There is a reason why is it ‘secret,’ it only works if only a few people know about it. Besides, the program was never implemented so it never had to go before the committee.

Just another ploy to point the finger at someone else other than Pelosi or Panetta. Why not the Bush administration, its such an easy target.

And yet, somehow, it is Obama and the Democrats that will bring about Big Brother and the totalitarian regime.

Somehow. In Glenn Beck’s fever dreams.

Can you say “Illegal search and seizure in violation of your constitutional rights as a US citizen?” I thought you could.

There’s that fictitious suitcase atomic bomb that nobody has that we should all be afraid of again.

rofl. But let’s not ret-con relativism.

Right wing lies are always more colorful (and often very profitable) than reality.

Republicans falsely claim to hate government and falsely claim to want a smaller government and then when Republicans get in charge of government they massively expand the size, power, and intrusiveness of government right wingers cheer it on.

When Republican President Bush lied US into war and falsified intelligence to falsely make his case, right wingers aren’t mad at him, instead right wingers point to those that Republican Bush suckered and claim those suckers are the problem.

And instead of accepting that decent people got suckered by Republican Bush’s lies, the right wing mocks those decent people that got suckered instead of holding accountable the (neo)-con-artist that lied US into war, got thousands of Americans killed, and misspent 2/3rds of a TRILLION dollars (and counting).

And those that didn’t get suckered by Republican Bush’s lies are simply ignored and left uncounted as if they never existed.

However, the conundrum seems to escape you, since you are actually making a comparison between police forces that might accidentally reveal some embarrassing information about you, or even unnecessarily detain you; and terrorists that could blow up the tallest building in America, killing over 3,000 people.

Can you say “moral equivalence”? I knew that you could.

As I’m sure you’ve been told a zillion times they did not vote for the war, what they voted for was to give the president the authorization he’d been begging for for his invasion scheme. Yes, Virginia, there is a difference.

Some of them hoped that the authorization itself would help prevent a war. None of them probably suspected the extent to which the administration had cooked the case presented to them. And few of them probably anticipated the kak-handedness with which the invasion and occupation would be carried out by the Bush-Cheney axis.

Nevertheless, their vote was a naive and/or cowardly mistake, and many of them have repented of it, publicly.

That puts them light-years above the Cheneys of this world on the morality index.

Huh?

I’ve actually heard Hannity something to that effect before.

If they do so without following proper oversight procedures they better be damn sure that something really impressive comes of it, so they can present it as a mitigating factor at their sentencing hearing.

(Just on the off-chance that someone finally grows enough testicles to hold the Bushites accountable for their crimes.)