He's Making A List, He's Checking It Twice

Assuming that it's true, and the Bush Administration began spying on Americans before 9/11, we need to ask ourselves why. If the Bushies started domestic wiretapping and tracking phone records after the horrors of 9/11, then it could be chalked up to an over-reaction. We always knew that they were not as sensitive to civil liberties, so their actions wouldn't be too surprising, however illegal they are.

But there is a distinct possibility that this is not what happened. Just look at the timing. According to the legal brief, the phone companies were contacted by the NSA in February of 2001. It would have taken about a month to get the NSA to make this request, given the nature of bureaucratic decision-making. So choosing to spy on Americans must have been one of the very first decisions the White House made.

Now think about that a moment, will you. President Bush sits down in the oval office for the first time, props up his feet, and asks his Chief of Staff to have a memo drafted to conduct secret espionage on Americans. Then he asks for a bag of pretzels.

Why? In early 2001, there was simply no justifiable reason for this sort of intelligence-gathering. The U.S., as far as it knew, faced not one serious security threat. We were still basking in the glow of our own supremacy following the end of the Cold War. Bin Laden was a nuisance but not much more.

No, there was no external justification for domestic spying. There could only have been an internal justification. Bush wanted to keep tabs on Americans for some other purpose. What chills me to the bone is what that purpose could have been. Because I can only think of one - Bush wanted to gather information on his political opponents. He wanted to use the resources of the federal government to create an enemy's list. Not just the names of those who were leading critics of his administration - he knows who they are - but the names and whereabouts of regular citizens who disliked him.

Now why would he do that? What's the rationale? Last night I asked myself that question and had to stop what I was doing and sit down.

A quick review of the Bush administration:

1) Authorize torture
2) Ignore Congress
3) Facilitate the creation of a political machine
4) Pack the courts
5) Intimidate the press
6) Create a climate of fear among the citizenry
7) Label domestic enemies and link them to external ones
8) Accuse your political opponents of treason (Bush does so implicitly, his supporters explicitly)
9) Manipulate the electoral process
10) Weaken civil liberties protections

It leads one to a pretty irresistable conclusion, doesn't it? That unconsciously - but now I'm beginning to believe perhaps consciously - the Republican leadership is subverting the republic. That their aim is absolute and permanent political power at any cost.

I hesitate even to write these words down, for how extreme they sound. I'm a moderate by temperament, reluctant to accept conspiracy theories or doomsday scenarios. But I can't ignore the accumulation of evidence before my eyes. From where I stand it's beginning to look pretty conclusive - that Rove and his allies care as much for the Republic as I do for a mosquito - an irritation to be slapped away when necessary.

Now I'm going to go somewhere and think long and hard about what this means and what can be done about it. I suggest that you do the same.