1- Will you defend your team no matter what?

In this forum, probably. Mainly because the stuff I disagree with is never discussed here, like Bush's immigration policy.

Is there a line anywhere you would draw in the future? There is no doubt you know by now Bush & Co. not only have no respect for the constitution, but are probably out to destroy it.

Considering Bush's responsiveness to the Supreme Court, and even Ashcroft and Comey, along with the legality of programs leaked by the CIA, I'd say you are wrong.

I assume you know this and continue defending them since the cause is noble in your opinion, and since the enemy is so vile in your opinion. Am I correct?

You mean the Democrats? Vile they are.

2- Will you attack the other team no matter what? Is there a line anywhere you would draw in the future? Have you ever respected anyone from the opposition? -- Denning

How about Scoop Jackson or Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

You may recall the CIA leaks to the NY Times that were false? How about Joe Wilson's allegations that were false? He grew an entire cottage industry around a report that the CIA took as confirmation of Bush's "sixteen words". Which, are still as true today as they were then.

Here's a novel thought, almost all the things that one could blow a whistle about, have been brought to light!

If you think that's ridiculous, consider that in two years Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing Plame. Torture has been redefined, Gitmo is now posh, signing statements are publicized, and the current flap about firing US Attorney's is pretty stupid. What else is there?

Essentially, you people have let the real Bush haters yank your chains for nearly eight years and most here followed right along. At some point you'll hopefully start thinking for yourselves.

I'm sure this question has been asked before but, because I have yet to hear a decent "official" answer, it's worth repeating:

Even if we allow that there may indeed be cause for some form of spying/intelligence gathering, Why does this administration insist that warrants for surveillance should not be subject to judicial review?

1.) Anything purely domestic still requires a warrant. No one says otherwise.

2.) the program in question is not surveillance of a particular person, it's surveillance of overseas phone calls by millions of people at any given moment. The idea being to link people or places in a significant pattern. How does one get a warrant for that? Comprende?

I don't want to insult, but sometimes your punctuation mistakes can be amusing (as can anybody's).

Drat! You're right.
Oy.

"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Yes he did.
I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM)
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur.

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip.

Besides admitting he lied about the documents, it turns out that Plame sent his name up before the Cheney memo.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRkZDFjMzU2NTc1NTYyM2Q0MWVmMGI4MGNmYzFlNDY=

The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."--Joe Wilson

That's what happens when trying to be fair. No good deed goes unpunished. Meanwhile Mr. Wilson is demonstrated to be a stone liar who demolished his wife's career and caused untold misery to many, all in the pursuit of arrogance.

How's that chain feel Kitt? Like the yanking?

One doesn't get a warrant for that, because indiscriminately spying upon calls originating in the USA is illegal.-- dr rick

What, you think there are millions of little gnomes in the basement of the NSA listening to entire sentences? As Glenn says nobody knows exactly how or what the NSA is surveilling so both our opinions are pretty much opinions.

OTOH the Supreme Court just ruled that laptops going across our border are liable to search with no warrant, just like your body cavities can be searched with no warrant before crossing. Why should phone calls be treated differently?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if FISA gave a blanket approval for the NSA program. The FISA judges are, after all, on record as saying their court does not override the powers of the President.

FYI - FISA judges are briefed on program

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/
12/21/AR2005122102326.html