Dear Editor, Here's something the average guy on the street should easily understand. When you see the Bush administration adamantly defending something they've done, no matter how senseless it may seem, there is a motive behind it. Warrantless wiretapping is a prime example. Why are they pursuing warrantless wiretaps, when they could just as easily get warrants, even after the fact, to track terrorist phone conversations? The only motive that makes sense is this: Bush is tapping conversations that have nothing to do with terrorists, and the FISA court would never approve them. He's creating an enemies list, just as Nixon did with his domestic spying. That's the reason the laws against spying on Americans were passed in the first place. Now we see Bush threatening to veto any legislation to halt the takeover of six U.S. port terminal operations by the United Arab Emirates. Even many Republicans in Congress are outraged. Why would Bush push so hard on this, despite the real security threats it poses? The only motive that makes sense is that Bush is paying someone off. He's doing the bidding of his real constituents, who happen to be global corporations, not the American public. Our interests are way down on his list of priorities. As a lame duck, Bush doesn't have to placate ordinary citizens. He's free to pursue the interests of his real bosses. Here's another question. Why do mainstream news outlets just report these controversies without examining the motives behind Bush's actions? Oh, yeah. I already answered that one. The same corporations that own Bush also own the major media.