Prudence?

The President seems the most ardent, vociferous, and chronic defender of the NSA’s current surveillance activities. The recent revelation that senior members of the Attorney General’s Office expressed doubt about the legality of some of these activities and counseled against them provides an interesting insight into what some people believe prudence to be.

There is an argument that goes like this. The President politely listened to folks who dissented from his view about his surveillance initiative. Therefore, he proceeds prudently when deciding policy issues.

What it demonstrates is the opposite. Once again policy makers and experts within the Administration were thwarted in their efforts by a core group of political operatives within the White House and the whim of the President. Listening to dissent and then muzzling it under the guise of national security prerogatives does not constitute prudence.

There is another other argument that goes like this. The President informed Congress of his actions. Therefore, he is proceeding prudently. However, what we find is a demonstration of the opposite case. Some of the members of Congress dissented, yet they were muzzled by national security concerns. That is not prudence.

Another argument goes like this. The President says the process is reviewed periodically. Therefore, the President is proceeding prudently. Reviewed by who? Can’t tell you. It’s a secret. What is the process? Can’t tell you. It’s a secret. What are the results? Can’t tell you. It’s a secret. Prudence has nothing to do with it.

Another argument goes like this. The President needs the power to do whatever he wants to protect the country from terrorist attack. Yet the powers of the President to start surveillance activities before receiving a court warrant has never been challenged. The existing powers of the President sometimes defy the imagination. This seems like another example of the President stamping his foot and throwing a tantrum as he did with the banning of torture. That isn’t prudence either.

Another argument goes like this. It’s just some chicken shit limousine liberals out to get the President who are causing all the trouble. Yes, like Republicans in Congress and Conservative members of the Courts. Intemperate speech will get you no where. It is not an argument let alone prudence.

Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining, Senator.

The Outlaw Josey Wales