But when I was discussing the FISA "compromise" with my husband, he brought up an important point I hadn't considered -- if there were lawsuits and criminal prosecutions brought for warrantless wiretapping, who do you think would end up getting jailed and/or financially ruined? The high level CEO's and board members who made the cozy deals with the Bush cabal, or hapless midlevel executives who carried out instructions from above?

I don't think any telco people would face serious consequences.

One of the big lies in support of this abomination was that the telcos couldn't defend themselves. The fact is that they could easily defend themselves by presenting their evidence to the judge in closed session.

The harm that has been done is to close the only path that might have lead to an examination of Bush's crimes. Bush's DOJ sure as heck isn't going to investigate.

One of Obama's strategies was to get lots of young people to register to vote. After this stunt, I wonder how many of those new voters will still think it's worth the effort to vote this November?

But Barack Obama hardly needs telecomm campaign contributions...

Maybe he didn't need them before, but he'll probably need them now.

I can't see why I should contribute to his campaign if he's going to vote the way the lobbyists want him to. The lobbyists can foot the bill.

OK then -- give them what they want, but get something real in return.

That isn't the democratic party way. When a democrat says "compromise", what they really mean is "utter capitulation".

Congress could get this over a lot faster by just passing a single bill. History suggests that it only has to be one page, and that an appropriate name would be "The Enabling Act".

Obama must win this election.

Why? How would Obama screwing us for political reasons be any better than McCain screwing us because he wants to?

Here's a prediction: Gas prices will fall dramatically as we get closer to the Election.

OK, suppose that does happen. What conclusions could we draw from such an event?

In particular, how might the price reduction be achieved? Are you assuming the oil refiners would be willing to take huge losses to help McCain win? Do you think speculators will take a break from their profits to help McCain? How about OPEC?

Americans were never asked to sacrifice anything for this war

That much is clear. And now they ARE whining not because they don't like the war but because it's finally starting effect them personally.

ISTR that we were told it was going to be a piece of cake that would be over in a few weeks. Are you saying we should not be upset now that it is obvious we were sold a bill of goods?

He sided with the right wing morons like Scalia and Thomas on those issues. So I am not as sure as I once was that his appointments there will be any more palatable than McCain's would be.

Here's how I see it playing out:

1) Republican minority demands nominees like Scalia and threatens to filibuster confirmation of all others.

2) Republicans + Blue Dogs are enough to defeat cloture votes.

3) Reich-wing noise machine calls Obama names for failing to send acceptable nominees

4) Obama caves in and we get another Scalia

HELLO: The president may NOT pardon himself.

Sure he can, with a little help:

1) Bush pardons everyone but himself.

2) One hour before the end of his term, he steps down and Cheney becomes president.

3) Cheney pardons Bush

Why does the Iraqi leadership "want the terrorists to win"?

I think the appearance of such a desire is merely an artifact of the U.S. government's careless use of the word "terrorist".

Can somebody please remind me what we might find on the short list of the ACLU's contribution(s) to "National Security"?

Protecting us from dangerous psychopaths like Bush.

you can thank Senator Dodd

by helping to pay off his campaign debt. There is still a contribution button on his website.

Good idea. It sounds like a better use of my money than contributing to Obama's campaign. I think I'll also send some of my would-have-been-contributed-to-Obama money to ACLU and EFF.

The Shi'ites are well in control, and are well supported by Iran, so it's time for us to get out and leave the oil control of the Mideast for the foreseeable future to them.

That's something our alleged commander-in-chief should have considered before he invaded Iraq. Instead, the arrogant fool ignored everyone who wasn't saying what he wanted to hear, and now we have the present predicament.

But who on earth would, willingly, be the project director?

A masochist with boundless patience?

... is that a lot of this hassle happens because more attention is given the creating the appearance of protection than to actually protecting. In other words, I think it's propaganda.

... most of the world is going to want his head on a pike, including a substantial fraction of U.S. citizens. There isn't any good that can come from such a move that could possibly make up for all the misery it would cause.

Something Conason touched on at the end of his essay; would a strike on Iran help or hinder Republican electioneering this year?

I don't think it would help the Republicans. Consider the likely effect on the price of oil. Only yesterday I saw news that the price of oil had gone up by more than $5/barrel just because the exchanged some hostile words with Iran. Imagine what an actual attack would do.

Some people might entertain the fantasy that the U.S. could invade and seize control of Iran's oil fields. This would require a huge number of troops (which the U.S. doesn't have), and probably wouldn't work anyway because the Iranians have probably rigged everything so they can blow it up on short notice.