Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

President offered weak defense of domestic surveillance

President Bush's feeble attempt to defend his domestic surveillance program during the State of the Union address was embarrassing. We have a sitting president, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, willfully and arrogantly disregarding the laws put in place by the Constitution, Congress and the FISA court. He then misleads the American people on live television in an attempt to justify his behavior.

In his speech, Bush stated, "We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late." According to the 9/11 commission report, intelligence officials knew full well about these hijackers and were hot on their trails. According to the former chairman of the 9/11 commission, "The problem was the CIA and FBI not communicating and not picking them up." Domestic surveillance without a warrant wouldn't have done anything to stop these guys.

A 44-page document was released last month by the Congressional Research Service, Congress' research arm, concluding that this surveillance program conflicts with existing laws and is based on weak legal arguments. Even some congressional Republicans have begun to question this practice. While few outside the White House agree with him, Bush continues to claim that he has constitutional authority and statutory authority to eavesdrop on us without a court order.

Most people want quick and easy answers, but they also want the truth. George Bush is quite adept at giving quick and easy answers. The only problem is, his answers aren't always based on facts.

Overlooking tax cut logic

I am only left to shake my head that an intelligent group of editorial board members could reach the conclusions you did on Feb. 1 regarding the president's State of the Union message.

More important is how you have failed to miss every lesson of history related to the economic impact of tax cuts. In case you missed it: The U.S. economy is roaring. So much so, that the Federal Reserve tightened credit again, to slow things down. This is all related to the tax cuts.

Unemployment is at the lowest levels in a generation. Homeownership is at an all-time high. Construction of homes and commercial buildings is going on everywhere. Our state is running an enormous surplus, even after cutting taxes.

Simply put, when we have more of our money to spend, we will spend it. Many will actually invest the tax reductions in growing or starting a business, which helps to build the economy all the more.

By advocating the position you did, you ignore that the real issue is deficit spending. The key word is spending. I do believe that at every level of government, we should insist on less spending. But with a war, the latest disaster and more, it seems that is not likely to happen any time soon.

Why not say what you mean without shrouding the thought in fuzzy language? The position of the Times seems to be that taxes must be raised.

Going deeper in debt

Re: The State of the Union address.

The national debt is going to hit its mandated ceiling in about two weeks. This will require Congress to raise the lawful limit so the U.S. government won't be insolvent. Under President Bush, the debt has climbed from $5.6-trillion in 2000 with a positive cash flow to $8.2-trillion with an annual deficit of about $400-billion.

The president spent about 50 seconds on this problem. He told us he was going to cut about 140 programs and save about $14-billion. That's great! He's been in power for five years and now he's going to cut 140 unnamed programs. The interest payment on the debt is about $350-billion a year!

Mr. President, even if you keep your promise of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 (which you won't), the national debt will be closing in on $10-trillion. Who's going to repay that debt?

We need energy innovation and pay-as-we-go fiscal management in Washington, not the same old cut taxes while fighting a two-front shooting war and another secret war on terror.

I wish someone from either party had the leadership skills to come forward with a 21st century plan of action instead of same old stuff.

Stop this administration

We, the members of St. Pete for Peace, would like to point out the inaccuracy and hypocrisy of some of the president's statements in his State of the Union address.

Bush declared, "We are winning in Iraq." However, according to U.S. generals, the Iraqi resistance can't be defeated militarily, and 82 percent of Iraqis surveyed consider the U.S. occupiers, not liberators. Bush's policy of staying the course in Iraq is like continuing to drive a car the wrong way down a one-way street.

President Bush's position that the world must not permit Iran to gain nuclear weapons is hypocritical considering our own massive nuclear arsenal. Iran has learned from North Korea's example that the only way to fend off a nuclear bully, such as the United States, is to build your own nuclear weapons. We can't demand that Iran abandon its nuclear program until we scale back our own.

At the same time President Bush spoke of defeating "enemies of freedom," peace activist Cindy Sheehan was being arrested inside the House gallery for simply wearing an antiwar T-shirt. The Bush administration has proven itself to be the real enemy of freedom with its domestic spying and crackdown on dissent.

The president claimed the Unite States supports Mideast democratic reform, yet he is demanding that democratically elected members of Hamas change their policy to suit his wishes.

It is up to the people to demand that this rogue administration be stopped and its ambitions of world domination, cloaked in the thin guise of democratic liberation, be quashed.

Restore freedom here first

I withhold comment on the irony of much of the content of the president's State of the Union address, but nothing could be more emblematic of the Bush presidency than this:

As George Bush was waxing eloquent about "spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world," Cindy Sheehan, the invited guest of a U.S. senator, was being arrested and led away in handcuffs. Her crime? Sitting quietly in her seat while wearing a shirt with an antiwar message.

Mr. President, before we spread freedom and democracy throughout the world, we'd better restore a little here at home.

The Capitol culture?

Re: T-shirt earns exit from House gallery, Feb. 1.

Because Cindy Sheehan was ejected from the gallery for wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan, Beverly Young, (congressman Bill Young's wife) was also ejected for wearing a T-shirt with her message. A sergeant of the Capitol Police said, "She was not ejected from the gallery. She did leave on her own."

My gosh! Can't anyone in Washington tell the truth?

[Last modified February 2, 2006, 02:15:36]