Bush Vilified for Protecting Americans

In the midst of a global War on Terror, the irresponsible New York Times has made public information about a National Security Agency wiretapping program that is essential to the security of the United States.  That program has been reauthorized many times by President Bush since September 11.  Of course, liberals are pulling their hair out over the fact that the wiretapping of suspected terrorists has actually kept them safe.  To them, it is incomprehensible that a violation of “civil liberties” for people who are a threat to the country actually protects their civil liberties.  With all this brouhaha over the wiretapping business, one must wonder where the ACLU is.

Bush, shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, authorized the electronic wiretap of international phone calls and domestic emails of suspected terrorists.  Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA, said, “I can say unequivocally that we have got information through this program that would otherwise have been unavailable.”  Of course, liberals don’t care if this is true; they’re just focused on the “privacy rights” of suspected terrorists.  The New York Times said in a December 18 editorial, “Illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of civil liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not.”  Coming from a paper that thinks it would have been a mother’s “civil liberty” to murder Yours Truly had she known he was to be born with a disability, one finds it hard to lend credit to the Times’ position.

Of course, leave it to the media to blow the wiretapping program out of proportion.  Listening to CNN, one would think that the NSA was listening in on a little old grandmother in Maine making plans with her friend Connie to go to Vespers at St. Patrick’s next Tuesday.  Moreover, don’t expect the media to tell you about a Clinton-approved program called “Echelon” that monitored every phone conversation in the country throughout the 1990s without prior cause other than that Connie may be using “Vespers” as a code word for “jihad.”  The existence of this program was made public in a February 2000 “60 Minutes” interview by Steve Kroft.  Funny how they forget, isn’t it?

One shouldn’t be surprised by the vilification of Bush by the media.  After all, they vilified Roosevelt for his conduct of World War II, Truman for his conduct of the Korean War, Johnson’s conduct of Vietnam, and Reagan for his conduct of the Cold War.  Of course, the Times would never admit that its chief ally, the ACLU, wrote in support of Japanese internment during WWII.  If the recently leaked NSA wiretap program is so illegal, why then would the President publicly approve the program on national television?  It seems to me if it was illegal he’d try to cover it up.  Oh wait … that was Bill Clinton.

Still, it is amazing that the left still has no grasp whatsoever on how to keep the nation safe.  If wiretapping the phones of a suspected terrorist is a violation of individual rights, but dismembering disabled babies is an exercise thereof, we have a serious problem in this country.  In the midst of an undeclared third World War, readers of the Times are so supportive of the enemy’s habeas corpus rights that you wonder if they recall that if the terrorists had their way, no one would have habeas corpus, but rather, they’d all be dead.  Perhaps the next Times public opinion poll should say this:

Which of the following is a violation of civil liberties?

a.    Wiretapping phone conversations of suspected terrorists, or
b.    Stealing your elementary-aged daughter out of class to be raped by Uday and Qusay Hussein

Something tells this author that with the exception of Maureen Dowd and her ilk, most respondents will answer “b.”  Maureen will answer “a” because as long as Saddam gets a warrant before the kidnapping, he’s safe.  One doubts that the CIA gets a “warrant” before taking Saddam in for atrocities against humanity, but under their rule, that would’ve been standard procedure.