Several years ago Rumsfeld and the administration was suing Greenpeace based on some law from, I think, the early 1800s, that had been passed because of pirate ships on the coast stopping and stealing from other ships. The action by the government was largely seen as trying to backrupt Greenpeace, whom Rumsfield called a terrorist group.

So, if the Bush administration decides someone is not an ‘innocent’ American, how is this phone database going to be used?

I am most disturbed about using a ‘war on terrorism’ as justification for chilling open discussion on policies and ethics. Wars are declared by Congress against specific enemy countries or at least real people. Wars on drugs, poverty, or crime are perennial challenges to societies, not meant to be taken as reality or the basis of rational thought.

I believe Professor Wilentz raised the point that if we must have some way of talking about the legitimacy and ethics of the Bush administration tactics. Lawyers are hired to advocate for their clients. Certainly, the white house lawyers are going to do whatever it takes to please their boss and deflect calls for accountability as long as they can get away with it.

I know it is hard to confront a guest when they fall into propagandistic rhetoric, but I was impressed recently when Jim Lehrer dealt with a similar problem. On May 11 2006, he interviewed Sen. Kit Bond (Republican, MO) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (Democrat, VT) on the NSA phone database. Bond repeatedly asserted that simply talking about the issue jeopardized US security, making us vulnerable to attack.

- Bond’s answer to first question: “And the first point I would make is every time we have a leak of classified information like this, it makes us significantly less safe… The more we talk about it, the less safe we are.”

- Bond’s answer to second question: “First, every time we get something on the record, we are making our country less safe… So every time we talk more about it, then they know more about how to avoid it.”

- Bond’s answer to third question: “But the more we talk about it in public, the more our country is in danger. And we are much more likely to have a terrorist attack since the discussion of this program has begun.”

Finally, Lehrer called him on it. But he did so in an impressively graceful way. First, he invited Leahy to respond directly to this rhetoric: “That’s what I wanted to ask Senator Leahy. I wanted to — Senator Leahy, what about Senator Bond’s point? He’s made this two or three times now that just talking about this, the public disclosure in the USA Today, and I guess even the discussion we’re having now, is endangering U.S. security?” When Leahy didn’t respond very strongly (to my own surprise), Lehrer pressed the point further: “But he’s saying just the opposite. He’s saying this is making it un-safer, the public disclosure.” Leahy’s response was still weak. But even if Leahy was incompetent at challenging the rhetoric, at least Lehrer made a point of bringing the rhetoric to the forefront of the discussion.

I would like to see more journalists call attention to the fact that many conservative interviewees end up repeating talking-points ad nauseum. I understand the importance of being respectful to guests, but it is also important to point out that this type of propagandist rhetoric is disrespectful both to interviewers and to the listener/viewer/reader/public.

You can read a transcript of the Lehrer interview at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/jan-june06/nsa_5-11.html. Here, you can also stream audio or video of the interview.

Interesting point.

I think perhaps we should constantly remind ourselves of this fact, and to a small degree inoculate ourselves against the constant KKKarl Rove War Drum. Pre-pend each statement about the “war” with, “Since we are not at war, I think _____ is appropriate.”

Talk about our country needing to upgrade science education for the next generation. What about education in civics, government, language and rhetoric? We can mitigate technological competitiveness with an enlightened immigration policy. But how do we upgrade the critical thinking and intelligence of the citizenry?

If this administration is not criminal, what in the world does criminal mean?

I am very discouraged.