Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., received more attention than normal during Sunday morning’s Republican presidential debate. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney contrasted Obama’s comments that he would be willing to meet with all foreign leaders with his saying that he would order a strike against Osama bin Laden even if Pakistan opposed it.
"I mean, in one week he went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies," Romney said. "He’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."
But a spokesman for Obama had a comeback that likely resonated with many Americans: "The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn’t agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
It might be, as President Bush argued, that the new law giving spy agencies expanded wiretapping powers is needed to prevent another 9/11 attack. But in rushing through the legislation, Congress didn’t do justice to Fourth Amendment civil liberty concerns.
The law gives intelligence agencies greater authority to monitor foreign-to-foreign calls that happen to pass through U.S.-based call "switches." That seems appropriate. The grayer territory is how the law allows greater surveillance of Americans calling abroad.
Under the law, an American who is phoning or e-mailing someone in London or Paris, say, could have his communication monitored by authorities without a warrant, as long as they could reasonably claim that their target of surveillance was the person on the foreign end of the line.
What’s disconcerting is how this important change was rushed through (much like the Patriot Act) with a minimum of debate, and with many Democrats caving out of political fear of being blamed in the likely event of another terror attack.
At least Congress put the new law on a six-month timeline for renewal. These broad spying powers must be accompanied by strict oversight.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
After years of inaction on global warming, President Bush has announced plans for a major climate summit next month of the world’s leading polluters to try to reach agreement on “substantial” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a belated but welcome acknowledgment by Bush that climate change is cause for concern and action — and that America’s leadership is needed.
Bush still is resisting European calls for mandatory emissions targets — and with some justification, noting that some of the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China, refuse to agree to strict caps. Without all nations on board, a global climate action plan doesn’t have much chance to work.
But America, as the world’s largest economy and most advanced technological society, has a duty to lead on this issue.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Think the talk of partisan acrimony on Capitol Hill is overblown? Consider this tart exchange recently from a hearing in the House about reauthorization of the children’s health insurance program:
“I think if you kick a Republican in the heart, you’re going to break your toe,” said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
“I submit that if you kick a Democrat in the heart, you would break the bank,” replied Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
