I must be hon­est and admit that I’ve always found Pres­i­dent Bush’s State of the Union speeches unbear­able. The dis­tor­tions and half-truths are infu­ri­at­ing and the unearned con­fi­dence of a draft-dodging rich kid turned failed mil­i­tary adven­turer just sends my blood pres­sure through the roof. I wish I could be detached enough to lis­ten at least to the art of fine speech-writing but the mes­sage gets in the way.

Bet­ter then to lis­ten to the Demo­c­ra­tic response, given by Sen­a­tor James Web. The tran­script is over on the NYTimes and the video is over on YouTube. Here’s a taste.

Like so many other Amer­i­cans, today and through­out our his­tory, we serve and have served, not for polit­i­cal rea­sons, but because we love our coun­try. On the polit­i­cal issues ­ those mat­ters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death ­ we trusted the judg­ment of our national lead­ers. We hoped that they would be right, that they would mea­sure with accu­racy the value of our lives against the enor­mity of the national inter­est that might call upon us to go into harm’s way. We owed them our loy­alty, as Amer­i­cans, and we gave it. But they owed us ­ sound judg­ment, clear think­ing, con­cern for our wel­fare, a guar­an­tee that the threat to our coun­try was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defend­ing it.

Worth a look: Josh Mar­shall over at Talk​ing​PointsMemo​.com had the neat idea to set up a YouTube group for peo­ple to give their own video responses to the State of the Union.

United States air strikes in Soma­lia were meant to kill spe­cific al Qaeda lead­ers. Whether the bombs achieved this effect is still uncer­tain but we know one thing: that it will be much eas­ier for al Qaeda to recruit the next gen­er­a­tion of Somali ter­ror­ists. From the NY Times, “Airstrike Rekin­dles Soma­lis’ Anger at the U.S.”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/world/africa/10somalia.html?_r=2&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin. Sigh.

In the New York Times, a “glimpse behind the scenes of the Bush Administration’s sup­port for war in Lebanon”:www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10rice.html:
bq.. Washington’s resis­tance to an imme­di­ate cease-fire and its staunch sup­port of Israel have made it more dif­fi­cult for [US “Sec­re­tary of State”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/secretary%20of%20state] Rice to work with other nations, includ­ing some Amer­i­can allies, as they search for a for­mula that will end the vio­lence and pro­duce a durable cease-fire.…
Sev­eral State Depart­ment offi­cials have pri­vately objected to the administration’s empha­sis on Israel and have said that Wash­ing­ton is not talk­ing to Syria to try to resolve the cri­sis. Dam­as­cus has long been a sup­porter of “Hezbollah”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/hezbollah, and pre­vi­ous con­flicts between the group and Israel have been resolved through shut­tle diplo­macy with Syria.
p. The wars in “Lebanon”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/lebanon and “Iraq”:www.nonviolence.org/tag/iraq are caus­ing irrepara­ble harm to the U.S. image in the Mid­dle East. High-sounding words about democ­racy ring hol­low when we for­sake diplomacy.

It seems that every day brings new rev­e­la­tions from main­stream media about gov­ern­men­tal spy­ing on Americans.

MS-NBC started the ball rolling on the 14th when they informed us that the Pen­ta­gon had a data­base of “pro­test­ers includ­ing the Rag­ing Grannies and a dozen or so Quak­ers in Florida”:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316. This must have prompted the New York Times to pub­lish a story they had been sit­ting on for a year: the scoop that Bush had ordered the super-secret “National Secu­rity Agency to start eves­drop­ping on Americans”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html fol­low­ing the 9/11 ter­ror attacks. It’s rev­e­la­tion was an FBI agent’s email com­plain­ing about “rad­i­cal mil­i­tant librar­i­ans [who] kick us around”:http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=alonline&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=111469. Two days later we received the almost-humorous news that the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity was hard at work mon­i­tor­ing the “Massachusett’s inter-library loan sys­tem “:http://​www​.south​coast​to​day​.com/​d​a​i​l​y​/12 [UPDATE: this has been “revealed to be a hoax”:http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12–05/12–24-05/a01lo719.htm by the stu­dent]. Try­ing to outdo the DHS in ridicu­lous, we learned on the 20th that “the FBI has been infil­trat­ing vegan potlucks”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html. Today it turns out the “New York City Police Department”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22police.html has been doing its own exten­sive inves­ti­ga­tions into pro­test­ers. They even appar­ently staged mock arrests in an attempt to incite vio­lence (their con­tri­bu­tion to the self-parody has been to send offi­cers under­cover on bicy­cle protests).

Are we sur­prised by all this? Well, not really. The fears unleashed after 9/11 ignited a firestorm of para­noia in the ranks of spy­dom. Non​vi​o​lence​.org got a call from the U.S. Secret Ser­vice when Osama bin Laden posted to the board that he wanted to kill Pres­i­dent Bush (well, actu­ally we’re pretty cer­tain it was a acne-faced four­teen year old pro­cras­ti­nat­ing on his geom­e­try home­work). When I shot “shot pho­tos of a scuf­fle at a Biodemoc­racy protest a few months ago”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/2005/06/biodemocracy_pr.php a Philadel­phia police detec­tive was in my office an hour later want­ing to see it (the “melee” was harm­less except for a police­man with heart con­di­tions who took that moment to have a heart attack).

While some mon­i­tor­ing and pru­dence is indeed nec­es­sary, what ties together the string of sto­ries this week is the ran­dom­ness of the tar­gets. It’s as if the agen­cies had lost all sense of judge­ment. Any­one crit­i­cal of the war (or even main­stream cul­ture: wit­ness the veg­ans) was con­sid­ered a threat. All leads were inves­ti­gated, no mat­ter how silly.

While invad­ing American’s pri­vacy is upset­ting and unwar­ranted, the great­est dan­ger is the sheer mass of irrel­e­vant infor­ma­tion that’s been col­lected. What’s an agency to do with reams of data on bicy­cle rid­ers and Quak­ers? Who’s watch­ing the flight schools and fer­til­izer depots while Agent Nin­com­poop is trad­ing hum­mus recipes with the cute vegan with the nosering?