Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.
Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.
Michelle Malkin has more.
But the MSM is not giving up hope that this issue can still be used to bash Bush's efforts to keep America safe during a time of war. Malkin quotes another MSM article which says:
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.
Meanwhile, over at the sinister side of the blogsphere, we have this kind of hysteria:
We can raise red flags all we want on our side of the aisle about the violation of basic freedoms and privacy that are front and center with the Bush Administration’s behavior here. But in this post-9/11 world run by an administration that has manipulated fear to a point that a large number of Americans are scared children who would rather give up some rights in order to be protected from the bad guy under the bed, it appears that the public is fine with intrusive and illegal programs like these until it is shown that Bush did something with this information other than build a database to be used in identifying suspect calling patterns.
This represents exactly what I have been talking about. The political left in this country is completely indifferent to the real terrorist threat that faces America. The blogger quoted above refers to that threat as "the bad guy under the bed". How quaint and...infantile.
That's such a restrained way of saying how little it bothers them that there are people who want to impose shar'ia law on the world and kill all those who don't accept their religion. That's the analogy they prefer to use to describe people who cut off the heads of women and gays; who follow no rules of war and scoff at the Geneva Convention.
We have all heard the analogies they use to describe the the President and the current Administration, who--in spite of its many faults and failures--is actually making a decent effort to face the evil that confronts us in the 21st century. Newsflash: the fact that there have not been any more 9/11's in this country to date is not serendipity. Real adults have been tackling that issue for some time.
And, we can count on the fact that the same leftist idiots who minimize the risks and scorn those who are working desperately to prevent future attacks on this country, will be the loudest and angriest when another attack occurs. They are doing everything in ther power to tie the hands of the agencies and undermine the people whose job it is to protect Americans; but that will not stop them from calling them "incompetent" when the next attack occurs.
Who, exactly, are the ones behaving "childishly"? And who, in calling up the ridiculous image of a Gestapo police state that has systematically violated citizen's rights since 9/11; and saying that Bush is Hitler and worse than Bin Laden--who exactly is it that is doing the fearmongering?
Most Americans are clearly rational and sane adults who prefer to fight against the real enemy of this country. It is those who are left that are behaving childishly, irrationally, or insanely.
UPDATE: neo-neocon writes:
Even back when I was a liberal, I don't think I ever was out of touch with reality about the nature of our enemies.
For example, when the ayatollahs came to power in Iran and launched their PR campaign by taking over the American Embassy and making the Carter administration look like impotent fools, it was clear what we were dealing with. The repressiveness of the new Iranian regime (particularly vis a vis women) was clear from the start, as was its aggressive intent and its uncompromising tyranny.
Read her entire post. You will notice that I never call the left "liberal". I make a distinction. I consider myself a classical liberal in the classical liberal tradition. There was a time in the past when you could be a "liberal" without resorting to totalitarian rhetoric, political correctness, and cultural relativity. Those days are gone now. The classical liberal tradition upon which this country was founded is only found in the neoconservative and libertarian strains of thought. The left divorced itself from liberalism when it took to coddling dictators and cheering on oppression. Sadly, they delude themselves into thinking that their behavior is compatible with liberal values.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. They are not liberal; nor are they "progressive". They are simply "The Left" - in all their sinister, narcissistic and paranoid glory.
UPDATE II: ShrinkWrapped notes:
I am troubled by a pattern of exaggeration and vilification that almost seems orchestrated. It is as if there has been a persistent effort made, primarily by Democrats but with the assistance of various Republicans and the media, to obfuscate or frame the debate in such a way that the worst possible explanation is suggested as the primary explanation. Furthermore, the language used explicitly clouds the issues in terms of the goal of the program, the technical aspects of the program, and the extent of the program. The impression is left that the Bush Administration is spying on Americans; they are going after reporters; they are labeling millions of Americans as suspects. It almost seems as if the complaints are arising from a different country in a different time period. Any day now we should start seeing stories about plumbers and enemies lists; this is disturbing.
The thoughtless comments, and the damage to our national security, performed by these "servants of the people" are excellent exhibits for why such programs demand secrecy....The opportunistic, ignorant, or duplicitous comments about the program cast no glory on those who take part in such attempts to mislead the American people.
Meanwhile, SC&A have this to say:
Guess what. Phone numbers and calling patterns have been monitored for decades. Long distance charges were determined by calling patterns. Equipment needs both long and short term, were determined when calling patterns were analyzed. Further, telecommunications are considered an industry vital to national security, so that information was already available to government.
In addition, how do you think cellular service works? That too, is predicated on collecting and analyzing calling patterns, both local and long distance. The number of cell towers, switches and the like, are all determined by analyzing calling patterns. That industry too, is considered vital to national security.
When it comes to cell phones, remember this: If you believe you have a 'right to privacy,' you are obviously ill informed. Your conversations can be hijacked from the airwaves and the phone numbers you dial are even easier to take. If you demand your 'right to privacy' from a cellular provider, well, you had best give up cell phones.
So, including myself, there are six mental health professionals (Sigmund, Carl and Alfred count as three) who can see through this latest leftist-inspired insanity.