It's Bush's Duty to Spy on Terrorists

The Founding Fathers and the Constitution had an additional title for the President of the United States: it was Commander-in-Chief. In other words, he is the general over all generals. So as to defend the country from enemies, the Founders gave the President of the United States powers beyond even generals in the battlefield.

We would never question a general on the battlefield using reconnaissance — spying — to find out what enemy captains are communicating to privates elsewhere on the battlefield. In fact, that is the general’s job; anything else is dereliction of duty. Field commanders must gather intelligence.

Well, in the Jihadist Era in which we live, the entire world is the battlefield. And it is up to our generals to find out what the captains in al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are telling their privates in sleeper cells here across America. It is the President’s duty, the general of all generals during war, to find out what the enemy is planning against us. Where is he storing his ammunition? Perhaps in a mosque in New Jersey. Where are the meeting places of those agents dedicated to our destruction? Perhaps in an Islamic storefront in Michigan.

For the President not to delegate this reconnaissance to our agencies responsible for protecting us would be a dereliction of duty, it would show a President un-serious, unfocused, irresponsible.

Four years ago liberals accused the President of not fully using our domestic and international intelligence agencies to gather advance information of the impending attack of Sept. 11. We let ourselves be caught off guard, they said. Now that the President is doing exactly what everyone demanded after 9/11, i.e., using our surveillance to catch the enemy before he attacks, liberals cry foul. The newly-hatched rights of terrorists bent on destroying Americans seem more important to liberals than the right of Americans and their children to live.

Who should be impeached? A President who doesn’t make it his business to find out what the enemy has planned against the citizens of the United States. The foremost duty of a U.S. President is to protect us from enemies wishing to harm us. George Bush is right. I’m encouraged that he’s willing to take the heat. History shows that on many matters relating to terrorism Clinton and Gore would not take the heat and that Kerry would first need the approval of the UN, EU, the Hague, and the ACLU before doing what is in the best interest of Americans.

Bush’s critics are fanatics. A fanatic is someone so tied to an idea that he sees nothing of value beyond that idea. Not even the saving of innocent life. Some simply want to show how morally superior they are than the rest of us — they care even for the privacy and comfort of murderers — but deep down are counting on those “mean-spirited” Republicans to disregard the liberal platitudes and playthings and protect the country, and them.

The picture the mainstream media are painting is of a George Bush sitting upstairs in the White House with headphones attached listening to phone calls between innocent ladies somewhere in Columbus, Ohio talking about … John Kerry and Tipper Gore. The real picture is simply a President delegating authority to those Feds whose job it is to find out what the bad guys have in store for us, the good guys. Though some liberals do not believe we are the good guys.

What you should fear more than a President eager to protect you is an al Qaeda agent on the loose with a President who is too afraid, too politically correct and thus unwilling to protect you.