For most of us, comparing Bill Clinton’s sins with George W. Bush’s is a pretty easy task. The prior had personal failings; the latter has presidential failings. The prior lied about his personal mistakes; the latter lies about matters of state.
ABC News’ The Note, responding to Howard Dean’s comments last night that “it’s a bad example for our kids for the President to insist it’s alright to break the law,” had a different take on the Clinton-Bush comparison.
Wethinks doing everything you believe to be legal and justified to protect Americans against terrorism is not at all viewed the same way by the American people as doing everything you believe to be legal and justified to protect yourself from an intern sex scandal.
Howard Dean seemed off to a good start when he reaffirmed the Democrats’ belief that the United States should most definitely be spying on terrorists. Then the DNC Chairman was unable to come up with any evidence of a wiretap of a domestic-to-domestic call having nothing to do with Al Qaeda or its associates. Dean also ventured into his message that Democrats also “believe in the law.”
Note to [DNC pollster] Cornell Belcher: What data are you using to brief Dean that shows his take on the NSA spying story as the right approach to win over half a football stadium in Columbus, OH?
The idea that Bush’s defiance of the law is easy to justify struck me as more-than-a-little bizarre. But if we take The Note’s GOP-leaning spin at face value, what does it take to convince half a football stadium in Columbus, OH?
Most of the arguments to date have focused on three principal approaches: privacy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. But Washington Monthly’s Paul Glastris suggests there’s a far more persuasive frame to this debate that’s gone largely unnoticed: incompetence.
Most people agree, or can be convinced, that in order to root out terrorist threats we need to give the NSA enhanced permission to snoop on domestic communications. But this is a potentially very dangerous power we’re giving the government. So the question is, do we trust the Bush administration to use this power with care and competence?
The answer is, of course not. The administration has shown, time and again, that it can’t be trusted to manage the power it has. Iraq, Katrina, the budget, mine safety, prescription drugs — each and every one a monumental screw-up. What possible reason do we have to presume that the administration hasn’t screwed up the NSA eavesdropping program?
That’s a good point. We’re talking about an administration that hasn’t been able to execute almost any aspect of governing effectively. But in handling a delicate, extra-constitutional surveillance program that listens in on Americans’ conversations, part of the implicit administration defense is, “Trust us; we know what we’re doing.”
Sorry, but that train left a long time ago. The idea that the Bush gang has credibility on government competence might be comical if it weren’t so sad.
As a practical matter, that’s one of the reasons our system has checks and balances. If the administration, any administration, is screwing up governing too much, there are other branches who can notice and reign the executive branch in. Except here. Bush not only expects us to trust him as he allows the government to listen to phone calls, he also expects to do without any oversight, at all, from anyone.
If this were a competent administration, it would merely be offensive from a constitutional perspective. But in light of Bush gang’s record of incompetence, it’s far too much to ask.