Unwarranted Complaints?

RE: unwarranted Complaints. Only former Bush I and Reagan soldiers would have the chutzpah to declare public outrage about domestic spying "the only thing outrageous" about the whole issue.

The major points:
1. The Bush administration has lost its credibility due to the many claims it has made since 9/11 that have proved to be, at best, false, and at worst, nihilistic fabrication by demented idealogues.
2. The Bush Administration (and Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey claim) claims it needs to be able to "act on information" instantly, without the need to wait for FISA approval. The problem is that since the Administration has proved so adept at "producing" information without any oversight by seasoned experts (the White House Iraq Group comes to mind), they have lost the faith of the American people that are capable of conducting intelligence gather activity.
3. Intelligence gathering is important, but it is hard and doesn't produce concrete measurable results. Or if it does, it's top secret, which in this Administration usually means money changed hands. There are some really basic things we can do to GUARANTEE an increase in safety and security that all of us can see with our own eyes, like imposing security requirements on chemical manufacturers. I've been ranting on this point for months, and it was highly ironic that right next to Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey's article was the NYT editorial saying, "Time For Chemical Plant Security."

Conclusion: arguing about the legality of domestic spying, or the seemingly endless need for more executive power, is to miss the point: the Administration has no integrity, they have a poor track record with regards to intelligence, both in gathering it and using it, and they are neglecting other far more tangible problems that can increase security right now. Therefore, the reason many of us are upset is that we remain convinced that the Bush Administration is more interested in furthering its own need for power to satisfy whatever strange vision they have for the world, than in protecting us from attack. This Administration has repeatedly shown it is more interested in grand, sweeping, ideologically-driven gestures than in pragmatic governance; it has repeatedly shown it contempt for expert analysis, and has consistently acted against the advice of grown-ups. And the American taxpayer is footing the bill while Dick and Rummy's big adventure goes "uh-oh". The apologists need to realize that they don't understand the conversation taking place. Of course, at the end of the day, I think the real conversation boils down to "Fuck you you fucking fuck!"
"No, fuck YOU you fucking FUCK FUCK."

WHIG: " THIS is what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's wartime chief of staff, was talking about last week when he publicly chastised the ''Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal'' for sowing potential disaster in Iraq, North Korea and Iran. It's this cabal that in 2002 pushed for much of the bogus W.M.D. evidence that ended up in Mr. Powell's now infamous February 2003 presentation to the U.N. It's this cabal whose propaganda was sold by the war's unannounced marketing arm, the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, in which both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove served in the second half of 2002. One of WHIG's goals, successfully realized, was to turn up the heat on Congress so it would rush to pass a resolution authorizing war in the politically advantageous month just before the midterm election."

The letter I wrote to the times (which they never publish) went like this:

To the Editor:

I don't think Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey understand why people are upset
about recent revelations of the NSA's domestic spying. They say,
"even the administration's sternest critics do not deny the compelling
need to collect intelligence." It's not about whether there's a
compelling need. It's about priorities and a failed track record.

Right now, the Administration is prioritizing spying over taking more
tangible steps -- with a guarantee of results, unlike spying -- to
protect Americans. More tangible things like (as noted in that day's
editorial) protecting chemical plants, ports, public transit, etc. As
for the White House track record, this Administration has a lousy one
when it comes to intelligence. At best, they have proven incompetent
when it comes to procuring and analyzing intelligence effectively. At
worst, the zeal for information led to a doomed war that was poorly
planned and poorly executed.

Based on this track record, I fail to see why we should let the
President have even more leeway when it comes to spying. Without
safeguards to prevent J. Edgar Hoover-style political subterfuge,
domestic spying is a very dangerous and corruptible responsibility --
one that I highly doubt this Administration is capable of maintaining.

This Administration needs adult supervision, and going through a
process with some inclination toward transparency might make it easier
to sell the idea of Democracy to an understandably sceptical crowd.