The Liberal's Great Theoretical Threat to Our Rights



Today Michael Barone poses a great question, and some insight into the liberal pathology concerning right wing conspiracy.
"Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical..."

I have long argued that the looney left base their great fascist government conspiracy theories (no matter who was President) from which to take their great leaps of logic, entirely too much on the ideas of "capability" and "could".

For instance, "The NSA has the capability to listen to phone calls, and they could be listening to ours (though we don't know), so the NSA must be a threat to our Civil Rights and shut down!"

Unfortunately what is lacking from these theories is the most important ingredient which would produce a real threat....intent. As Barone points out, all of the hype of these conspiracies is entirely theoretical, and appeals to those who already have a visceral distrust of the US Government (unlike the normal distrust that most of us have...). Those people envision intent where it doesn't exist.

It is akin to saying "Joe has a gun and knows how to shoot it. Since guns kill people, why else would he have it unless he intended to use it? We must take that gun away right now." Entirely too much is based on assumption of intent, and not on all the facts.

Apparently more than a few prominent institutions in our Main Stream Media have fallen prey to their visceral distrust of the Bush Administration, and have decided to join the looney left in giving more credence to theoretical assumptions, rather than well researched facts.

The New York Times implies by the wording of their story that something must be untoward about this latest in blown operations. Evidence is not required... only that anonymous sources and "worried" and "concerned".

"If the Bush administration is doing it, it must be a threat to Civil Rights. We just know it!"

Lets take that Joe's gun example again, and insert the current climate. "The Bush administration has an intel program and knows how to use it. Since intel programs could violate American's Civil Rights, why else would they have it unless they intended to do just that? We must expose that program right now. It is a matter of public interest."

I am sure it is all done with the best of intentions....

UPDATE:

Iowahawk has the NYT editor's response to the American people:
It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post,  Jihadi Accountant and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? I'll tell you who we are, pal. We are journalists - the people whom the inventors of this country specifically appointed to be the protectors of this little experiment we call the "human race" against the privations of out-of-control Texas Oil Nazis. And if you check your Constitution, I don't think you'll see anything in there about the right to clog up the press's inbox with your stupid Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Posted: Mon - June 26, 2006 at 10:12 PM          

©