Really. This congress isn't going anywhere. What difference would it make if they did an investigation? The White House wouldn't change a thing it is doing anyhow. Bush is as authoritarian as we'll ever see in this country.

Democrats couldn't have a law passed to have Congress' seats cleaned if they wanted because Republicans wouldn't allow a law leave the building with a Democratic author signing it.

All we have to hope for is court action. That is all the hope we, defenders of America and our Constitution have hope for now. File a suit, take a number, sit and wait with fingers crossed that the case won't make it to the Supreme Court.

One would hope that we wouldn't have to resort to this futile action to keep our government from spying on us.

I have to reiterate what rustyaustin says. I don't know why, even in our favorite media sources, we continually hear the terms "intelligence failures" and "massive intelligence failures" in relation to our intelligence agencies. The fact is that there were people, many sitting in high positions, at all of our intelligence agencies warning that the position being pushed by the White House didn't have merit. The terms used takes the burden for the failures off the White House and onto the same people who were very wary of attacking Iraq because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States with his weapons of mass distruction.

The intelligence agencies did not fail to advise the White House that their cause for military action against Iraq was tenuous. It would be great if we all saw this fact reflected in our media. The intelligence agencies, and those who work there have been used as scapegoats for this administration's wildly irresponsible actions.

insurgency

1 : the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency. 2 : insurgent

insurgent

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent. 2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party.

Okay. So according to the White House we should look up the definition of some words that they use, but not others.

Well, there was a time when -- and I don't want to try to back-interpret what the Vice President said, but let me just offer at least one view on it, which is, for a long time, when we talked about insurgency -- that is, 'we,' generally, Americans -- we thought of al Qaeda.

Let's see a show of hands for all those who thought of al Qaeda as the insurgency when there weren't any in Iraq to begin with. Apparently Americans are willing to put up with a lot of bs from these jerks because they've been dishing it out faster than the public can swallow.

What Glenn Greenwald said is all true. No dishonesty there. Not a drip. Then you come in with your screed and don't point out specifically one thing that is incorrect about the illegal wiretapping and the lies that Hinderaker puts forth that Greenwald very eloquently describes.

That's right. Not even Russ Feingold wants to trash the FISA court. All Dems are for it and its protections against an over zealous government such as the one we currently have.

In fact you call Greenwald dishonest and then go on to make his point that Bush/Cheney have been eavesdropping illegally. But just when it's needed, right? I don't think that even Fox would be stupid enough to make that assertion. No, you should keep with the lies that people like Hinderaker are talking up. That seems to sell best right now.

Hah! These people would just love government without oversight don't they.

this is exactly how Pres. Clinton reduced crime in America during the 1990's.

Well, not actually. Clinton put more police (troops) on the streets and gave the poor and the middle class a little more attention than they'd gotten in the previous 12 years.

Well. I guess it wasn't completely good news though. As the crime on the streets decreased the disaffected wealthy part of the population turned more to white collar crime that ended up being exposed in the 2000's.

Since the well off have fled Iraq, though, what are the chances that putting more troops on the streets and improving conditions of the Iraqis will save Iraq? Well, because the antagonists (US troops - because the US is despised in the Middle East) are the ones implimenting these measures, and have been trying to do it since May 2003 (doing it a better way since Jan. 2006) the militias that hate us will continue to sabotage every effort made to bring good conditions there.

Let's just forget the oil reason for getting in there in the first place, get out of Iraq and leave it to the Iraqis.

Its very important not to "manufacture complaints". Oh, and then, we've heard some assorted vote fraud claims, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.