Obviously this means that the Republican dream scenario is another terrorist attack on US soil. Way to root for the terrorists Mike.

Nightmare scenario for the Dems:

1. Another domestic terror attack by Al Qaeda occurs
2. In the investigations that follow, it is learned that DOJ attorneys, smacked by fallout from the NSA wiretapping scandal and uncertainty over provisions of the Patriot Act, delayed or quashed investigations that could have led to the identification and/or capture of the terrorists responsible for the attack
3. Republicans air an endless loop of commericals featuring Harry Reid saying,  We [that is, the Democrats] Killed The Patriot Act!

Hillary doesn t want to be anywhere NEAR Harry Reid, should something unfortunate happen between now and Nov. 2008.

That would indeed be extremely bad… should it ever happen. The really unlikely bit seems to be #2. Considering that no one can point to the Patriot Act ever having been used to prosecute terrorists, I find it doubtful that a failure to stop an attack could be blamed on a lack of the Patriot Act. (That’s not to say it couldn’t successfully be spun that way or it might not look that way at first, but as far as the actual truth goes, it’s very doubtful.)

And as for “fallout from the NSA wiretapping scandal,” are we really supposed to believe that in the face of some criticism, all the hawkish, patriotic, all-American lawyers and analysts and NSA agents who report only to the executive branch would react by acting gunshy and bending to public pressure, instead of doing everything they could to vindicate themselves and their bosses? If they thought it was a good idea in the first place then they’d be still supporting it, not running from it.

This line of reasoning reminds me of how after hurricane Katrina, some memo was passed down through the Army Corps of Engineers or something – I forget who exactly – asking if they had ever defended the levee development against attempts to stop it by environmental groups. The unspoken-but-obvious reason for this being that they were looking for someone to blame, anyone other than the people who were actually running the programs.

Nightmare scenario for the Dems:

1. Another domestic terror attack by Al Qaeda occurs
2. In the investigations that follow, it is learned that DOJ attorneys, smacked by fallout from the NSA wiretapping scandal and uncertainty over provisions of the Patriot Act, delayed or quashed investigations that could have led to the identification and/or capture of the terrorists responsible for the attack
3. Republicans air an endless loop of commericals featuring Harry Reid saying, “We [that is, the Democrats] Killed The Patriot Act!”

Hillary doesn’t want to be anywhere NEAR Harry Reid, should something unfortunate happen between now and Nov. 2008.

If the Attorney General certified it every 45 days, in accordance with the FISA statute, then that is functionally the same as the role of the Attorney General in the executive orders signed by Presidents Clinton and Carter

The whole argument resides in those six words.

If it were revealed that Bush had ordered a burglary into DNC headquarters, it would be okay now, because Nixon did it too.

If it were revealed that Bush had killed a man in a duel, it would be okay now, because Andrew Jackson did it too.

So basically, Bush is bulletproof unless he commits a crime that no other president before him ever committed.

So basically, Bush is bulletproof unless he commits a crime that no other president before him ever committed.

Basically, yes, BD.

Why? Because in the worldview of Bush administration defenders, there can be no principled opposition. The only possible motive for opposing any action or proposal of the current administration is “Bush Hatred.”

Therefore, the rejoinder to any question or accusation against the President or any member of his administration is: “You didn’t complain when somebody else did it, therefore you’re just a partisan hypocrite.”

Also, he did not “brief Congress” in any meaningful way. He told a few Congressional leaders what he was going to do and told those who objected that they could say nothing about the matter because it was classified. That’s why Rockefeller had to handwrite his objection letter to Cheney and store it in the Intel. Committee office. And it’s why Pelosi is trying to get her own letter of objection declassified. Either way, Bush did not “brief Congress” if you mean seek Congressional approval.

he took it to the FISA court every 45 days

Really?

I’ve seen where the President said the program was reviewed every 45 days (or so). I haven’t seen any claim that the FISA court was doing the reviewing.

Can you help me out with that?

(And, by the way JD, the filegate and travelgate allusions are bogus. As I recall, a certain Republican superstar prosecutor checked those out pretty thoroughly and didn’t find any violation of the law.)

The whole outrage here seems to be that there is the potential for random citizens to be caught up in this matter, or that political opponents could be targeted. Show us evidence that happened. Until then, it is simply partisan speculation on your part, and feigned indignation.

I never said any of the above things were all right. And they aren’t. So your accusation that I am playing politics is hot air, and you’re more than willing to throw it back at any Democrat who has said it was all right, but you can leave me out of it.

I have no desire to see any chief executive, even one I otherwise like, wield the kind of unchecked power that Bush and Cheney claim they have. The key word, there, is “unchecked.” Unchecked power is a dictatorship, and although we all know that Bush would find that a whole lot easier–insert well-traveled quote–it ain’t America.

This sort of action makes it hard to believe that he’ll follow any rule of law. If I were John McCain right now, I’d wonder if the compromise they reached on the torture bill means a damn thing at all.

This is about the president notifying the other branches of government about these wiretaps. This is about an executive branch that doesn’t believe it should be involved in a system of checks and balances–in other words, an executive branch that believes it is better than the system our founding fathers set up.

It’s arrogance, plain and simple, and it led our president to break the law.

Your argument is nothing more than deflection.