Fortunately Bush Doesn't Read Newspapers

President Bush's decision to illegally spy on Americans and his proud and unapologetic stance toward that decision have brought editorial wrath down upon him. Fortunately for him, the Bubble President doesn't read editorials. Or newspapers for that matter. Picture books seem to fascinate him, however.

If he was paying attention he would have seen this in the Washington Post.

"IN THE WAKE of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the New York Times reported last week, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of hundreds of U.S. citizens and residents suspected of contact with al Qaeda figures -- without warrants and outside the strictures of the law that governs national security searches and wiretaps. The rules here are not ambiguous. Generally speaking, the NSA has not been permitted to operate domestically. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that national security wiretaps be authorized by the secretive FISA court. "A person is guilty of an offense," the law reads, "if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute" -- which appears, at least on its face, to be precisely what the president has authorized."

The Post goes on to naively suggest that the Republican congress of corruption should look into the illegal activity of the Bush Administration. Fat chance.

"Congress must make the administration explain itself. In the aftermath of the revelations, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said hearings on the matter would be a high priority in the coming year. That's good. It should be unthinkable for Congress to acquiesce to such a fundamental change in the law of domestic surveillance, particularly without a substantive account of what the administration is doing and why."

Rightttttttttttttttt. Arlen Specter is going to take on Bush and Cheney.

From the Right Coast to the Left Coast, editorial pages have been uniform in their condemnation. The Los Angeles Times follows the Post in suggesting that Congress has a job to do here.

"Now even sympathetic lawmakers can be expected to view the Patriot Act more skeptically. The revelations about the NSA raise two fundamental questions about the administration's rationale for increased powers: If it's already spying on its own citizens, then why does it need the Patriot Act? Alternatively, if it's already spying on its own citizens, how can it be trusted with the Patriot Act? This administration has yet to fully acknowledge that with greater powers must come greater accountability."

Note to the Times, we are in the middle of a Right Wing coup and you are just now getting the idea. Thanks for paying attention.

President Bush even gets criticized in San Diego County, a bastion of right wing thinking (Duke Cunningham, Duncan Hunter, Howard Kaloogian, Bill Morrow). The North County Times goes all historical on Bush, pulls out a quote from Big Ben Franklin.

"Our democracy must always keep some element of the judiciary between the people and the awesome powers of the state. The temptation to violate civil liberties is just too great. Even security officials with the purest intentions inevitably drift toward greater authority and toward less protection of the civil rights of their targets. Our system must always work to maintain a prudent balance, and here a neutral judiciary assumes paramount importance.

These concepts are not new, of course. Benjamin Franklin was particularly eloquent: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Another newspaper that missed the memo about the Right Wing take over of our government. Suggesting that the courts will defend our liberties seems pretty naive when you look at who is being appointed to the judiciary. Supreme choices like Alito and Roberts, and a slew of really hard core right wing nut cases to lower Federal courts. Yes, these people will protect us from the Bush Administration. Wasn't it the Republican Supreme Court that installed Bush in office in 2000?

Franklin was right. Bush and his cronies have trashed the Constitution in the name of security. I remember when we only used the strategy of "destroy a nation to save it" for foreign countries. The Bush Administration has brought that concept home.