The Bush Trip Continued and Gingrich

In a brief stop-over in Estonia during the Latvian NATO meeting, Bush trotted out the old Al Qaeda-Iraq argument, with the claim that Al Qaeda is behind the Iraqi sectarian violence now occurring. Perhaps, in Estonia, he felt he could get away with it. While I don't totally discount his argument, so much of his insight has been shown to be based on false premises, he should realize by now that he needs to show "proof" when making such charges. This is especially true, when there seems to be ample contrary evidence being noted by his "generals in the field."

The information flow in this Administration continues to be a mystery to me. Whether Iraq or Katrina, the Presidential "interpretation" seems to depart radically from factual evidence "on the ground." And, the argument, "I know things you don't," just doesn't work anymore. If that is the case, he needs to find a way of conveying his "proof" to his audiences without compromising national security.

In his apparent failure to understand the above, he simply becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the "Newt" has begun to position himself for the 2008 Election and the Republican nomination for President. In a recent speech before some group celebrating the First Amendment, Newt delivered the keynote address. The main theme seems to have been that we must, given the War on Terror, be prepared to give up basic civil rights.

One commentator explained this as: "Newt's an 'idea guy.' He throws out lots of ideas; a lot bad, a few good."

I think it goes beyond that. Newt seems to be positioning himself to fill a perceived vacuum on the Republican "Right." With Giuliani on the Republican Left and McCain in the Republican Middle, the Newt is apparently catering to the Republican base on the Right.

As with Bush, I don't totally discount his point; the War on Terror, although it needs definition and more precise, attainable goals, is probably going to be with us for a long time. And, "traditional interpretations" of civil rights (particularly in the area of privacy) may need revisiting. But the manner in which this should be done, in my opinion, is through Congress and the Judiciary, not those seeking Executive power. Many Republicans, namely the current Administration, have been too quick to simply ignore basic civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror. What they seem to fail to realize (perhaps deliberately) is that civil liberties are the "base line" and that it is up to them to find ways of fighting terrorism effectively without negating these liberties. I would like to see more rational discussion on this point by organizations on the left and those in support of civil liberties, such as the ACLU. How do these people believe the war on terror can be fought without infringement on traditional rights? I suspect the answer lies in the direction of increased Congressional oversight and an expanded Judiciary, rather than the opposite...i.e. simply more Presidential power.