Bush on the Offensive - Stop Spying on my Spying!

Speaking to yet another pre-screened and "safe" audience at Kansas State University, Bush defended his domestic spying program by claiming that he is defending the nation against those "thugs and murderers." He also repeated his assertion that the leak of information about the existence of the program did great harm to "national security." It seems rather clear that we have a definitional problem here. Just who are these "thugs and murderers" that the spying is directed against? And what exactly is "national security" in the mind of our President?

Since the domestic spying program has been gathering information from wiretapping phones, cell phones and electronic communications of all type involving US citizens from all walks of life, must we assume that virtually any person walking down the street is a potential "thug" and that our neighbors are potential "murderers?" Why else would the government need to spy on these everyday people unless they are perceived by the government as being terrorists or of aiding and abetting "the enemy." There must be some consistency, even if foolish, between the parameters of the spying and the threat against which it is directed. If not, then no leap of faith or logic can establish a plausible argument to support the claim that the domestic spying is necessary to protect US citizens from terrorist threats. Unless we buy into the notion that the threat of terror resides primarily among US citizens, and the President needs to protect us from ourselves by suspending basic Constitutional protections against illegal seaerch and seizure, Bush's defense never even gets off the ground. And as a footnote, we should be mindful of recent documented reports that the Domestic spying program was authorized and initiated by Bush BEFORE the Congressional resolution permitting the President to use force in the wake of 9/11. That is the "authorization" that Bush had claimed legitimized his spying program. He now has shifted to the argument that he has "inherent" authority to decide when we are in a "state of war" and also whether to obey or disregard laws enacted by Congress.

"National Security," as used by the President seems to fit more congruently with his own behind than any definition of protections of the American People from some external threat. Bush argues that the leak of information about his spying, an action that has caused a stir on Capitol Hill and calls from around the country for consideration of impeachment, was a mistake and a dangerous threat to national security. Having failed to provide any concrete or credible examples of how public knowledge of the domestic spying has compromised security, it would appear that the only "damage" Bush can identify is the threat of impeachment based upon questionable legality of the domestic spying program he admits to having personally authorized. So it would seem that the notion of "national security," in the President's mind, is limited to covering his own backside and covering up unlawful abuse of his presidential power and office. Such hubris might pass a little easier for most Americans when the impact of Bush Administration abuses of powere are limited to people of other countries that, in our myopia, we can be persuaded to think of as "them." But when the abuse is directed against American citizens, the veritable "us," it is most difficult to overlook or forgive.