The Decider is the Divider

From the campaign trail:

President Bush ratcheted up his campaign offensive against Democrats on Tuesday with perhaps his bluntest rhetoric yet as he accused them of being “softer” on terrorists and willing to allow attacks on Americans rather than interrogate or spy on the nation’s enemies.

“Time and time again, the Democrats want to have it both ways,” he told donors here. “They talk tough on terror, but when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.”

He added: “If you don’t think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when al-Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican.”

It should be obvious that he’s lying about the debate on listening in on terrorists. People like me (not just Democrats) want our intelligence community listening in on the terrorists. We just want President Bush to follow the Constitution he swore to uphold. All of it, of course, but mostly the part about warrants. If it’s obvious they’re terrorists, what’s the difficulty in getting the (retroactive) warrant?

To President Bush’s specific accusation: what about when the hard choices are necessary to win a war? Whose soft side comes out then?

Is it January 2009 yet?