The Daily Show: America to the rescue!

Coming soon: 'Domestic spying surge!'

Torture, secret prison camps, the suspension of habeas corpus, American war profiteers in Iraq, the abuse of our troops abroad -- and the wounded that return... this administration is a veritable cesspool of corruption and abuse of power. It is hard to single out a particular abuse and call it 'most infuriating' given the endless stinky bubbles burping to the surface of the Bushie oil slick.

Everyone has a hot button issue. If I had to pick one issue that continually makes my head explode, it would be the rampant use of domestic spying by this very obvious partisan and power-hungry administration -- and the lack of real excuses given for watching our every move.

A new commentary by Fred Kaplan in Slate, entitled "SPY SURGE: Prepare for more Domestic Spying," discuses an interesting section in the latest National Intelligence Estimate that appears to push for even more domestic surveillance.

Why am I not surprised?

I believe the direct assault on our forth amendment by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of all American citizens, without knowledge or consent, is the single most impeachable offense that has been committed by this administration:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Many conservative scholars agree. Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

It doesn't seem to matter (off the table, off the table, we're too busy, it's not worth the time.)

Meanwhile... you can imagine that if the Bushies consider it open season on their more famous political enemies - to the point where former Surgeon General Richard Carmona wasn't even allowed to attend the Special Olympics because the Kennedys endorse it - oh just imagine how the the vast majority of Americans who oppose the war are hanging in the partisan, political wind.

With all of our recent and persistent noise about ending the war and impeachment, are we to illogically believe that this administration bears us no ill will?

Perhaps this is at the heart of my endless frustration with Congress. Our Constitution was devised to protect us, the people, from abuse of government power. I expected our representatives in this government to stand up for us - and the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect - and call off these very obvious partisan dogs of war.

At the very least, I expect them to verify that this domestic spying is not being abused for partisan purposes.

Now that the war is going badly, and people are starting to notice that we never went after Al Qaeda where they really live, do the Bushies suddenly decide to step up action against Pakistan?

If they really wanted to stop Al Qaeda, they've known for some time exactly where to find them:

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

The Bush Administration has known for some time that Bin Laden was in Pakistan. And many recent news reports have claimed that we are in fact much less 'safe' since our invasion of Iraq than we were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Even the military has soured on the surge, as shown in a recent poll by Military.com. One comment jumped out at me, because it made me realize again, how badly these troops have been misused in this war - this war they thought would protect the homeland from any future attacks of terrorism:

"Or we pull out, use the money for the war to bolster our forces and anti-terrorism capabilities and be ready to respond when [enemies] show themselves," writes "userArmy."

So if this was indeed about fighting terrorism at all: the obvious choice for any administration would be to redeploy and pressure Pakistan to give Bin Laden up. We pressured Afghanistan... and surely we would be justified in demanding that Pakistan stop harboring terrorists hell bent on attacking us within our country.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq, our claim that we are 'only waging a war on Terror' would be much, much stronger. As things currently stand, we are viewed the world over as an invading force.

But of course... I'm talking of reason, I'm speaking of rounding up the actual terrorists that attacked us, and forgetting all about the OIL. And because we citizens are wising up to the real motivations behind this war, we must be watched. And I'm hoping that is the least of it. Conservative and former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts wrote a harrowing commentary in Counterpunch:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

And the government is spying on us?

In his commentary in Slate, Fred Kaplan revisits reports about the National Security Agency's "data-mining" technologies, and the intrusive "Total Information Awareness" network the Pentagon was originally advocating - without any proof that this assault on privacy was even effective. Apparently all previous domestic spying was for naught, because if recent reports can be believed, Al Qaeda is once again operating on our soil:

Most of the report (which I analyzed here) concerns an alleged resurgence of al-Qaida. But toward the end, the authors mention a small but expanding number of "violent Islamic extremists inside the United States" who are "becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."

Kaplan has also noticed a slight modification in what - and who - they're now monitoring:

The report also notes dangers posed by "non-Muslim terrorist groups," "single-issue groups," and "even small numbers of alienated people" who might "find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack—all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader."

Small numbers of alienated people? Single-issue groups? Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I'm guessing they're not talking about the KKK or skin heads. Or even the nation's most vocal homophobic and racist haters - because these can be found all over the radio dial, and even on TV. So who are they talking about?

And honestly: couldn't such vague and sweeping language include nearly every angry citizen in the United States? How about every citizen calling for impeachment? Or every citizen who wants the United States to withdraw from Iraq?

Small numbers of alienated people? What does that mean? Alienated from what -- from Bush? I'd like a little clarification.

One thing is perfectly clear. We were told that we were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq as a justification for the continuation of this escalating war. We were told that we had to fight them 'over there, so they wouldn't fight us over here.' We have known for some time that Bin Laden was probably in Pakistan, and that Al Qaeda was in fact rebuilding there. Finally the government admits as much. And their idea of a solution?

Spy on the American people again. 'Spy on us here so you don't have to fight them over there.' Yes, we get it.

The comments say it all

According to ABC, they are going to swim across the ocean and fight us here. Gee George: I guess fighting them over there didn't really have much to do with 'fighting them over here' after all.

Do I feel safe? Don't ask. I've never felt less safe in my entire life - or more sad.

I would post this on ABC's Blotter comment section... but honestly - what would be the point? After reading the comments, I suddenly wanted to go outside in the woods and say goodbye to the trees, the critters - and apologize for the unfathomable behavior of my species. It is obvious we are too stupid to survive.

But had I posted a comment, this is what I would have said:

OK. Fine. Why don't we just give up democracy completely, or any remaining pretense of it, and become a giant, war-making factory with the sole intent of bombing the hell out of the rest of the world.

Oddly, after WWII our apparently crazy 'Greatest Generation' grandfathers thought otherwise, and under the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe -- and Japan.

And guess what..? Europe and Japan actually liked us afterwards. In fact, they loved us. Until we started pushing everyone around, that is.

But for awhile, we really were greeted as liberators. And Japan even kinda, sorta forgave us for dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on their heads. I'm not sure I could have done that, but they managed it. All because we behaved in a generous, intelligent way after the war.

If we had helped these people in the Middle East initially and continually, rather than simply using them to get to the oil, we wouldn't be destroying ourselves and the world right now.

Al Qaeda took issue with our abandonment of Afghanistan after we secretly helped them fight the Russians, and then left them without any support in the aftermath (yes, Ron Paul was right about 'blowback.' The truth hurts, doesn't it?) They also didn't like our bases in Saudi Arabia. But of course, we had to pound our military chest and demand that 'our will be done,' even in someone else's country.

Of course they hate us. Everyone hates the neighborhood bully; and that is what we have become.

We could have used our might and money to make the world a better place. We could have dismantled our war machines - all of us - and now be effectively addressing climate change, rather than threatening to blow each other off the planet. Our children might have had a future here on planet earth. But I guess there wasn't enough money in that, right George? Right Dick?

Had we actually cared at all about the well-being of Iraq after we initially invaded, we would have gotten their electricity on ASAP instead of locking down the oil fields. We would have restored their infrastructure, provided them a safe environment, given out food -- basically been the liberators we were pretending to be.

So sure, guys -- bombs away, until there's nothing left of the planet, greedy corporations and their bomb-making factories. Because that is the ultimate end-game here, when everyone has nukes and global hatreds grow stronger by the day.

Maybe the next round of creatures that arise from the primordial muck will prove a little smarter than we were. Perhaps a little less greedy. One can only hope.


Maire out.