Leah Roffman, a freshman at Tufts University closes an essay on the Patriot Act with this:
Americans fear a terrorist takeover because terrorists would repeal our rights, threaten our safety, and disregard accountability to citizens. But our current government is doing all of those things right now. I might even become a victim of the USA governmental spying team just for saying so.
’nuff said.
w, at a press conference today, speaks on the presidential campaign and his focus:
�We’re arming, raising money to wage a campaign. And there will be an appropriate time for me to engage politically; that is, in the public forum.�
�To me, there’s a difference between that and actually engaging potential opponents in a public discourse in a debate. And there will be ample time for that. There will be ample time to differentiate views and to defend records in the face of political criticism. And I know that the campaign has started for some, in terms of the public debate from a political perspective. It just hadn’t for me yet.�
�I’m focused on the security of the American people, working with Congress to get a Medicare bill and an energy bill.�
Which is why it must not have been him out doing this:
If you had the time and money to trot around the country to attend all of President Bush’s recent fundraising speeches, you’d find him both scaring and reassuring his listeners about terrorists.
Yes, I know this isn’t unique to w. clinton, bush sr, etc., all abused their position as president to engage in fundraising efforts. I just wish they wouldn’t lie about what they are focused on and wouldn’t rip off the tax payers to fund these jaunts.
Maybe.
Samual Dash argues that the perps who leaked Plame’s identity appear to have violated at least 2 sections of the Patriot Act and should, under the act, be considered domestic terrorists.
Furthermore, Dash then suggests the additional set of tools that the Justice Department could be bringing to bear:
Can they treat this investigation differently from any other terrorist investigation? Under the Patriot Act, they have acquired expanded powers to wiretap and search. Will they place sweeping and roving wiretaps on White House aides? Will they engage in sneak, secret searches of their offices, computers and homes? Will they arrest and detain incommunicado, without access to counsel, some White House aides as material witnesses?
Certainly, nobody expects they will and I hope they would not employ such police-state tactics.
While no law enforcement officials should have police-state tools at their disposal the current administration is certainly a deserving target if said tools are going to be used against anyone.
The entire article is worth a read.
Via Talkleft.
w asked, in a speach to the Australian parliament:
Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?
Charles Kuffner has the best answer to this that I have seen so far:
That’s not the point
…..
The problem here is that this is the wrong question to be asked. It’s a meaningless question meant to distract us from looking at the implications of how we went about removing Saddam from power and what it has cost us in money, lives, missed opportunities, and international reputation.
Read it all. There is some good stuff in the comments as well.
Via Not Geniuses.
After reading this Financial Times article Tim Dunlop concludes :
If this is true, then my conslusion from that earlier post stands: if this is the case, this is a much more serious issue than the case of simply trying to smear and intimidate a dissenter (ie Joseph Wilson). This indicates a complete breakdown in trust between various government agencies.
Are the bushies really playing these kind of silly and dangerous to us games?