How could anyone be fed such a fat pitch and then, not only not hit it out of the ballpark, but refuse to even swing at it?

-- James Levy

For the very simple reason that if one chooses to weight openess over security, one has to admit to choosing "acceptable" numbers of deaths over doing everything possible to limit those deaths. In other words, Democrats have no plan "B", just criticisms of Plan "A".

As an aside I wonder if there is a comparison to how data-mining info by commercial interests compares in scope to the DOJ's. Somehow I doubt that kind of balance will be in evidence.

As another aside, I've heard rumblings that the Fort Dix attackers were brought over here from Bosnia with no vetting, by none other than Mrs. Bill Clinton. I'm also waiting for the first lawsuit against the Circuit City employee for invasion of privacy.

Either the president is under the law or he is a dictator. And you also punked out on the facts--the FISA law allows for IMMEDIATE wiretaps and EX POST FACTO approval. So why did the president break that law and ignore them OTHER THAN TO SET THE PRECEDENT THAT HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW. Answer, that one, and I'll take you seriously. Of course, you won't, because you'd like to live under a right-wing dictatorship.-- James Levy

So you think Bush did a Chavez just to announce he was "above the law"? Please. Get a grip. This post encapsulates a basic problem with liberal thinking. Yes, FISA has the approval process you've outlined, but it requires already knowing who to surveil. I believe it also restricts said surveillance to specific phones leaving large gaps in communication from that person.

Unfortunately, in this war the combatants are undercover saboteurs. We could just let them roam around if you like. Are you willing to go on record as wishing to abandon the phone record search for terrorists? No listening in on overseas calls? What other insulation from discovery would you like to provide these people?

Moussaoui's laptop was kept closed because of difficulty fulfilling then FISA requirements, and you know what happened next. Was that acceptable by you? You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you are responsible for the aftermath should those opinions be enacted.

Give Libby the same sentence Berger got, for lying, cheating, and stealing. That is to say, community service. Aside from that I see no argument against Libby's conviction from Thompson, just the sentence.

Going further, if Clinton can pardon wealthy fugitives from the law and Puerto Rican terrorists, Libby is certainly worthwhile. As an aside, thanks for bringing this up. I haven't paid much attention to the candidates, but now I see Thompson is considerable.

This is what the current crop of GOPers really thinks of the Rule of Law...

How ironic... given Rove's likely interference in voters' rights, AND his attempts-- playing USA musical chairs-- to affect the actual results of elections.

On the other hand as LWM just demonstrated on this thread, liberal stalkers are not benign. Putting out one's real location when controversial, is a dangerous thing. But I'm not surprised that the heinous crime Coulter is accused of is voting in the wrong precinct. Horrors. Meanwhile, Feinstein, Jefferson, and Reid, remain above the law. Tsk. And oh yeah, the Kennedy family member that dodged a bullet when sex by fraud is judged not to be rape. IOKIYAD.

I've been torn between posting...

that GWB really was elected: 5 to 4. (courtesy of SCOTUS)or that the only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected. (courtesy of the late Kurt Vonnegutt)

Not only was the original finding that the recount in only Gore favored counties was unequal treatment by 7-2, The MSM did a recount of their own validating that Bush did indeed win by vote.

Get over it.

As you mentioned earlier, however, this little teacup tempest is an embarrassing illustration of the sclerotic, self-referential world of upper caste "journalists". Glenn's accusations regarding the MSM appear to be utterly spot on in this matter.-- Holly McLachlan

I love this. Reed gets it wrong and it's somebody else's fault?

So Jake...Where can we read your dissertation and Post doc work? They are all online someplace. The good ones get published.-- L.W.M.

We've already seen what you would do with such information. Needless to say, telling you anything personal would be irresponsible.

Rosenberg represents....And, yes, of course, the media analysis showed Bush losing to Gore.

Only if one takes all the might have beens. One of the downsides of dumbing down education and then relying on the resulting dummies as one's base, is voters too dumb to fill out a form designed by the Dem party. And that's the charitable view. Rather than rely upon a partisan third party, let's hear from the source, the NY Times, an actual consortium member.

On November 12, 2001, the Times reported:-

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations … The media consortium included The Times ...

And this doesn't even address the scuminess of wanting recounts in only Dem counties. Obviously you and Arne owe us an apology for getting it wrong, again.