Democrats: Bush Too Tough on Terrorism

Ever since 9/11, Democrats have grappled over how to most effectively criticize President Bush's handling of the war on terrorism. The Democrats faced a political dilemna: How could they placate their nutty, far-left base, while still managing to convince a majority of voters that the Democrats could be trusted on national security? Is Bush a bungling wannabe war leader who is asleep at the wheel while terrorists plot another strike, or is he a paranoid warmonger who sees threats everywhere, and who will stop at nothing--not even pre-emptive invasions, Big-brother intimidation, and torture--to wipe out an exaggerated (or imaginary) enemy? Which is it: Is Bush too soft on terrorism, or too tough?

Well, after the New York Times recently revealed that in the weeks after 9/11, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on domestic calls linked to al-Qaeda, the Democrats seem to have finally settled on the latter caricature of Bush the out-of-control tyrant who takes this anti-terrorism business a little too seriously. Senator Barbara Boxer even went so far as to say that in his press conference today, when the President not only admitted authorizing the wiretaps, but vowed to keep doing it, he was admitting an impeachable offense. The Democrats have their new scandal-of-the-month on which they will make their stand.

All I have to say is, please, keep it up. Every time Boxer or Dean or Harry Reid or any other prominent Democrat gets up and accuses the Bush administration of going too far and doing too much to protect American lives, voters will see yet again why the Democrats first earned their soft-on-national-security reputation in the first place.