A good fisking of the Nagourney article I posted. Message 22088680;
NY Times Grasping To Comprehend
By AJStrata on FISA-NSA
Since Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is rampant at the NY Times, it is understandable they are going to be the last to be clueing into what is happening in the country regarding Bush’s efforts on the war on terrorism. In a week where Osama Bin Laden has resurfaced to once more threaten attack on this country, the liberals find themselves protecting Bin Laden’s right to communicate with his forces here in America, and pretending the risk is not Bin Laden, but the fact the liberals are not in power and the Republicans are in power.
Naively thinking BDS is rampant across the country, they launched into calls to impeach Bush for violating the civil rights of terrorists here in the US - even though they have no evidence any law has been broken!
So it is not surprising the NY Times is just now comprehending what is happening around them:
With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove’s blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush’s standing after a difficult year.
Whether the White House can succeed depends very much, members of both parties say, on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home.
Recent fear? I guess the NY Times is trying to refer to 9-11, the most horrific attack on our homeland ever. And it is just stunning that the liberals have not yet been able to discern between a government intruding on legal, political activities and a government stopping an act of war, that being an attack on our people. Why can’t liberals differentiate between an attack and an invasion of privacy? Is it because to them Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attack was not an act of war but a legitimate political statement? One they support?
But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.
Personally, Bush is at little to no risk because his actions target overseas terrorists and their communications here in the US. But liberals and democrats – are they at risk? They have everything on the line. Because Nagourney is right - it all depends on how the debate is ‘framed’. The NY Times tried to frame the debate as a violation of FISA, only to have to back track and call it simply a burden on the FBI to track all the leads. What the liberals do not understand is this is their last stand.
If America continues to see Bush’s efforts as necessary to stop terrorist attacks, and not related in anyway to the claims the government is invading the rights of good citizens (which has never even been claimed, let alone proved), the left will be deemed dangerously opportunistic in their lust for power.
Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures - perhaps extralegal ones - if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack.
Let’s get real here. Unless there is clear evidence of misuse of these power against political enemies, America is going to see this as part of the war on terror. If Bush sets the tanks against the Democrat party - that would be the kind of act that would put him at odds with America. Just the fact he could use tanks against Democrats is not going to shake America from wanting tanks on the front lines facing our enemies. Same goes for NSA surveillance.
Viewed from the perspective of the battles over the Homeland Security Act or the USA Patriot Act, this White House holds a tactical edge; it has repeatedly proved highly effective in defining complicated debates against the Democratic Party
Duh! Maybe that’s because they still do what they say and mean what they say. They say they are using these powers to fight terrorism - nothing more. And in many cases these are the same tools used against drug crimes and organized crime.
Applying the campaign lessons of simplicity and repetition, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms, and they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Nagourney should admit we wouldn’t have to repeat the implications of 9-11 on the rabid left if the rabid left could simply recognize we are at war with a group of people who claim themselves they are ready to die in order to destroy us. Repetition is only required for those lunatics that missed what 9-11 was all about. War.
By contrast, there is no single Democrat who stands as the voice of opposition.
Translation: they are not as stupid as Nagourney and his liberal comrades who think 9-11 was not a wake up call. The liberals are playing a losing game. They want to pretend (a) there is not risk from terrorism and (b) Bush is monitoring political opponents - not enemies.
What happens when America decides liberals simply see themselves as the brethren of Al Qaeda, who are a suppressed and misunderstood political movement with the right to kill Americans to make their case known. Well, if that happens there will be a political shift this nation sees once in a millennium. |
