fought so dirty, tough calls had to be made. Later, he saw himself quoted in newspapers around the country to the effect that the destruction was "overwhelming" as if he could not cope. He had also made some anodyne remarks about rebuilding the damaged areas of the city, and responded "Where to begin?" when asked about the plans. He was speaking of the water treatment plants, medical facilities, and schools American forces were about to help build, but his comments were offered as evidence of the futility of the situation -- the very opposite of this eager Marine's intent.

There was plenty of progress to report, if the press had been interested. When the battle of Fallujah was over, the Marines set up a humanitarian relief station in an abandoned amusement park. Together with Iraqis locally hired and trained for the purpose and with an assist from the Iraqi ministry of the interior, they distributed rice, flour, medical supplies, baby formula, and other necessities to thousands of Iraqis. For six weeks, Bowers reports, the distribution went beautifully, "like a well-oiled machine." Not worth a story, apparently. Only when something went wrong did the press see something worth reporting. A small group of Iraqis were turned away from the food distribution point, though they had been waiting in line for hours. They were given vouchers and told they could come to the front of the line the next morning when supplies would be replenished. These few unhappy souls were then besieged by press types eager to tell their story.

At the same site, the Marines had repaired an old Ferris wheel. The motor was dead, but when two Marines pushed and pulled by hand they could get the thing turning to give rides to the children of the Iraqi employees. They did so for hours on end. A photographer from a large American media company watched impassively. "Why don't you take a picture of this?" demanded one Marine. The photographer snorted, "That's not my job."

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C., area.

{ Tangled Web of Lies }

[Taken from an article by Suzanne Fields] Lies are deadly stuff. Like all poisons, they have to be handled carefully. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practice to deceive," writes the poet and novelist Sir Walter Scott. Mark Twain was practical about it, too: "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."

Lies are particularly lethal in politics. They create a cauldron of double toil and trouble, nearly always in unpredictable ways. When a president lies, he's asking for it. "I am not a crook," said Richard Nixon, and he was driven from office. "I did not have relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," said Bill Clinton, and he was impeached. Now we're told, and told and told, that George W. Bush lied to get us into a war in Iraq. That could be impeachable stuff, too. A poll taken for The Wall Street Journal/NBC News suggests that 57 percent of Americans believe that George W. "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq." In Europe, the percentage is even greater, and in the Middle East, nobody ever believes anybody about anything (and with good reason).

Somebody is clearly lying to somebody, proving that "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." But even a casual examination of the public record demonstrates that the president is not the liar.

The lied-about president finally pulled his boots on with a speech on Veterans Day, reproaching not just the liars but those who listen to lies: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He reminded those with short memories that a bipartisan Senate investigation found that no pressure had been applied to alter the intelligence findings about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Look again, he said, at more than a dozen United Nations resolutions citing Saddam Hussein's possession and development of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction.

John Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cites the record of the Iraqis' own admission that they had developed chemical weapons, and their later assertion that they had destroyed them.

"They were obstructing the inspectors, and it was perfectly reasonable to think that they still had those capabilities," the ambassador told me over lunch (of roast chicken) this week in Washington. "In retrospect we should have done better at probing that assumption." But that doesn't diminish what was once reasonable to believe. He calls attention to the remarks of Chief Inspector Hans Blix in a briefing to the Security Council in 2002, that it was imperative that Iraq furnish strong proof of the claim that there were no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons left in Iraq.

" . . . [I]t would need to provide convincing documentary or other evidence," Mr. Blix said of Iraq at the time. "Production of mustard gas is not exactly the same as production of marmalade." Only months before we went to war against Iraq, Mr. Blix found 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker 105 miles southwest of Baghdad, and wrote that "they could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg." (Icebergs in the desert? But we got his point.)

If, as Mr. Blix now claims, he was only being cautious and that the president "misled himself," Mr. Blix gave the president considerable assistance.

Norman Podhoretz notes in Commentary magazine that the chief of staff for Colin Powell, when he was the secretary of state, said "the consensus of the intelligence services 'was overwhelming' in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981." There was also a credible belief that Iraq would be able to make a nuclear weapon in months to a year after it acquires 'sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.'"

The list of Democrats who believed as the president did, and fell all over themselves saying so, is a long list, and includes Bill Clinton; Madeleine Albright, his secretary of state; Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd; and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the Democrats in the House. If you don't believe me, you can Google 'em.

The warning by William James has a particular resonance for our time: "There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."

~Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.

[Taken from an article by Michael Barone] Go back, if we must, to 2002 and 2003. What we knew then was that (a) Saddam Hussein's regime had developed weapons of mass destruction—chemical and biological weapons and the beginnings of a nuclear weapons program—in the past, (b) that regime had used such weapons against its own people, and (c) that regime had refused over a long time to cooperate with the U.N. inspection program. Even apart from the intelligence reports indicating that WMD programs were continuing, it would have been grossly irresponsible for any U.S. government to have assumed that they had stopped. What kind of intelligence could we have obtained, in those circumstances, that would have convinced us that they had stopped? The failure of U.N. inspectors to find WMD programs? But they could easily be hidden, and the actions of regime operatives suggested they were hiding something. Statements by top-level defectors or regime members that the programs were not ongoing? Any intelligence analyst would have to assume that these might be disinformation. Statements by Saddam himself? Come on.

The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S. government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. I do not say the Democrats are being unpatriotic, a word they seem fixated on. So far as I am aware, no responsible Republican has charged that they are unpatriotic; John McCain refused Bob Schieffer's invitation to do so. But I do say this: The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of "Bush lied" are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country.

~Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report

Here's a list of actual quotes from a few well-known Democrats. Or watch and listen to the Democrats themselves making these statements here and here.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that what happens in Iraq "matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face - and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Albright's boss, former President Bill Clinton, talks about Saddam seizing opportunities "to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction..."

Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger says he is "certain" that Saddam will rebuild and use his WMD arsenal again - "as he has ten times since 1983."

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons - there's no question about that," says Nancy Pelosi says in her videotaped remarks.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller says "there's unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons in the next five years." Rockefeller also warns the U.S. not to underestimate the progress that Saddam's been able to make on developing WMD.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) talks about Saddam's attempts to gain access to nuclear capability.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says Saddam has "thumbed his nose at the world community, and I think that the president is approaching this in the right fashion."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she supports the president and action against Saddam because "it's in the long-term interests of our national security."