Bush building straw men

The Milwaukee Journal ^ | 3/22/06

[baldeagle390]

Like any other controversial subject, the Iraq war has produced its share of half-truths, deliberate or unintended distortions and inflated claims and counterclaims. It would be naive to expect the environment produced by this war to be completely free of political pollution. But it is not too much to expect our political leaders to avoid the worst forms of distortion and slander - the sort of thing President Bush descended to at his news conference on Tuesday.

On March 13, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a Senate resolution to censure Bush, arguing that the president authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens and then misled Congress and the electorate about the program. Feingold was alluding to the surveillance of international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens, which has been carried out since shortly after 9-11 by the National Security Agency without the court-ordered warrants ordinarily required.

At his news conference, Bush said neither Feingold nor the other Democratic critics of the program have actually called for getting rid of the program, and he suggested that "if people in the (Democratic) party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, 'The tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used.' They ought to take their message to the people and say, 'Vote for me. I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program.' "

Bush knows very well that neither Feingold nor any other prominent Democrat would ever say the U.S. should not spy on its enemies. What Bush's critics are saying - and some of them are Republicans - is not that the government should stop electronic surveillance but that it should conduct these operations in accordance with the law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was written precisely to govern such surveillance.

Bush said Feingold's censure motion was "needless partisanship." The resolution was premature, to be sure. But since when is it "needless partisanship" to demand that presidents obey the law?

The president, of course, insists that he has not broken the law. He argues that his constitutional powers as commander in chief entitle him to ignore the FISA law. He also argues that Congress gave him the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps when it adopted a resolution to use military force against those who carried out the 9-11 terror attack.

It is for the courts to make authoritative judgments about what is legal and not legal. A real congressional investigation wouldn't hurt, either. But the president's claim that he is not bound by FISA strikes us, as well as many legal scholars, as contrived and lame. His implication that Democratic critics want to stop spying against al-Qaida terrorists is worse; it is a gross distortion of the facts. And this, we suspect, is entirely deliberate, constituting "needless partisanship."

[NonValueAdded]

Horse hockey ... GWB has been remarkably consistent with his statements. It is the dinosaur media that seems to discover "new" things, likely because what GWB says is out of phase with what they've been misreporting.

[FlipWilson]

Just send the author of the article a copy of In re Sealed Case. Then, ask who is and isn't obeying the law.

[BallyBill]

It is almost like the left has finally figured out what a Straw Man is, they surely have been using him long enough.

[rellimpank]

--this must be the latest Demotraitor talking point--this is about the third variation of this theme I've seen--

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Neither Feingold nor any other prominent Democrat is incapable of understanding:

1. Article II of the Constitution.
2. The facts and basic logistics of modern communication.
3. The proven use of telephony by the 9/11 terrorists to make calls from the US to foreign countries and to receive calls from foreign countries while in the US before the attacks.
4. The fact that Senators are not in a position to pass on the legality of Presidential actions. If they wish to challenge the propriety of executive action they need to walk to the nearest U.S. Courthouse and file suit;

and yet they still act this way.

[advance_copy]

What Bush's critics are saying - and some of them are RepublicansRINOs - is not that the government should stop electronic surveillance but that it should conduct these operations in accordance with the law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was written precisely to govern such surveillance.

In other words, they want to shut down the Terrorist Surveillance Program and go back to letting lawyers and judges decide how we gather intelligence on Al Qaeda. A "pre-9/11" mindset, these leftists have.

[Mike Darancette]

Bush knows very well that neither Feingold nor any other prominent Democrat would ever say the U.S. should not spy on its enemies.

Bush knows no such thing but he obviously believes it to be true.

Now who is building straw men?

[OpusatFR]

This must be the new talking point, "Straw Men."

The phrase has been used by just about all of them at this point.

Dear Reporters and Pseudowriters,

Use something else. For your enlightenment, I've found this for you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Straw Man is as overused at this point as Nazi, McCarthy, Neo-Con and yellowcake, for that matter, Plamegate and other truly boring, regurgitated verbiage.

Love,

Opus

PS - Do all of you behave like some gaggle at all times?

[talleyman]

When a lib says anything is "is a gross distortion of the facts," that means it's exactly right.
("Can you say 'Gorelick Wall?' I knew you could.")

[Hendrix]

"Could you please point me to the documentary evidence that proves that the Bush administration is using its surveillance program to listen in on only the phone calls of proven terrorists? Oh wait -- I guess that would be classified, so we'll have to take it on faith. (yeah, right...)"

This statement shows your ignorance. Presidents have been using their authority to spy on our enemies for centuries, and the citizens do not know every detail of who is being spyed on. Presidents have had this power since the Constitution was passed, long before the law in 1978 that tried to take that power away and which is unconstitutional if that is in fact what it is trying to do.

[lowbridge]

Could you please point me to the documentary evidence that proves that the Bush administration is using its surveillance program to listen in on only the phone calls of proven terrorists?

Could you please point me to the documentary evidence that proves that the Bush administration is using its surveillance program to listen in on the phone calls of law abiding citizens or at least deliberately targeting law abiding citizens to listen in on?

[liberty_lvr]

Not to mention the fact that nobody owes you anything. Go find your own "documentary evidence" one way or the other if it's that important to you. People around here tend to be fairly pleased that their president is taking an active role in defending the country instead of chasing down loose women and campaign donations.

I highly doubt the Federal Government is even the slightest bit interested in you or your telephone conversations. But like all idiot libtards, you think the world revolves around you.

I saw the crap you posted on the Drudge - ABC memo flap...I can tell you right now, unless you're a chronic complainer and are just looking for somewhere to vent, you won't be very happy on this blog.

[1rudeboy]

Bill Clinton would do the very thing that The Milwaukee Journal finds so offensive. Moreover, he did it without hesitation, and instinctively. All we heard then was that he's "slick," and reporters/journalists fawned over him for it and his mastery of the technique.

[ozzymandus]

"Straw man" is apparently a new talking point for the commie-libs. They've been using it a lot the last few days. Somebody at RAT headquarters sent a fax to the gang members.

[middie]

Of course, neither is the actor engaged in specific conduct the last word on the leagilty, vel non, of the conduct he's engaged in. That is the clearest example of the consummate importance of the law established by Marbury vs. Madison that it is the judiciary, and only the judiciary, that announces what the law is that controls any given situation.