I really do appreciate that so many people have IM'd and emailed me to ask why I haven't blogged in over a month. I feel good to know that some folks read what I write and look forward to it.

When I have blogged about the war, I've done so largely with a belief or expectation that intelligent folks who read about it might draw some different conclusions about the current situation. I have mostly abandoned that expectation recently. Those who are loyal to the war cause are not dissuaded by the escalating violence or deaths. They have come to view Democracy as the ultimate good in the universe, making all other topics — death, money, cost, Just War — not even open for discussion. For this group of folks, if the Iraq experiment fails, with perpetual insecurity or civil war, it won't be a sign that the invasion was a bad idea: we had to give these people a run at Democracy, and if it fails, it will be their own fault. Never mind the WMDs, the exaggerated intelligence, the lack of planning. The failure of everything else in Iraq has led to an absolutist stance on the issue which sees nation building by the United States as not just a foreign policy option, but an undeniable duty to our fellow man. We have to do this, or be unable to call ourselves Good People. This is how deeply neoconservatism has punctured the thinking of the Republic.

The bit that has convinced me of the permanent grip of wartime thinking, however, is the response to the domestic surveillance issue. That there are those quick to defend Bush on this subject makes my innards churn. The fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Any notion that Bush is not a "liar" in the worst sense of that word is disproved by his 2004 campaign quotes:

[B]y the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

The news that Bush has ordered secret NSA wiretapping of US citizens without warrants is, um ... a travesty. It undermines everything. And, of course, it is being defended by loyalists everywhere. "We'll identify terrorists more quickly!" "It's a small price to pay for our safety!"

What can I say on the matter? Nothing, really. It's sad, it's sickening, blah blah blah. I won't offer the condescending balance-of-powers lecture, explain civil liberties, rights to privacy. I've been there. Iraq is a mess, it was a war that should not have been waged. Bush is a liar, and has ordered domestic surveillance without check. Our country is way off track. What more can I say? Loyalists, wake up? I dunno. Hasn't worked so far.