In the run-up to the 2000 decision of Bush v. Gore, the Republican establishment worked tirelessly to frame the events of those days as a 'constitutional crisis' -- a situation so dire, so delicate -- as to threaten the very foundation of our nation's existence.

So, it was with great relief that Justice Scalia hastily passed down the high court's decision to forego a genuine manual recount and award to George W. Bush the White House and all its associated powers, real or imagined.

Little did the Supremes (or the rest of the Republican establishment) imagine that those actions would be the catalyst that set forth a series of unfortunate, unforgivable, and completely unnecessary, events that would eventually lead to a genuine constitutional crises -- a situation truly dire and legitimately threatening to the founding principles of America.

But here we are -- crisis in hand.

Yesterday, Bush "insisted... that the United States does not listen in on domestic telephone conversations among ordinary Americans."

Got that? 'Ordinary Americans'!

Bush doesn't spy on 'Ordinary Americans', but he didn't specify what an 'Ordinary American' is -- so many questions left unanswered, like...

...Do 'Ordinary Americans' wear a sign that tells everyone (including the NSA) that is their status?

Is there an 'Ordinary' scale used by 'Ordinary' Government workers that can standardize this appraisal?

Are there different levels or intensities of ordinary-ness? And is the level of spying dependent upon that rating? And if so, who does the rating?

Can you switch from 'Ordinary' to 'Unordinary' and vice-versa?

Are some 'Ordinary Americans' more 'Ordinary' than others?

What do you think the definition is of 'Ordinary American'? I tried looking it up in the 'American Heritage' Dictionary, but there doesn't seem to be any such entry.

So perhaps it would be appropriate to guess President Bush's working definition of 'Ordinary American' (which he obviously has, otherwise he wouldn't have used the term, right?)

Update [2006-5-12 20:33:57 by btyarbro]:: Apparently this whole spying scam is more complicated (and worse) than we thought. For details from Greg Palast, read this. Here's an excerpt:

You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate. They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

The furor over the secret, cooperative effort among three telephone companies (hats off to Quest, who defied the request) and the Bush Administration to surveil tens of millions of Americans' phone calls is just beginning. Yet it is another indication of a government gone wrong.  Perhaps that partly explains Bush's new 29% low in the polls, but it also indicates another disturbing trend within this most secretive of U.S. Administrations.

Despite a recent poll that a majority of Americans approve of the NSA spying program  , as usual, Americans don't have enough information on the program, yet:  

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted today not to investigate the crimes of President George W. Bush. Instead, it will create a subcommittee for "oversight" of the illegal eavesdropping program. Senator Snowe was telling Americans as of Friday that yes, she would vote in favor of the Senator Rockefeller's proposal to conduct a full inquiry into the program. Today, she voted against it. Senator Rockefeller had this to say after the committee's vote:

``This committee is basically under control of the White House,'' Rockefeller told reporters after the two-hour meeting today in Washington. ``It's an unprecedented bout of political pressure from the White House.''

Unprecedented indeed.  The administration is threatening members of Congress, it is strong-arming them like never before--in short, like a cornered animal it has pulled out every last stop, every last fang and growl to dissuade Congress from investigating this matter. The inference is obvious: the more fervent the desire to cover up, the more heinous the crime.

This is not just a surveillance program. This is not just data-mining.  There is something much greater here beneath the surface, an action that not only runs afoul our Constitutional rights, but that undermines the very core of our democracy.

This is not the end of the road. Attorney General Gonzales is likely to be recalled to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Several lawsuits are well underway.  And when the truth is exposed, Senator Snowe, Senator Hagel, and every Republican member of Congress who has assisted in this cover-up will be exposed as aiders and abetters to one of the most fundamental betrayals of the American people.

I never thought former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.)and I would ever be on the same page.

First he joins the ACLU, which made me do a spit-take and wonder what was to become of my beloved organization.

Now he's one of the most vocal critics of the George W. Bush administration regime.

This has of course made Barr the enemy of the right. And he walked into the heart of their camp this week to confront them.

At approximately 7:10 EST, Wednesday, January 25, 2005, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), referring to President Bush's domestic spying program, told Matt Lauer in an interview on the Today Show that "It's important to note that members of Congress including Democrats were briefed on this program and there didn't seem to be at least any public outcry until recently."

This is patently FALSE and shamelessly misleading.

First, Democrats were briefed. But, the briefings have been limited to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called 'Gang of Eight'.

Hey, did everybody hear the big news? Bush launched a campaign to defend his indefensible 'Big Brother' Spy program.

Big fat deal, right?. Bring it on you chigger-brained twerp.

So far, the best Bush had to offer was a cry-baby claim that he had permission to ignore constitutional law from his Ideological twinkie, Alberto Ashcroft.  

Ooooooooh...well, congratulations George. Had we known that the your administration actually approved of your administration's actions, and, had we known that your 'Spy-on-Americans' program was actually your 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', then we wouldn't have made such a fuss. Our bad!

Even so, you have to admit that some of this stuff is just plain Anti-American, right?

Wait. What do you mean you 'reject' my assertions? Even after I made my traditional, spineless-Democrat concessions? Well... Fine! How about instead we Democrats grab a collective backbone and jam this entire stinkin' issue down your weasely, worthless throat?

Facing loud criticism, and even mainstream talks of impeachment regarding domestic spying, President Bush, rather than adopt a defensive stance, has moved to reassert the validity of his decision.

The White House "will this week step up efforts to defend its policy on the Patriot Act as well as its controversial decision to conduct domestic surveillance on US citizens without a warrant from a judge, in the face of mounting concerns from civil liberties groups." On Tuesday, Bush "will take part in a meeting on the Patriot Act," and on Wednesday, "he will make a statement on the 'war on terror' at the Pentagon." As "part of a coordinated approach, Dick Cheney, vice-president, will also give a speech about terrorism."

Although his own party is set to investigate the scandal, while the traditional media writes that the controversy "may have put a crimp in Bush's plan to climb back on top of the agenda as the new legislative session begins.", and that Bush and Cheney never thought twice about ignoring the U.S. Constitution (i.e. that 'Goddamn piece of paper'), the administration plods forward, never bothered by the technicality of potential consequences.

Cross posted on Daily Kos and My Left Wing

Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 06:38:57 AM PDT

I suppose I should begin by confessing that I'm a rather straightforward person. As a matter of fact this is why my friends like me. I tend to reduce things to the nitty gritty. I'm also sort of a no bullshit type of person. This used to be a positive character trait. Kind of just say something and move on. I try not to get twisted up like a pretzel over inane nonsense.

The reason I bring this up is because I'm confused.  The commander in chief has been telling us for as long as I can remember that, "we're at war."  I listen to his urgent  words and I see people fighting and getting killed and I wonder, but I'm not at war.

What Mr. Bush says must be true, but I don't see any signs of this where I live. What are you seeing?

Like most Americans, I'm eager to do my fair share for the war effort. So, yesterday, I took a stroll around Manhattan, the city I call home, looking for any signs that we're at war.

this friggin' bunch is totally out of control... 'course, that's hardly news, now is it...?

   Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

(continued)