Dan Simpson is (more or less) correct

Take a look at Dan Simpson's column today. From the first paragraph, he doesn't pull very many punches, does he?

President Bush's action in turning the National Security Agency loose to record American citizens' telephone calls and e-mails without following the law governing such matters is now being made subject by Mr. Bush to the usual administration smokescreen of lies and investigations that the public has come to expect when something bad the White House has done meets the light of day.

Not only does he come right out and proclaim "the usual administration smokescreen of lies" but he then immediately follows it with "that the public has come to expect." He's right of course. They lie and we're no longer surprised to see that they lie.

He then does some of our job for us (thanks, Dan - we really appreciate it!) with the next couple of paragraphs:

It is thus probably time to take a close look at what is occurring, to try to keep our eyes on the ball as Mr. Bush and his spinners kick dust at us.

First of all, no one is arguing that NSA shouldn't bug potential terrorists, nor that the CIA and the FBI shouldn't keep files on these people. In light of the blunders by the CIA and the FBI in the run-up to the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be clear folly not to.

But that isn't what this is about. What it is about is that there has been in effect since Congress passed and President Jimmy Carter signed in 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates the circumstances under which such bugging becomes legal -- as opposed to an arbitrary abuse of executive branch power. [emphasis added]

He clarifies a few paragraphs later:

How Mr. Bush decided that it was acceptable for him simply to ignore the 27-year-old law and just order the surveillance to begin -- and, presumably, to continue, since we haven't heard yet that he has ordered non-court-sanctioned NSA monitoring to end -- remains to come out.

He claims that the nebulous post-9/11 congressional resolution that he says authorized him to make war on America's enemies superseded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as law that he as president is required to observe and respect.

We will pass over in silence the question of whether the "war" on terrorism is a war and if "terrorism" is an identifiable enemy against which the United States can wage war and stay within the bounds of logic. We will also leave aside the question of whether the undeclared war in Iraq is one that justifies the bypassing of a law that is essential to the protection of Americans' civil rights.[emphasis added]

If the question were not left aside, I'd have to answer it with a hearty "Hell, no!"

My only disagreement with the eminently agreeable Dan Simpson comes next:

I am not building up to an argument for impeaching Mr. Bush because of his violation of an important U.S. law. I think there is no chance whatsoever that a Congress, both houses of which are controlled by Mr. Bush's party, would even look at such an action. In my view, the effort to impeach President Clinton was a major waste of time, even though his actions that led to it were certainly deplorable. There is also the truly frightful prospect that, if, by hook or by crook Mr. Bush were successfully impeached, Vice President Dick Cheney, in shaky health, would become president.

I am quite happy that he clearly asserts that Bush violated the law. Dan Simpson is a careful writer (and former diplomat) and if he writes the phrase "...because of his violation of an important U.S. law" without without adding the word "possible" (or some such synonym) before the word "violation" you can be pretty sure that he believes that the president violated the law.

I would part company on the impeachment, however. But then I am sure all the readers of this blog already know this. Impeach 'em all! If they violated their oath of office (which is clear) then they do not deserve to sit in the seats of power. Our constitutional system (what's left of it) needs to be protected. If that means that Dennis Hastert is president until the next election (or at least until the Abramoff scandal brings him down), then so be it.

Our system has to be protected from the Bush corruption.

He gains back my happy approval with the slam-dunk ending:

Mr. Bush cites war as the basis for breaking the law. The question is, war on whom? Could it not equally well be argued that the most credible threat to Americans' liberties comes from its leaders who break its laws?

Bravo, Dan Simpson.

IMPEACH