Daschle on Meet the Press

Former Senator Tom Daschle on Meet the Press:

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I think Jane is right. We have had a good deal of analysis done on what you can and cannot talk about, and I think the president'’s making a false choice here, and we'’re hearing again the argument this morning that somehow we - —we either are for hating the terrorists or protecting our values. We both - —we all support going after the terrorists. We support the wiretapping program. We support doing everything we can to ensure we've got the best information we can get. But we also support respecting the rule of law. That's what this is about, respecting the rule of law, and it'’s worked. This law has worked since 1978. We haven'’t had a problem before. You've got two chief justices of the Foreign Surveillance Act court, which have now suspended this law because of concern for what the administration has done. So what good is a law if the judges themselves are suspending it? We've got a problem here. We say let'’s - —let'’s abide by the law, respect the rule of law, respect our values, respect privacy, and let'’s go after the terrorists aggressively.

Some on the right would have you believe that this is Democrats "backpedaling." But I'm not sure I really see it. I'm not sure I've seen a single Democrat come out and say we shouldn't be spying on Al Qaeda, they've been opposed instead to the President's violation of the law in doing it. Now, as the President tries to defend himself, the outrage has grown into the weak justification he has used.

Daschle here is right. To argue that those who oppose the President's willingness to circumvent the law are favoring the terrorists is intellectually bankrupt. The President - be it Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or Carter - must obey the rule of law as it applies to the country. It's a necessity to keep our form of governement in existence.

Otherwise, what's to stop Bush from saying that he doesn't believe that either candidate in 2008 can protect America from terror, and that he's decided to appoint himself leader for the next four years? And what kind of outrage, if any, would that provoke on the right?