RightWingSparkle has taken a moment to comment on the President's recent speech about NSA al-Qaeda surveillance program.

My only comment has to do with the President's postition, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"

Taking a cynical position, as the old Sage would, it is entirely possible that a President and Congress could break the law together. For example, if this program was designed to spy not on al-Qaeda, but on Americans, then by passing those provisions of Congress's authorization for military force, Congress would be breaking the law. A president who used the law to that end would be doing the same. If the President were breaking the law with the consent of Congress, then it wouldn't much matter why he would be briefing Congress, since they would be merely sharing information about their collaborative lawbreaking. Of course, this is nothing more than a hypothetical.

Now, in support of the President:

The Constitution grants the president broad powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Spying on those who would harm Americans easily falls under that jurisdiction, as the armed forces' function is to secure the right of the people to life, liberty, and property. Knowing what our enemies are up to is clearly part of that function.

I find it quite interesting that those whose rights are being protected by this action, including many involved in approving the program and had briefings on it, are the ones crying like spoiled little babies. They support the President when they think it's politically expedient, and change their tone entirely when they think it's not. I can't give them much credit for their judgment. What's politically expedient is often at odds with what is in the Constitution and what's best for America.

Oh yeah, and what Donks think is politically expedient is often at odds with what is politically expedient. Americans are an intelligent lot, and can see right through this bullshit.

Thank God for Weird Howard. He keeps it funny.

RWR