I first saw this talking point regarding the three American soldiers in Iraq at the end of August in a press release from my Congressman, Peter Roskam, after passage of the "temporary" FISA amendments. He had a dramatic story about the U.S. Army being hampered in its efforts to find the soldiers because several hours were spent drafting FISA warrants, and as we all know the first few hours of any investigation are the most important, leaving the implication that the delay in getting the warrants resulted in the inability to timely locate the soldiers.

I specifically looked at Roskam's website after reading one of Glen's posts. Interestingly, I did not find any footage of Roskam making this argument on the floor of the house of representatives, or making this argument anywhere else prior to the passag of the amendments. I also went back and researched the story of the three missing soldiers, and saw nothing in any of the coverage indicating that their fellow soldiers lost any time in conducting their search because of the need to obtain FISA warrants. In fact, the only hit I found prior to August 2007 regarding the three soldiers and FISA was a portion of an interview or discussion (I cannot remember which) with John Boehner using almost the exact same language as was eventually contained in the Roskam press release.

As Glen points out, this is nothing more than a Republican talking point to support making the changes permanent. Having this argument come from a hack like John Boehner clearly reveals this as being nothing more than a cheap ploy. I really want to know how Boehner came into possession of his information; obviously, I would not be surprised if classified information somehow magically found its way into his hands.

I have been reading Glen's posts for several months now, and have grown steadily more sick and depressed at what the Bush Administration has been carrying out in our name. They claim these powers with the noble purpose of protecting us, but when we actually need them to protect us, they fail at the job. I have been struggling with what action to take. I have not yet written to Roskam because I do not feel it would be any good. However, starting today I begin my assault upon Peter Roskam and will hound him with demands to explain himself and why he is supporting Bush's continued demands for more and unchecked executive power. Ironically, Congress is putting itself out of a job every time it capitulates to Bush. I intend to ask Roskam why he wants to be a Congressman if he does not want to perform any of the duties entrusted to him under the Constitution. Does he want to protect and defend the Constitution. Hell, has he even read the Constitution?!?!

I also plan to attend as many functions as possible and ask him live in public about his positions. If he refuses to answer the question of a constituent, then that reveals a lot about his character. If he does answer my questions, then maybe hearing his answers out loud will force him to confront the absolute lunacy that he supports.

As a final note of irony, Roskam is that rare Republican breed (no, not a homosexual, since those seem to be more common than we thought) - a plaintiff's personal injury attorney! Of course, his website does not mention his PI background. I myself am defense counsel for one of the largest retailers in the United States, as well as acting as counsel in commercial litigation. Based on common Republican stereotypes, I should be a staunch Republican and he should be a John Edwards-fancy boy Democrat.

Glen, I am literally shaking with anger at my desk while typing this. I want to thank you for the work that you are doing. I hereby pledge myself to take up the challenge to oppose this Administration and those members of Congress who would sell us out for 30 more pieces of silver in their campain coffers. We must remember, there are only 537 of them in Congress, but 300 million of us.