A month of silence

Well, that wasn't intentional. I'm really not sure why I haven't posted in so long - it literally slipped my mind. And it's also interesting that my last post dug on Al Gore, when in reality I get more impressed by him all the time. The Al Gore of 2000 isn't that interesting, but in 2006? He looks like a savvy genius.

The latest hubbub in Washington is that Bush is ripping the New York Times for disclosing a program where the U.S. tracked banking transactions (including Americans). It is a very similar reaction the administration had when the same paper disclosed the NSA wiretapping program.

So, let's see...the U.S. Government is tracking the money and phone calls of suspected terrorists - that's not only something most people would agree with, but something they'd expect. Frankly, if there was a story that Bush and Cheney were NOT doing this, it would be a much bigger deal.

So why are they upset? Why did Bush call it "disgraceful," and Rep. Peter King label it "treasonous?" Do they really think that Al Qaeda wouldn't expect this? That such a disclosure will get them to stop whatever they've been doing, because they naively assumed the U.S. would let them talk and bank without any type of surveillance?

No. Of course not. The administration is upset because:

a) It expects to act without supervision, and to make the rules as it sees fit.

b) It knows that most U.S. citizens think it's fine for them to snoop on suspected terrorists, but not EVERYONE in the country. I have nothing to hide, but do I want Alberto Gonzalez checking my credit card transactions? Probably not.

c) It understands at some level that what they are doing is not only a PR problem but potentially a legal one, if challenged.

All of these reasons make indignation and accusation the only logical response to these kinds of articles. It's yet another example that the country is being run by arrogant children who can't believe that they have to play by someone else's rules.