Lieberman as Secretary of Defense would accomplish 2 things:

1. It would get him out of the Senate, and let a real Democrat likely become the next Senator from Connecticut.

2. Someone with a possible shred of competency would be Secretary of Defense.

Chris / Vegas

Joshua Micah Marshall has the links to the FISA court numbers. Out of over 18,000 warrants sought, there have only been 4 refused.

So, if Bush believed he had the authority to reject going to the Court, why did they continue to do so? Over 4700 warrants were sought in the 3 years after 9/11? If they believed the law authorizing the war in Afghanistan voided the need to go to the court, why did they continue to do so?

Chris / Vegas

There are currently 44 Democrats in the Senate. We need 7 more Democrats, not 9, because you are forgetting one thing in your analysis: Control of the Judiciary Committee.

While it is true that some additional Democrats in the Senate would be anti-abortion, and quite possibly to the right on other social issues, the first hurdle is the Judiciary Committee. We lost that round 10-8. Add 2 more progressive Democratic Senators to the JC, and we can stop the nominatons before they ever get to the Senate floor.

Chris

Henderson, NV

Let us sum up the evidence here:

Planes slam into the World Trade Center, but the President is left to sit there for 7 minutes. No one comes and gets him, while his aides decide what to do.

The 9/11 commission staff wanted to include a finding that Vice President Cheney was giving an order to shoot down Flight 93 without consulting the President. (It crashed first, due to the heroes on board, before the order could be executed.)

It's widely believed that the Vice President was involved in "cherry-picking" the intel on Iraq. He ran the whole Iraq project prior to invasion.

A plane flies into restricted airspace, forcing the evacuation of the White House, including First Lady Laura Bush. The President, on a bike ride, is not informed.

And now, the President is not informed of the Vice President shooting someone.

How much more evidence does this country need that the man they elected (selected?) to be the leader of the free world IS NOT IN CHARGE?!?

No one needs or seeks his advice or orders in a crisis. Not just because he has delegated authority. It seems clear to me that no one counts on him, no one trusts him. He's fed information from the people who only want to use him to further their own agendas, their own quest for power.

Is that what this country really wanted in November 2000, and November 2004?

Chris

Henderson, NV

Yes, this bill is an atrocity, but the Democrats only option is to sit tight, and let it pass. While McCain, Warner, & Graham were leading the fight against it, there was political cover. But the Republicans are secretly hoping the Democrats will move to fillobuster or block this bill, so they can call them soft on Terror.

With this passing, after the Republicans got a few more protections (not enough) in the bill, the Democrats have a better chance of taking the House and/or Senate back. At that point, there can be hearings, public pressure brought on the administration for what they have been doing, possibly prosecutions, and further changes to the law.

But if they get trapped in a "Soft-On-Terror" debate, none of that will happen.

Chris / Las Vegas, NV

As I understand it, the President has unfettered authority to pardon anyone he wishes. However, there is one person he cannot pardon - himself.

While he may issue a blanket pardon for a large category of people, he will actually make it easier for a prosecutor in the future to bring charges against him. With no further fear of their own prosecution, the witnesses from his administration will be required to cooperate with various subpoenas for their information.

So, we probably would not be able to get accountability for most of the people who should be held accountable. But the person who is ultimately responsible still can be.