Blatham and Thomas: you both responded as if I'd opined on the legality of the spying. Indeed, I pointedly went out of my way not to. I accept neither of your opinions on the legality any more than I do my own... and I don't feel qualified (nor politically motivated
) to offer one.
The fact that the legal advisors in the Whitehouse gave the clandestine operation the green light is sufficient reason for me to believe there is room for debate over the actual legality at the very least. Assumptions either way, IMO, are as premature as they are expected. I've little doubt our legal system will eventually sort it out and attempt to prevent future abuses or false accusations of same.
That being said (and hopefully understood this time): When the commander in chief charged with protecting me feels a covert operation is necessary to assist those in charge of providing that protection, yes, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I only know of one way to keep a secret myself;
don't tell anyone. The fact that this has become such a compelling topic for debate, sufficiently illustrates the need for secrecy in the first place. Common sense mandates recognition of the obvious; exposure of a covert spying operation reduces its effectiveness. As Tico pointed out; Blatham's armchair analysis that the operation was a flop is as unsupportable as it is naïve. We can't, and frankly shouldn't, be privy to any sensitive operational data they may have been uncovered and may very well be currently in use to our anti-terrorism benefit. Who coined the phrase "Loose lips sink ships"?
Whether or not this spying is eventually deemed legal or illegal, or who and how many politicians on either side of the aisle opine this way or that, these aren't at the core of the perceptional significance. To the layman, who isn't predisposed to Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush sentiment; the story is pretty easy to read:
Bush attempted to secretly spy on the enemies of our nation in hopes of foiling their plans. Bush's political opponents thought it more important to score political points than to allow this strategy to continue. Go ahead and pretend that constitutional defense was the motivating factor if you wish (as naïve as that would be)... But then factor in the level of importance Joe-public will attach to the Operation and its exposure. At worst; Bush flaunted the constitution in an attempt to defend the American people by subjugating the rights of relatively few for the good of the many. Even
IF this is proven true; the perception will remain that Bush and Republicans did everything in their power (and then some) to attempt to prevent more terrorist attacks in the United States. Democrats on the other hand; eagerly sacrificed one of the tools of that defense for political gain (with the feeble, even if noble, excuse of constitutional protection).
Conclusion: Republicans
appear even stronger on the issue of Defense while Democrats
appear even weaker. Multiply that
appearance if it's eventually proven that Bush was within his rights in the first place. Since
Defense remains the paramount issue in the eyes of Joe Public; this is a no-win strategy for Democrats and the sooner they figure it out, the better off they'll be.
On a personal note; since I would like to see a shift to a more moderate Republican leadership, I have a vested interest in Democrats not continuing to implode their campaigns with foolish strategies. (Re-insert Timber's picture of excavator burying itself here). Until they can mount a more palatable campaign; the Republican hardliners will have less incentive to defer to more moderate candidates. I'd like to believe the Hard-line Republicans would accept a moderate Republican Nomination before sacrificing the Oval Office completely. Giuliani and Arnold's speeches in the conventions last year lead me to believe this is possible.
