Outrage at outrage

By

Omygosh!  All the criticism directed at the New York Times must be having some effect!  Look what they published ...  in their op ed column: a defense of Bush spying coupled with strong, well reasoned criticism of the outraged Bush critics.
 
As they succinctly summarize

The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.

Yep, the president actually has the constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence, there was a clear vital need to do so (September 11 and all that in case the critics forgot about that), obtaining necessary warrants takes too long and some groups just don't have a"reasonable expectation of privacy." 

So why all the outrage, the shock, shock absolute shock?

The contretemps its revelation has caused reveals much more about the chattering classes' fundamental antipathy to strong government in general, and strong executive power in particular, than it does about presidential overreaching.

I would add it reveals also the chattering classes fundamental hatred of Bush and an attempt to get him by any means necessary.

So if President Bush did not abuse his power what did he do?

The Constitution's framers did not vest absolute power in any branch of the federal government, including the courts, but they did create a strong executive and equipped the office with sufficient authority to act energetically to defend the national interest in wartime. That is what President Bush has done, and nothing more.

Thank you for clearing that up.  And thank you New York Times for publishing it.  Continue diversity in publishing——it will make you stronger.
 
Ethel C. Fenig  12 28 05

Omygosh!  All the criticism directed at the New York Times must be having some effect!  Look what they published ...  in their op ed column: a defense of Bush spying coupled with strong, well reasoned criticism of the outraged Bush critics.
 
As they succinctly summarize

The program's existence has now become public, and howls of outrage have ensued. But in fact, the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself.

Yep, the president actually has the constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence, there was a clear vital need to do so (September 11 and all that in case the critics forgot about that), obtaining necessary warrants takes too long and some groups just don't have a"reasonable expectation of privacy." 

So why all the outrage, the shock, shock absolute shock?

The contretemps its revelation has caused reveals much more about the chattering classes' fundamental antipathy to strong government in general, and strong executive power in particular, than it does about presidential overreaching.

I would add it reveals also the chattering classes fundamental hatred of Bush and an attempt to get him by any means necessary.

So if President Bush did not abuse his power what did he do?

The Constitution's framers did not vest absolute power in any branch of the federal government, including the courts, but they did create a strong executive and equipped the office with sufficient authority to act energetically to defend the national interest in wartime. That is what President Bush has done, and nothing more.

Thank you for clearing that up.  And thank you New York Times for publishing it.  Continue diversity in publishing——it will make you stronger.
 
Ethel C. Fenig  12 28 05