Wednesday, February 08, 2006

By the way, since Steanso tends to lean a wee bit to the left (no, no- it's true) and may not always give conservatives their proper due on those occasions when they stand up and fight for the good of the country (instead of simply toeing the Republican party line), I would like to take a second to say that I've been kind of impressed that a few Republicans have actually stood up and expressed their dismay and disapproval over this whole domestic wiretap program. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, has come forward with demands that Bush's eavesdropping program be subjected to a "complete review" in order to determine its legality, Constitutionality, and suitability for continued operation. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania stated that he fundamentally disagreed with the White House's assertion that the 2001 resolution granting the president the authority to go to war also granted the power to eavesdrop on domestic phone conversations. Specter has urged the White House to make the entire NSA eavesdropping program open to Congressional review. Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican expressed reservations regarding the program, stating that he "never envisioned" that his vote for the 2001 resolution would be construed as a vote that the president would later use to try to circumvent FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
Anyway, I just think it's nice to see a few conservatives stand up and say that the law's the law, and we're not going to let you trample on it even if you're the president. I think that the fact that Republicans are breaking ranks on this also shows the severity of the issue (even if most of the American public hasn't really seemed to click to the fact that the president committed numerous federal felony offenses by taking part in this wiretapping scheme without obtaining any warrants).
For those people who are out there who still don't get it, Steanso would just like to point out that illegally ordering an intelligence agency to spy on thousands of Americans is a much bigger deal than getting a B.J. from a White House intern. The only person who should have really cared about Monica Lewinsky was Hillary (and maybe Chelsea). Who should care about having their phones illegally wiretapped by the federal government? Probably everyone in this country who ever wants to hold a private conversation on a phone again.

8 comments:

JMD said...

So, you stand up and give your political opponents their due, but only when they agree with your position?

The League said...

Why is that a question?

Weedo said...

Don't you do the same? Doesn't everybody? Do politicians give their political opponents their due when they don't agree with their position? Did Karl Rove and Bush praise these Republican senators for pursuing this? Do Catholic priests and bishops praise atheists for spreading the message that God doesn't exist and Jesus is not the savior of mankind? Do pro-life people praise pro-choice people for supporting abortion, or do pro-choice people praise pro-lifers for trying to outlaw abortion?

Show me one example of this happening in the history of mankind. Catholic priests may praise some atheists that are pro-life, but again the praise to their opponent comes because they agree on that one position. Not that I think many (if any) pro-life atheists exist, but hypothetically speaking.

You have made a comment that is a no brainer. It's human nature.

Steanso said...

Yeah, I think I just try to support people who I believe are doing the right thing. I don't always agree with Democrats, and their are times when I side with some Republicans. Although I will readily agree that I lean to the left, if you're trying to say that I'm just a mouthpiece for the Democrats, I think I would take exception to that and strongly disagree. Although I agree with them on many issues, I definitely don't support their positions on every issue (I was ready to strangle a good number of them when they voted for the war)

JMD said...

Of course it is a no brainer. That's what I am saying. That's why it is not magnanimous or bipartisan to say, "Hey, my oppoinents did a great thing when they finally agreed with me!" What kind or praise is that? They are always wrong until they finally agree with someone else?

Politicians are courageous or cowardly, intellectually honest or deceitful, bold or timid, or whatever, whether they agree with the observer or not.

The really interesting thing would be to see if Steanso can identify an act of political courage or intellectual honesty when he disagrees with its substance or result. That's the post I want to see.

JMD said...

Is an act not politically courageous or intellectually honest in the eyes of Steanso unless he agrees with it?

Steanso said...

It can be both of those things and still be morally wrong- and if it is wrong, then I will not applaud it, regardless of whether that viewpoint requires courage or is honestly expressed (Hitler may have spoken with heartfelt sincerity and courage, but it didn't make him less of a monster).

Steanso said...

I would say that Cindy Sheehan is an example of someone who has been courageous and honest although I don't really agree with the position that she is advocating. I agree with her that going to war was wrong, but I think that America would be abandoning its moral obligations at this point if we were to abruptly withdraw from Iraq, leaving the country to tear itself apart in civil war. I understand her position and I relate to her frustration, but I think that it's too late to abandon the people of Iraq now that we've created so much instability in that region.