The time covered by the Moyers documentary was chilling to relive -- especially for myself, who was largely bamboozled at the time of the runup to the Iraq war by the "consensus" reporting about WMD.

BTW, the institutional tendency of the Washington press to cheerlead at the beginning of an ill-conceived war is nothing new. (Which does not excuse it.)

For example, Walter Cronkite famously renounced his default support for the Vietnam war after Tet in 1968. But I still recall an example of his earlier "reporting" several years before, after a ride-along junket in a reconnaissance flight over the country. His report then amounted to a gee-whiz newsreel, which would no doubt be embarrassing to view later.

Comey's dramatic disclosure should prompt a renewed Senate investigation. I also think a special counsel is clearly warranted now.

Two facts worth noting:

* We know from previous reporting in Newsweek that OLC's official thinking about executive power changed after Jack Goldsmith took over from Jay Bybee. That was likely a big factor in DOJ's legal reconsideration of the surveillance program in 2004. We still don't have the before-and-after secret OLC opinions.

* Note that nowhere in Comey's story are NSA officials mentioned. But FBI Director Robert Mueller was a central player in the drama -- he even met personally with President Bush -- and also was one who threatened resignation. This indicates that, whatever was going on before the program was modified, those activities were being conducted by the FBI, not just the NSA. That could mean purely domestic unwarranted wiretaps, unwarranted black-bag jobs, or similar misconduct.

I agree that so long as Bush stonewalls and Gonzales plays the pinata, they can block what really should occur -- an investigation by a special counsel. So in that sense, perhaps the tactic of Sens. Schumer and Feinstein to ratchet up pressure for resignation -- with the "no confidence" resolution as the next but not final step -- is a good idea.

But I repeat that such resignation would not be an end of the matter. The White House knows that, which is one reason Gonzales remains in place as a sacrificial anode. Not only that, he obviously controls the machinery that ought to be investigating him and his cohorts.

The Congress should also, in parallel, ramp up a real investigation of the FISA lawbreaking -- including but not limited to whatever egregious operations were occurring before March 2004. This should be more than a sideshow to the U.S. attorney investigation, which is the venue in which Comey testified. Both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees should be actively involved, with as many open hearings as possible.

I also have been thinking about how this episode illustrates the downside of letting the special-prosecutor statute expire. It is hard to imagine a situation where the attorney general and President are more conflicted than this one, yet they will not move to appoint a special counsel on their own. The law had its own downsides, too, and the general danger of runaway prosecutions is worth worrying about. But I do raise the issue.

Without such a law there can be special counsels on the motion of honorable attorneys general. (Ashcroft recused himself in the Plame matter, and Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald.) But we are witnessing what happens when the incumbent AG, and his boss, are without honor where the rule of law is concerned.

(BTW, it's a minor point, but I think Glenn should lay off Fred Hiatt on this one. The Post editorial page has supported Bush on Iraq, a different issue. But on the domestic spying matter, the Post editorialists have a decent record -- sometimes outperforming their counterparts in the newsroom.)

The administration's talking point is that such "modernization" amendments to FISA, which would rewrite the fundamental definitions of "electronic surveillance" that determine the scope of the statute, are meant harmlessly to make the law "technology neutral." I am open to consider policy changes that really are benign, and this sounds benign.

But the devil is in the details. Orin Kerr blogged last year about how such seemingly simple changes in FISA's definitions might have far-reaching but hidden consequences.

See www.orinkerr.com/2006/08/04/the-specter-bills-changes-to-the-basic-definitions-of-fisa/

And in a recent PBS interview with James Baker, the DOJ lawyer who supervises practice before the FISA court, he indicates rather candidly that the real intent is to "carve out" some communications so that the decision to intercept them could be made without going to court at all:

PBS: What's the heart of the difference between going through the FISA process and doing that National Security Agency eavesdropping program the way the president ordered?

BAKER: Let me try to answer your question in this way. When people talk about modernizing FISA and the need to modernize FISA, when you step back and think about it for a moment, what's really going on is an effort to try to change the definition of electronic surveillance under FISA. ...

The way FISA is constructed now, certain things, if they fall within the definition of electronic surveillance, have to be approved by the FISA court before you can start collection. If you change the definition of electronic surveillance so that you carve out certain types of communication, then somebody else other than the FISA court could approve that. It could be the president; it could be the attorney general; could be somebody down at the FBI field office or at the NSA -- wherever the determination is made that this is the appropriate official to do that. So what you're really talking about when you talk about modernization of FISA, at the end of the day, you're really talking about who's going to approve a particular type of collection on a particular type of communication stream. ...

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/baker.html

Danger, Will Robinson!