« Rove's 2006 election plan is revealed: | Main | This reminds me of a bumper sticker: "Nixon is no longer The Worst President Ever!" »


February 11, 2006

What should "our top priority" be?

-- by Thomas Leavitt

Russ Feingold delivered an excellent speech from the floor of the Senate: On the President's Warrantless Wiretapping Program, demanding that the President be held accountable for his criminal violation of our 4th Amendment rights from unreasonable searches and seizures, and shredding the President and Attorney General's feeble attempts to defend the legality of their domestic spying program.

That said, this particular phrase caught my attention: "Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority..."

Question: is he right? Is "defeating the terrorists" a national priority that should override all others? Does this make sense, socially, economically, or even militarily? I think I could make a pretty good case that there are a dozen other things we could be doing that would enhance the national security of the United States, prevent more deaths, economic damage, etc. than "defeating the terrorists". Why concede even this point? Or is Washington this obsessed?

It would be interesting to example the opinion of the American public in detail on this issue, to see whether, when faced with the actual figures and numbers, where the average voter wants their money and leader's attention invested. I suspect that a number of concerns a lot closer to home would rank as a higher priority.

Posted by Thomas Leavitt at February 11, 2006 9:47 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1575


Comments

Obviously, terrorism is not this administration's top national priority, or they would have been prepared to do at least a half-way decent job in New Orleans. The sad truth is that the utterly feeble response by the government to the disaster in New Orleans spotlights the fact that we're vastly farther away from being able to protect and defend ourselves against any kind of disaster, especially terrorism, than we were before 9/11. So once again the Dems are listening to what the administration says, and echoing that, instead of looking at what they do.

Should terrorism be our top priority? It certainly should have been right after 9/11, and we should be well prepared to deal with it by now. All we needed to do was to put security measures in place to prevent it, and emergency recovery methods in place in case something did happen. How many years should it take to set up this kind of thing? We can't even take care of a hurricane and flood at this point, which we used to be able to do, so we're clearly moving backwards, not making progress. "Defeating the terrorists" has been set up as a sort of vague ideal with a lot of emotional appeal. Nobody's defining what's a terrorist, which terrorists must we defeat, or even admitting that we haven't even caught the instigator of the attack on 9/11 yet. What a bunch of jackasses!

Posted by: MJ at February 12, 2006 6:17 AM

I doubt if this is a war that can be won with a military approach, Iraq is a good example.
Terrorism is a tactic of passion,how do you defeat a passionate person? All the money being spent on this so called war (to protect us) should be spent here in the states, by rebuilding our own infrastructure,
secureing our unsecured sites. Then and only then will America become safer.

Personally I think this war on terror is nothing more than a front for the advancement of the new world order and the pnac agenda.
Where are the democrats,independents and republicans on this issue?
Where is the media?


Posted by: scrugun at February 12, 2006 6:27 AM

bush, could per vintd 9-11 the plians wase cover up. some one got boun,s dirt cip and made lote money of 9-11.. ok thire wase t.te bom under funddachen. just look at picher,s 911. black fire smokey and white smoky for bom. thire wase lote people killd from it. just think a bout it ! now we are at war !
Some one makeing lote money of us,,just think about it !!
eddie from missouri

Posted by: Eddie at February 13, 2006 8:45 AM

The wire tapping isn't even a question of where our priorities are.
There has been wire tapping for years. Every logical person supports legal wire tapping for the safety of our coutry.
bush circumvented laws to wire tap WITHOUT a warrant. It befuddles me as to why they feel warrants aren't necessary. Checks and balances.
The special secret court to grant these warrants have received 16,000 requests and have only denied 5. The process isn't difficult or archaic or faulty. But bush jr. is.

Posted by: Brett at February 14, 2006 8:47 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page