This is about 5 posts rolled into one but it illustrates how the Dems are all over the place.  See if you can keep up with the spinning, zigging and zagging.

 

Last week the Democrats and their base were up in arms over the NY Times article, exposing a classified program to monitor international phone calls of individuals suspected of ties with Al Queda.  Some Democrats in Congress have questioned the legality of this, while some have argured that it is illegal and that impeachment hearings are in order. 

 

The left side of the blogosphere was further enraged when it was revealed that Bush approved mobilized Gieger counters to drive up and down public roads looking for traces of radiation, many conviced that this was impeachable and evidence of BushHitler's (as they call him) evil dictortarial ways.  (See my previous posts for examples).

 

The Washington Times reveals however that Democrats are concerned about being weak on national security:

So the Washington Post gives them a hand by conducting an interview and reporting on their concern about gaps in homeland security.  The article includes the following concerns by Democrats that they want to see fulfilled: 

_Install monitors at borders and every international seaport and airport to screen for radiation material entering the country.

_Install surveillance cameras at all high-risk chemical plants.

_Create one effective network to share quickly security-related intelligence and alerts with state, local and private industry officials.

_Track international visitors through a computerized system that takes their fingerprints and photographs as they enter and exit the country.

A central "network" of security-related intelligence that can be accessed by all agencies?  I thought the Democrats wanted to kill the Patriot Act and re-erect the Gorelick wall?

And wait -- I thought this kind of survelliance was an invasion of our civil liberties and was not Constitutional?

How is this going to fly with the Democratic party's base?

Well of course the NSA survelliance is completely legal and constitutional.  This was pointed out by a former Clinton justice department official, as well as John Hinderaker's excellent and detailed analysis, and more succinctly by a NYTimes Op-Ed:

The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions - areas where the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements are applicable - but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad.

Even while the NY Times tries to suggest on the front pages that Bush did something unprecedented and illegal, they can't stop the truth from appearing in their own editorial pages. 

Nor are they having much impact with the American people.  A Rasmussen Poll observes that:

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

You can almost hear the disappointment of their failed coup emminateting from the NY Times offices:  "I thought we had Bush this time but the people aren't buying it.  The only logical explanation is that they are trasmitting some form of mind control waves emminating from the Fox News Channel.  Damn that Karl Rove!".

At least the NY Times accomplished something -- they weakened our national security.

Michelle Malkin exposes the NY Times in an outstanding essay:  "The New York Times vs. America" and the NY Post makes some good points in "The Gray Lady Toys with Treason".

Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?

The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.

The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.

The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone.

The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens.

The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.

But lets shift our focus from the media wing of the Democratic Party to its political wing.  The Democrats clearly want to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to portray themselves as strong on security as they have idenfitifed this as a polling weakness.  But yet they are not concerned about the leaks of classified information and are willing to accuse the President of illegal activites and call for impeachment because it is popular with their ill-informed base. 

I agree with John at Powerline and his Wile E. Coyote theory that the Democrats are headed off a cliff

 

 

 UPDATE:  Scott Ott provides witty satire on the NY Times at Scrappleface

 

UPDATE 2:  Ann Coulter says Live and Let Spy: