When Are We Going To Have A Grownup Debate?

A few entries down, I posted the new Tom Tomorrow cartoon which asks if we can have an adult conservation about the war or illegal surveillance without conservatives resorting to childish accusations of Bush critics supporting terrorism.

The answer, apparently, is a big NO.

The President said today this-

Calling a censure resolution "needless partisanship," Bush challenged Democrats to go into the November midterm elections in opposition to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. "They ought to stand up and say, `The tools we're using to protect the American people should not be used,'" Bush said.

Once again, we see the White House falsely frame the debate... while the media does not care to offer a correction. They blindly accept the President's assertion/lie that anyone has ever tried to stop the government from conducting legal surveillance of terrorist communications. No, to them, the debate is not about the law that the President broke. It's not an issue of executive power and of the fate of checks and balances during wartime. No, it's merely a fictional debate between the War President and weak Democrats who want to help Al Qaeda. This is, of course, a strawman argument, as is the President's speciality.

This nonsense needs to be challenged, publicly and as often as possible.

Democrats- TAKE THE CHALLENGE.

But not the fake one that the President has invented. You can blow off that debate in a minute by flatly stating, as Feingold has, that the President is a liar and that he had/has numerous tools for wiretapping terrorists, but chose to violate the law simply because it was easier to do so, not out of necessity.

The President's case is weak, which is why he and his followers are busy knocking down strawmen, calling people 'moonbats', and accusing critics of not wanting to capture terrorists. The fact that he is winning this debate is only because Democrats are letting him. In one sentence, above, I knocked this down. But I am nobody, so that's irrelevant. We need all Democrats (and some sensible Republicans) to show some courage and take on these liars and demand that this debate be based on the facts- not on third-grade level name calling and spin.

Questions that should be asked- Why did the President need to break the law, as opposed to simply wanting to? How did the incredibly accomodating provisions of FISA (which, among other things, provides options for retroactive warrants) hamper the President's ability to move quickly in ordering surveillance? Did the President and the Justice Department just think up the AUMF and/or Article II legal justification after the program was outed or is that what they believed all along? Why did the President make several statements in 2004 making it clear (falsely) that all wiretapping involved court orders? How does this program relate to recent reports of the Pentagon (etc) spying on peaceful political activists? How many secret, illegal spying programs are going on? Will Congress or the courts ever be briefed on them? Since no court orders or records are kept of this warrantless wiretapping, how can they offer assurances that innocent Americans aren't being spied on (factoring in FBI reports noting that this has happened)?

More- Considering terrorists are very well familiar with methods and practices of surveillance, how did the leak hurt national security? Does the President respect whistleblower laws? What impact does jailing reporters have on a democracy? Does the President believe there is any limit to his power? If so, where specifically would he draw the line?

I could go on for hours... but I won't.

And I won't hold my breath waiting for the National Review crowd to focus on those issues.

Glenn Greenwald (who luckily is being read more and more) looks at this false debate, including a new RNC ad accusing the Democrats of "reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda". He also schools National Review neocon Ramesh Ponnuru for his false statements on the censure statement and rolls at his eyes at the childish 'moonbat' label. That post was in response to a KCRW radio discussion Greenwald had yesterday with Ponnuru, John Dean, and others on this issue. Is the media too afraid of offending these cons by pointing out these same things?

Finally, back on the issue of censure itself, Russ Feingold was on the Charlie Rose show. There is a partial transcript and a link to video- here. The Senator challenged his Democratic colleagues to stand up for themselves and said-

"How can we be afraid at this point, of standing up to a president who has clearly mismanaged this Iraq war, who clearly made one of the largest blunders in American foreign policy history? How can it be that this party wants to stand back and allow this kind of thing to happen?...

...The idea that Democrats don't think it's a winning thing to say that we will stand up for the rule of law and for checking abuse of power by the executive --- I just can't believe that Democrats don't think that isn't something, not only that we can win on, but it does, in fact, make the base of our party, which is so important, feel much better about the Democrats. The Republicans care deeply about making the base of their party feels energized. What about the people of our party who believe in the Democratic Party especially because they fight for the American values of standing up for our rights and civil liberties?"

A good question.

And, like the numerous ones I posed above, who knows when it will get answered...