With Feingold getting all of the national exposure that a formal Congressional hearing brings, the head Wisconsin GOP spinster Rick Graber decided to chime in with a press release. I’m not sure that you can unspin what he says but let’s take a moment to at least deconstruct the press release.
Russ Feingold and his Democrat friends have no plan to defend America.
I’d hate to have Graber defending me in court because he appears to have a very short memory. Wasn’t it just a day or two prior to this release that the Dems made some news with their own national security platform? They mentioned things that they have been talking about for a while now. Just to refresh your ailing memory Rick, let me mention a few of the points:
- Actually dedicating massive assets to capturing/killing Bin Laden. You remember him, the guy that was actually behind the attack on 911 (some-times you neo-cons get confused as to who actually attacked us that day).
- Responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq, so that they can actually be used in the war on terror rather than “nation building” and refereeing what has become a civil war.
- Eliminate our deep dependence on foreign oil.
- Implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 911 Commission (since he still has not done so, one can only assume that Bush never will).
Well Rick, those sound like plans to me. You may not agree with all of them or you may not like them, but they are plans to defend America.
More from the press release:
He continues to seek cheap political points even though legal experts and several federal appellate court opinions say that Russ is wrong.
Just wondering where you stood when your party was rushing to censure and otherwise punish Bill Clinton. Was that behavior your side’s way of “seeking cheap political points”?
Which legal experts? Bush’s lawyer? Are we supposed to just trust you? We are neither sheep nor neo-cons, we need specifics and facts, not spin. Which appellate court heard arguments about Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens? Why couldn’t you have at least stated the date and name of these alleged “court opinions.” Not that I think you are a liar, but I’d feel more comfortable if you gave us something verifiable.
Our President doesn't just have the legal right to do everything possible to preserve the safety of our nation, he has the moral obligation to do so.
He can “do everything possible”? So if he says that it is to “preserve the safety of our nation” he can just herd up and imprison those that disagree? Using your logic can, he suspend due process if he claims that it is for “national security” reasons? I have never seen such a bunch of girlie men in my life. Someone says “boo” and you are ready to surrender any and all of your civil liberties.
This week, a panel of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges said that President Bush acted legally…
I’m assuming that you got this talking point from the right wing rag, the Washington Times. You might want to compare their “reporting” of this panel to that of the New York Times, Baltimore Sun, and even the Chicago Tribune. None of those papers (or any other that I could find) confirms your assertion that these judges “said that President Bush acted legally.” If you simply dismiss these papers as being part of the vast left wing conspiracy, then try actually reading the TRANSCRIPT of the hearing. Go ahead, I challenge you. Here is a hint; you won’t be able to back up your comment based on any statement in the transcript.