Trick question. He's both, and more. Really, in today's RNC mail, he's excelled himself in ways I cannot describe, only quote.
Let's start with the first sentence. "The President's most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people."
Already, he's off to a flying start. What does the presidential oath of office have to say about protecting the American people? Abso-fraggin-lutely nothing direct. What it does say is that he swears to (say it with me now, anyone who's ever had a federal job of any sort), "protect the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic (emphasis mine)."
And while protecting the American people might be implied by this and other oaths, affirmations, and powers delegated by the Constitution, it seems to me that his most solemn duty is right there spelled out very plainly.
"A critical element in this strategy is the terrorist surveillance program that the President authorized shortly after September 11th." And indeed, if they were only listening in on terrorists, that would indeed be a good thing.
"The terrorist surveillance program monitors al Qaeda terrorists and affiliates making phone calls into or from the United States - precisely the type of communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks. This is not 'domestic spying' on ordinary Americans arranging Little League practices or pot luck dinners. It's a tool that even FDR used in fighting World War II."
Hoo, boy. Where to begin? With the fact that they're monitoring domstic-to-domestic calls as well? With the fact that the 'communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks' was intercepted legally, well in advance, but not translated till several days afterward, rendering it useless (seems to me they need more translators, not more wire taps ... but then they fired all those gay ones ... but I digress)? With the Quakers in Florida, or the other war protesters, or the environmental groups? Sure, no Little Leaguers or pot luckers ... just peaceniks, civil libertarians and environmentalists. We all know PETA's just an al Qaeda front group.
Ah, hell.
(which means, if I may digress even further, "Continuous fire" in Minbari ... although any reference to a minbar is a sure way to get
myself put on a watch list)
*cough*
Moving on. "After September 11th, we heard so often that our government failed to connect the dots. So, the President signed the Patriot Act, which had been passed overwhelmingly by Congress. He took appropriate action to connect the dots. He reformed the government bureaucracy, enabling it to fight a different kind of war."
Re-formed the government bureaucracy indeed. New redundant agencies. Homeland security funds allocated according to political exigencies rather than need. Politically-timed terror threat level manipulations. "Different kind of war ..." Goodness, we hear that a lot. How do you wage war on a concept? On a strategy? Have we rolled up al Qaeda yet? Have we diminished terrorism? Seems to me the 'different kind of war' we're involved in is a war on the American way of life, a war on civil liberties, a war on the American pocketbook. But war's always good for big business, whoever we're told to fight. And fear is good for war, whoever (or whatever) we're told to fear.
"Now, the Patriot Act is up for renewal. How do Democrats respond? They play politics, brag about "killing" the Patriot Act (video here), and accuse the President of breaking the law and violating civil rights. These are not the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard our national security."
Hrm. I'll leave that last point open to debate, except to point out that they
are the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard the American way of life (which, by extension, I would assert, necessarily includes our national security).
Which part of the Constitution has to be gutted before Republicans and conservatives of good conscience wake up and realize these people aren't even acting like Americans, much less Republicans or conservatives? (oh, yeah, the second amendment; just you wait ...) How big does the budget deficit have to be to put a lie to the whole 'fiscal conservative' thing? How powerful does the executive branch have to be before they see the unconstitutional imbalance? How long till they start being Americans first and Republicans second?
And one last thing: If Bush keeps insisting that the UAMF gave him unilateral power to do what he sees fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' America, I'll keep comparing him to Hitler. It was, after all, Germany's Enabling Act that gave Hitler unilateral power to do what he saw fit, regardless of law, to 'protect' Germany from the Bolshevik threat.
I'm just sayin'. Act like an American, George, however much it hurts.
