Too little, too late
If you've seen the "news" today, you've probably seen the footage of President Bush at an event in NC, at which a man essentially told Bush he should be ashamed of himself.
See the "story" here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/bush.ap/index.html
One of the guy's points (and there were few), was that he evidently didn't appreciate having his phone tapped. Funny thing is, Bush is actually .... finally... articulating the reasons for many of his administration's policies. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us who don't want to have to call each other "comrade" or "fellow traveller" after Hillary is elected in '08) it's too late for that.
The whole Democratic/anti-Bush hubbub about domestic surveillance is utter, complete hipocrisy. In any other context, Democrats are shameless in their advocacy for greater government control over, intereference with, and surveillance of, our lives. The "news" media is just as much to blame for feeding the flames of this burning non-issue. In any other context, the media lauds and coos over surveillance cameras "keeping you safe". Over and over, we see footage of the 9/11 hijackers coming through Logan airport, or Di leaving a resturant before dying in a car wreck, bank robbers, etc. Democrats want serial numbers on bullet casings. They refer to governmental control over your health information as "progress". Never mind the fact that none of that crap did anything to save a life.
In responding to the guy in Charlotte, Bush pointed out that the 9/11 Commission Report cited a failure of the government to forsee the gathering threat before 9/11. Essentially, the Report concludes that more comprehensive information might have prevented the attack. Personally, I doubt that, but that's pretty much what the Report said.
Bush is probably right. Abhorrent though it is, had the NSA been more attentive to communications (e.g. phone calls) coming into the country pre-9/11, they may have seen something coming, and we might not have had this problem.
For one thing, articulating that justification now won't help Bush's poll numbers. We've already been indoctrinated that the Bush administration is untrustworthy, and that they're spying on us without warrants. Had he gotten his message out sooner, maybe he could have headed off some of the heat. Now, though, the damage has been done. The discourse has been framed around "warrantless phone tapping" and similar phrases. Bush had his chance to frame the discussion. He missed the boat.
All this still doesn't excuse the "news" media and the Democratic party's two-faced attitude about surveillance. Look at the their track record on surveillance in any other context. It's never presented as "a bad thing". Big Brother is watching you on the sidewalk, in Wal Mart, at the gas station, at the airport, at work .... and if you live in an apartment complex with a "security" camera, he's watching you at home, too. Phone surveillance is no different, and the "justification" for it isn't either: if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
If the Democrats and the "news" media are going to get their "pretty pink panties" in a wad about one form of surveillance, they need to have a fit over other kinds of surveillance, too. Because those of us who obey the rules DON'T APPRECIATE BEING WATCHED.
At least now Democrats know how law-abiding gun owners feel. Being treated like a criminal in the name of the "common good" or for "security" purposes sucks ... doesn't it?
See the "story" here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/bush.ap/index.html
One of the guy's points (and there were few), was that he evidently didn't appreciate having his phone tapped. Funny thing is, Bush is actually .... finally... articulating the reasons for many of his administration's policies. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us who don't want to have to call each other "comrade" or "fellow traveller" after Hillary is elected in '08) it's too late for that.
The whole Democratic/anti-Bush hubbub about domestic surveillance is utter, complete hipocrisy. In any other context, Democrats are shameless in their advocacy for greater government control over, intereference with, and surveillance of, our lives. The "news" media is just as much to blame for feeding the flames of this burning non-issue. In any other context, the media lauds and coos over surveillance cameras "keeping you safe". Over and over, we see footage of the 9/11 hijackers coming through Logan airport, or Di leaving a resturant before dying in a car wreck, bank robbers, etc. Democrats want serial numbers on bullet casings. They refer to governmental control over your health information as "progress". Never mind the fact that none of that crap did anything to save a life.
In responding to the guy in Charlotte, Bush pointed out that the 9/11 Commission Report cited a failure of the government to forsee the gathering threat before 9/11. Essentially, the Report concludes that more comprehensive information might have prevented the attack. Personally, I doubt that, but that's pretty much what the Report said.
Bush is probably right. Abhorrent though it is, had the NSA been more attentive to communications (e.g. phone calls) coming into the country pre-9/11, they may have seen something coming, and we might not have had this problem.
For one thing, articulating that justification now won't help Bush's poll numbers. We've already been indoctrinated that the Bush administration is untrustworthy, and that they're spying on us without warrants. Had he gotten his message out sooner, maybe he could have headed off some of the heat. Now, though, the damage has been done. The discourse has been framed around "warrantless phone tapping" and similar phrases. Bush had his chance to frame the discussion. He missed the boat.
All this still doesn't excuse the "news" media and the Democratic party's two-faced attitude about surveillance. Look at the their track record on surveillance in any other context. It's never presented as "a bad thing". Big Brother is watching you on the sidewalk, in Wal Mart, at the gas station, at the airport, at work .... and if you live in an apartment complex with a "security" camera, he's watching you at home, too. Phone surveillance is no different, and the "justification" for it isn't either: if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
If the Democrats and the "news" media are going to get their "pretty pink panties" in a wad about one form of surveillance, they need to have a fit over other kinds of surveillance, too. Because those of us who obey the rules DON'T APPRECIATE BEING WATCHED.
At least now Democrats know how law-abiding gun owners feel. Being treated like a criminal in the name of the "common good" or for "security" purposes sucks ... doesn't it?
posted by Alpineman, RN at 5:23 PM
1 Comments:
Yes, yes it does. I don't like feeling like I'm not trusted when I'm doing nothing wrong... and don't give me that bull about cameras being for my own protection. It ONLY helps in cleaning up the aftermath, if that... it does absolutely nothing to help me before or during an emergency.
Post a Comment
<< Home