What can you give the person who has everything this year for Christmas? How about a little discreet electronic surveillance? All of us here in America are eligible for just that under George W. Bush's (our pinhead of state) regime. Over the past few days, George has been showing up on our television sets to remind us of just how legal all of this domestic spying really is.
Not only is it legal, according to our President, but it is a necessary and effective tool in disrupting terrorists. The problem is, somebody got it into their heads to tattle on the National Security Agency. Bush said it was "a shameful act" for someone to have leaked details to the media. Shame on you, free press (as provided in our constitution). Some have gone so far as to suggest that he is assuming powers not provided for in that same constitution. "To say `unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject," he said angrily in a finger-pointing answer. "I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country."
Okay, raise your hands if you are the ones who expect your president to promote a program involving electronic intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails. Bush said he had asked, "Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely." Who, exactly, did he ask? Pat Robertson?
Executive power is almost always exercised in conjunction with the legislature. Lately, George hasn't been getting the answers he wants from that group, so I suspect he's probably steering clear of them and appealing directly to the people. "I hope the American people understand  there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous." He continued, "I want to make sure the American people understand, however, that we have an obligation to protect you, and we're doing that, and at the same time, protecting your civil liberties."
Still have your hands up? Good. Here's what he said about any publicquestioningg of this policy: "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts." Hands still up? Okay, but here's what he told us about the failure of intelligence before the invasion of Iraq and the potential for emerging threats such as Iran: "Where it is going to be most difficult to make the case is in the public arena," Bush said. "People will say, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, `Well, if the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence on Iran?'"
Confused yet? Not to worry. So is he.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment