... Americans are mean, stupid, and bigoted.

This fundamental problem with our country can't even begin to be addressed until its existence is acknowledged.

From Chalmers Johnson:

The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China.

Shooter has no idea what this means. You needn't bother to explain opportunity costs to him either, Arne. He's going to have to find out the hard way.

A 1-08-07 Salon story on McConnell becoming energy czar said:

The intelligence community's reliance on outsourcing dates back to the late 1990s, when commercial advances in computer software and communications began to outpace the considerable lead U.S. intelligence once had in encryption and other technologies. These shortcomings were particularly acute at the NSA, which suffered a system-wide computer blackout in 2000 that shut down the agency's global listening and surveillance system for more than two days, reducing the contents of the president's Daily Briefing by more than 30 percent. In response, during the waning days of the Clinton era, the highly secretive agency had opened its doors to contractors.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/08/mcconnell/index.html

Glenn’s piece on 10-15-07, “Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues,” said this:

The documents that were released as part of the criminal prosecution of Joseph Nacchio, the former Qwest CEO who refused to participate in what he believed to be illegal government surveillance programs (and was then prosecuted for insider trading by the Bush administration), are revealing in numerous important respects.

Nacchio -- who was convicted earlier this year of insider trading for selling his Qwest shares with insider knowledge that the company was about to lose substantial value -- is attempting to prove that, at the time he sold his shares, he anticipated that Qwest would receive highly lucrative government contracts (for surveillance and other programs) that were being negotiated almost immediately upon Bush's inauguration in 2001 -- months before the 9/11 attacks (the bulk of those projects was ultimately awarded to AT&T, Verizon and others).

To prove that, Nacchio has submitted voluminous (and heavily redacted) documentation (.pdf) detailing the vast number of projects which the Bush administration (and, to a lesser extent, the Clinton administration) was pursuing in joint cooperation with the telecom industry.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/15/amnesty/index.html

I recommend the links Glenn provides in this article and letter comments as the best answer to your question that I am aware of.

@sysprog, January 22, 2008 07:02 PM:

Quoting a White House Press Release:

"Liability Protection Is Critical To The Ongoing Effort To Protect The Nation From Another Catastrophic Attack"

"The Senate Intelligence Committee carefully studied this issue and found that without the limited retroactive liability protection discussed above, 'the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests.' The Committee rightly determined that this lack of protection could result in a 'possible reduction in intelligence' that is 'unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.'

"[...] Requiring companies to second-guess the government's determinations would slow or eliminate critical intelligence collection and would place private parties in the impossible position of making legal determinations without access to the classified facts necessary to make such determinations.

"Companies alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of September 11th should not face massive and costly litigation for helping protect our country. Such litigation also risks the disclosure of highly classified information.

"Failing to provide such protection sends an unfortunate message to every private party that may in the future consider whether to help the Nation."

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/defense)

Yeah, Riiight.

As Edward S. Herman and David Peterson point out in these excerpts from "There Is No War on Terror" (1/20/08, 'ZNet'):

"In sum, the 'war on terror' is a political gambit and myth used to cover over a U.S. projection of power that needed rhetorical help with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and Cold War (emphasis added). It has been successful because U.S. leaders could hide behind the very real 9/11 terrorist attack and pretend that their own wars, wholesale terrorist actions, and enlarged support of a string of countries—many authoritarian and engaged in state terrorism—were somehow linked to that attack and its Al Qaeda authors. But most U.S. military actions abroad since 9/11 have had little or no connection with Al Qaeda; and you cannot war on a method of struggle, especially when you, your allies and clients use those methods as well(emphasis added).

"It is widely argued now that the war on terror has been a failure. This also is a fallacy, resting on the imputation of purpose to the war’s organizers contrary to their actual aims—they were looking for and found the new 'Pearl Harbor' needed to justify a surge of U.S. force projection across the globe (my emphasis).

It appears that Al Qaeda is stronger now than it was on September 11, 2001; but Al Qaeda was never the main target of the Bush administration. If Al Qaeda had been, the Bush administration would have tried much more seriously to apprehend bin Laden, by military or political action, and it would not have carried out policies in Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere that have played so well into bin Laden’s hand—-arguably, policy responses that bin Laden hoped to provoke. If Washington really had been worried at the post-9/11 terrorist threat it would have followed through on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations for guarding U.S. territory (ports, chemical plants, nuclear facilities, airports and other transportation hubs, and the like). The fact that it hasn’t done this, but instead has adopted a cynical and politicized system of terrorism alerts, is testimony to the administration's own private understanding of the contrived character of the war on terror and the alleged threats that we face.

"Furthermore, with the cooperation of the Democrats and mass media, the 'war on terror' gave the 'Decider' and his clique the political ability to impose an unconstitutional, right-wing agenda at home, at the expense of the rule of law, economic equality, environmental and other regulation, and social solidarity (emphasis added).

"The increased military budget and militarization of U.S. society, the explosive growth in corporate 'counter-terrorism' and 'homeland security' enterprises, the greater centralization of power in the executive branch, the enhanced inequality, the unimpeded growth of the prison-industrial complex, the more right-wing judiciary, and the failure of the Democrats to do anything to counter these trends since the 2006 election, suggests that the shift to the right and to a more militarized society and expansionist foreign policy may have become permanent features of life in the United States. Is that not a 'war on terror' success story, given the aims of its creators?" (emphasis added)

KR