The framing in this CNN article Congress gives Bush administration more eavesdropping leeway is really pro-unitary-executive. It seems to be coming from the perspective that the legislative branch exists merely to act as a rubber stamp on whatever the President wants done. I feel sorry for all of those people out there who only use CNN as a source of news and end up with a warped perception of how our government is actually supposed to work. Here's the lead-in to the article, with my emphasis in bold:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House late Saturday night approved the Republican version of a measure amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 227-183, with most Republicans and conservative Democrats supporting the bill.
The White-House backed legislation closes what the Bush administration has called critical gaps in U.S. intelligence capability by expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.
Lawmakers have been scrambling to pass a bill acceptable to the White House [1] before they leave for a monthlong summer recess.
President Bush had threatened to veto any bill that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said did not meet his needs [2].
The Senate approved its Republican-sponsored bill Friday night. Immediately after that vote, a Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority.
Saturday night's vote followed fireworks in the House, where an angry group of Republicans accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of delaying a vote on the bill, the president's legislative priority [3].
[1] It's not the job of the legislative branch to mindlessly pass whatever the President wants. If you think Iraq is bad, imagine what it would be like if George Bush got his way all of the time.
[2] It's not the job of the Director of National Intelligence to write legislation. I'm sure he wants the ability to spy on anyone anywhere; similarly, the military would love to get rid of all of that pesky oversight that exposes war crimes like Abu Ghraib. Just because someone who "serves at the pleasure of the President" wants it doesn't mean that it's Congress's responsibility to pass it, nor does it mean that it's a good idea.
[3] Since when did the President set legislative priority? That's the job of the legislature to deal with. Bush has no right to be telling Congress what to work on, so why are they listening to him?
(Cross-posted elsewhere)