What Jane says.... NSA bad topic for Dems?

Now that the DoJ has filed its response to the NSA/FISA legal challenges -- and the Administration has moved into a full-on admission that we're spying without warrants and we're gonna keep on keeping on -- aren't we all really asking ourselves: "What next?"

Salon has a great article today (subscription req'd or watch a video for a day pass) from Walter Shapiro, detailing how the behind-the-scenes political consultants have been telling Democrats that the NSA issue is DOA.

 

Continued: By all means, read what Jane says on this topic.

 

Our comments below:

 

This is not the first time we have heard the argument that the NSA spying thing, or King-George-Gate, as Jeralyn would call it, is dangerous ground for Democrats because they will be seen as weak on security, soft on terrorism or whatever.

 

This "strategic" bilge is no doubt coming from the same knot-heads whose profession is, apparently, blowing elections for Democratic candidates. (Not that I would give a royal rats ass, if there was a viable third party.)

 

Certainly, the Rethug smoke machine is chugging at full tilt, and Fox is all a twitter, with that idiot, closet-case Mehlman doing the "we-got-caught" boggie, again; dancin' and blabbing, as fast as he can, the same old tired talking points.  (He apparently thinks that lies become truth if he can only tell them fast enough.)

 

But how in the hell does protecting and defending the Constitution make the Democrats weak or soft, on anything?

 

If we give up every right we have, including the right to privacy, we have already lost the war on terrorism, according to Bush, himself. Did he not say that the Islamists hated us for our freedom, that they hated our constitution and our way of life?

 

The secret bugging of America is a lot like the secret bombing of Cambodia.

 

The Cambodians sure as hell knew they were being bombed. So did the Vietnamese, the Soviets, the Chinese, The French....

 

The only people who were in the dark were we, hapless Americans.

 

Men who are clever enough to fly huge airliners into three buildings, causing 4 to collapse in the same morning, thereby achieving what the Soviet Union was unable to accomplish in 50 years of animosity towards us, hitting us on our own soil, are surely clever enough to suspect that they are being bugged and watched 40 ways from Sunday. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet that just about every Muslim in America suspects as much about themselves.

 

Any Al Qaeda agent in the U.S. after 9/11 would have gone to ground and stayed there, if they did not fly out of here, with the Saudi Royals and the bin Ladens, in the days immediately following 9/11.

 

Tice, the NSA Whistle-blower, says that millions of Americans have probably been caught in the NSA's broadened spying capabilities. Does anyone really believe that thousands, let alone millions of Americans have been chatting on-line with members of Al Qaeda?

 

There is now emerging evidence that the new protocols for NSA spying began in early 2001, after a trip to the agency by, guess who; Dick Cheney. As a matter of fact, he made the rounds of all the intelligence agencies shortly after Bush moved into the White House.

 

Bush, it seems, assigned Cheney to that task, as he made him the counter-terrorism top guy in the W.H.

 

It also has been reported that Cheney was interested in NSA reports with Americans' names, usually blacked-out, readable. Not only that, but he was clearly interested in communications of White House employees and people at the state department.

 

All of the above occurred long before 9/11.

 

Cheney finally called a meeting of the terrorism taskforce he was supposed to be chairing, about two weeks before 9/11. According to all accounts, the White House had not been interested in bin Laden or terrorism before 9/11.

 

Ashcroft actually forbade the subject to be mentioned to him again, and slashed spending for counter-terrorism in his budget.

 

Wolfowitz went damned near apoplectic when it was brought up in W.H. meetings, as he said it was silly to focus on one guy, like bin Laden.

 

Condi was not interested in the least, and moved counter-terrorism out of meetings of the principles and way off the front burner, in spite of warnings by Clinton's officials that Al Qaeda and terrorism would be the biggest threat to America and our interests abroad.

 

As it turned out, there were warnings flying around official Washington like freakin' mold spores. No one seemed the least bit interested.

 

So, why the hell was Cheney already revving up the Domestic Spying Machine?

 

Why was his interest in Americans?

 

Exactly which Americans was he interested in, and how did that change over time?

 

Who, in the administration, was/is scared of the Quakers and the Ragin' Grannies?

 

As Americans, can we pretty much count on the fact that we have been or are being monitored if we:

 

1) Communicate or have communicated with people in other countries, especially "Arab" countries. What about Israel or any of those cantankerous Canadians?

 

2) Belong to a religion of which the Apostolic Congress does not approve, because it is not insane enough, or opposes unjust wars...or, god forbid, consecrate a gay Bishop.

 

3) Belong to or receive e-mails from the Democratic party, any peace and social justice group or any group that is to the left of Attila the Hun.

 

4) Publish our absolute contempt for the lying, thieving, corrupt, war-profiteering, corporate money-sucking criminals in the Bush administration, and in Congress, on the web.

 

5) Visit web sites that spew the same venom we do, at times?

 

6) Read Al Jazerra more than once a week.

 

Just wondering.

 

Cause here is the thing. If you want to know what we are thinking and doing, who we talk to and where we get our news, just ask us!

 

Want to know all about our utter contempt for the Bushites, just ring us up. We are not shy.

 

We are also coming after you.

Legally. Non-violently. But it will hurt, nonetheless.