blevkog

A Washington Post done yesterday and reported today says that 63% of Americans believe that it's okay for the NSA to collect information on their phone calls in their attempt to fight privacy terrorism. In the same survey, 51% approved of the way Bush was handling privacy matters.

Naturally, Right Blogostan is hailing this as proof that the peeps are behind the prez on this issue - Michelle Malkin veritably gushes:

Message to the MSM from Americans with their heads screwed on straight: We're not scared.

I presume she means not scared of the NSA, because it sures seems like they're still scared shitless of al Qaeda.

"We're not scared to surrender even more personal liberties." What do we need these rights and freedoms for when we have this shiny flag to wave?

"We're not scared to continue unquestioning on this war against, uh, um, er, who, exactly?"

"We're not scared to put ever more trust into the capable hands of The Decider."

She then goes on to quote Captain Ed, who phrases the issue interestingly, saying that this is merely a "sacrifice" being asked of the US people in this war:

When we finally acknowledged that Islamist terrorists had declared war on us, George Bush warned us that we would have to make sacrifices in order to beat our enemy. So far, we have not been asked for much in the way of sacrifice.

Why do I think this is interesting? Because it is curious that so little has been asked of the US citizenry since this "global war" was launched five years ago. It is usual in times of conflict for the government to ask for sacrifice on its part to achieve the better end - rationing, increased taxes, Victory gardens, mandatory conscription. What has been asked in this one? We were told at the outset to go out and spend money and have vacations or the "terrorists have won". Bushco then gave enormous tax breaks to the richest in the country, all in an effort to support the "war effort". In fact, the only visible effort so far in this "war" is the increased presence of military recruiters in schools that service poor communities, except at election time when the war is trotted out by Bush the mountebank as a surrogate for policy.

Don't you think that if this was a "real" war there would actually be some visible effort to fight it outside of the battlefield? Would I sound like a complete whacko if I suggested that maybe, just maybe, the Bush administration is not really seriously at war? At least not at war unless legally or electorally convenient?

Posted by kevvyd on Friday, May 12, 2006 at 3:31 PM | Permalink