« Kerry springs into action!!! | Main | Worst political instincts ever »

True confession hour

I wonder how many liberals can be described as follows:

1. They sincerely oppose and dislike Bush, and they eagerly look forward to the day he will no longer be in power.

2. At the same time, they are secretly glad that he's willing to do some of the "dirty work" they'd like done (think NSA intercepts, aggressive interrogation techniques, and a preparedness to blow Iran's nuclear program out of existence.) They're glad someone is doing this sort of thing, and even happier that they can totally dissociate themselves from it by saying "He's not my president!"

I don't know how many liberals harbor such secret thoughts myself, but I do know the number isn't zero. A liberal, Bush-loathing friend of mine confessed to being among their number this morning. My guess is he is not alone.


The notion that we have to allow our President to do "dirty work" is foolish. The President of the United States can fight the war against terrorists while obeying the law and honoring congressional oversight.

It is interesting now that Christopher Hitchens has supported the lawsuit against the NSA intercepts that he has disappeared from the pages of this blog. He, however, makes a valid point that since the war against terrorists is probably going to be with us for a very long time, this is no time to allow Presidents to routinely place themselves above the law without oversight.

Thank God we have men like Senator McCain who are strong enough to stand up for what this government can be .. instead of people like you and your liberal friend who are so willing to give away so much in the name of well someone has got to do the dirty work so it's a good thing that you and your friend don't have to think about it.

PE, you presume too much. All the "dirty work" I want my president to do can be done within the laws of this land.

Well, then if it is done within the law and the people are allowed to know what is going on (not necessarily in every specific but in the general), then the work isn't dirty.

Lots of legal stuff is dirty, PE.

Well, then if it is done within the law and the people are allowed to know what is going on (not necessarily in every specific but in the general), then the work isn't dirty.

PE, on your first point, you obviously have decided that what Bush has done is against the law. Given the abundance of 'experts' from both sides who share markedly different readings of the action, I would be hesitant to be so assertive of presenting conjecture as fact just yet.

On your second point, I am flummoxed. Who exactly are 'the people' that you feel should be notified?

Members of congress? (They were)

The courts (See point one)

The tapped individuals (I sure hope not)

As to the NSA wiretaps, FOUR federal courts, along with the FISA court have all ruled that warrants are NOT REQUIRED for "gethering foreign intelligence."

That's why Clinton's Operation Eschelon (which netted, among other bounty, American traitor Aldrich Ames, via intercepting calls to him from overseas and searching his home WITHOUT a warrant) was completely legal.

The ONLY new wrinkle in Bush's NSA program is the intercepting of communication placed BY "American citizens" (like the "Lackawanna Six") TO suspected foreign portals.

No one argues that the courts have ruled that communications TO Americans FROM suspected overseas portals fall under the purview of "gathering foreign intelligence," BUT opponents are hanging their hats (tinfoil hats perhaps?) on the fact that the courts have not ruled explicitly on communications FROM "American citizens" TO suspected offshore portals, all the while trying to make the entire affair sound as though they're accusing the administration of listening in on calls between American citizens within the United States.

As much as any socialist ideas are anti-American, today's American Liberal/Left is also anti-American and at least most diehard American Liberals support anything that is anti-Capitalist/anti-American and support anything that harms, what they see as the "advancement of Capitalism/Americanism."

That's why the traitors who leaked the NSA intercept program have been lauded by many in the MSM and why Liberal media outlets had no compunction of publishing it, knowing that it would hamper domestic security efforts.

It has been estimated that the odds that a major (perhaps far larger than 9/11/01) terrorist event will occur within the U.S. (probably New York) before 2011, is better than 2 to 1 regardless of how tight we make security. Apparently such mundane concerns are of no import to the pseudo-intellectuals in the MSM.

I have to agree with you Barry. I discovered your blog while looking up how overrated Reagan was. I'm a liberal, and I feel that many of the things W has done as Pres. would have been given a pass by the press and general public because they think Dems are "for them" and the Reps "for rich, white folk"
The next pres. will have it easier because of what W. did.

Post a comment