Pretty sound stuff.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208143,00.html
'WALLACE: Mr. Lamont, does your victory show that at least some Americans are weakening in their will to fight the War on Terror?
LAMONT: No, I think on the contrary. What this election showed is that a lot of people in Connecticut think that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with our War on Terror. It's been a terrible distraction.
Here you are talking about the failed terrorist plot today. It originated in Pakistan, goes through London, and here we have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
I think it was that disconnect that a lot of people focused on in Connecticut.
WALLACE: When Vice President Cheney said that your victory encourages the Al Qaeda types, did you find that offensive?
LAMONT: Yeah, I did find that offensive. I find that terribly harsh and wrong. Look, what's going to - what we ought to be doing is fighting the War on Terror in a serious way. I think we've gotten a little bit complacent, to tell you the truth. Maybe we've had a wake-up call in the last couple of days.
We ought to be focused on homeland security. We ought to be focused on our ports, on our airports and public transportation, a lot of which you were talking about here today.
We also are much stronger when we work in concert with our allies, when we have shared intelligence. And I think that we've taken our eye off the ball there a little bit, and I think it's time to focus.
WALLACE: Let's talk, though, about some of the weapons that President Bush authorized after 9/11 to fight the war on terror.
You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act.
Now that we've had word of the terror plots - and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't - would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?
LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law. And if he wants to change some of the laws, if he thinks the FISA rulings were too slow and he needed some help, go back to Congress and change the laws, but don't do it unilaterally.
What I objected to was the fact that we had a president and some of his team that thought they were above the law, and then they said we'll fix the laws after the fact. I thought that was wrong.'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208143,00.html
Click. Read the rest.
more posts...