Will the House of Representatives stay on target and protect the Constitution? The President's lies are so obvious, so blatant, so shrill.

The issue is retroactive telecom immunity. If the President/Senate's version of the FISA amendments becomes law, Americans will never know the extent of the Bush Administration's compicity in/direction of flagrantly illegal surveillance which, it bears repeating, American courts already have reviewed and ruled could not be reasonably believed to have been legal when instituted. The point of the retroactive immunity is not to protect telecoms from fishing expeditions or to thank them for their patriotism, because the law in effect when they did these things already provides/provided "good faith" immunity -- the point is they're not going to be able to meet that minimal standard. Seems like that might be important.

The issue of the importance of the telecom immunity fight has been laid bare for months, never better than by Senator Kennedy's succinct analysis on the Senate floor, where he connected the dots so well to show that Bush's veto threats quite clearly place telecom immunity ahead of "dead Americans" on his priority list. The issue almost caught the country's attention then, but not quite enough and the Senate caved to Bush's "be afraid, be very afraid, and it's your fault if you don't do whatever I want" crap.

But the House has balked. And, most notably, the Country itself now seems to be paying attention to why. In the past three days, we have seen Congressmen quote chapter and verse in opposition to the President's pathetic threats. We have seen Herr McConnell actually trapped into admitting that the issue that is really important to the President is NOT the ability or inability to conduct effective surveillance should the FISA amendments lapse, but is only telecom immunity. Not just Keith Olbermann, but places like the Rocky Mountain Whatever are outlining the reasons for refusing to cowtow to Bush on this telecom immunity issue.

What the Emperor has been telling us are his clothes are disappearing in the sunlight. It's time to turn on the bright lights.

Glenn's last post about this issue pointed out the reasonable concern that the House's adjournment in the face of Bush's recalcitrance might ultimately turn out to have been based on little more than pique. I am hopeful that the increasing groundswell of public recognition here might turn it into more than that.

It's a matter of the fundamental nature of our democracy. It's about whether we as a nation believe in the rule of law and the United States Constitution. It's about whether we as a nation will tolerate a president who does not respect his oath of office and who insists that he is above the law. We have to put a stop to this man's madness.

So, Glenn, glad to see you back commenting on this morning's paranoid rantings from the President. Don't let up. Thank you for your continuing voice of reason, we need to stop this man.

Thanks for the gestalt, GG. Some of your best pieces are those in which you take a garden variety rant from some Serious Pundit, take a deep breath, and parse it for the rest of us. Translating Steyn's "9/11 is fading from memory" into "thank God there are selfless people like me who are strong enough to keep vigilant, when do we attack Iran" is brilliant.

Where do these guys see any link between, on the one hand, twenty very dangerous individuals with box cutters and an ideology driven by a couple dozen zealots in caves, utterly devoid of an army, air force, navy, or ballistic anything and, on the other hand, a perceived need to invade foreign countries, occupy them for years, and "draw fire" over there while stripping the treasury and eviscerating the Constitution? Is it because as long as our soldiers are shooting at somebody, at least "we" (as a country, certainly not personally) are doing something manly?

We aren't at "war", "war" must be declared by Congress and it is only in that event that any of the President's "war powers" are even arguably present. We are at "war on terror" the same way we have been at "war on poverty" or "war on drugs" -- who will suggest that suspension of the Fourth Amendment was permissible in support of the War on Drugs? The Nazis were "bad" and that was a war declared by Congress, did the President have the authority to torture them?

GG's exposition of Steyn's absurd self-congratulation over his own irrational fears lays bare the scope of the self-deception underlying the neocon philosophy. To meet the very real, and very dangerous, challenges presented by the Islamic terrorist threat, we would need to be diligent at a level that just isn't sexy and manly enough for these guys: things like examining incoming cargo become relevant, but that just doesn't present all that many heroic opportunities. Better to invade the Middle East or, as Jonah Goldberg/Michal Ledeen have put it: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."

Respect and enforce the Constitution. Impeach Bush. No FISA telecom immunity. No Torture. Restore habeas corpus. Be America, sheesh!

Wow. What a compelling ad. Whoa, are we in for it now. What's the matter with those darn Democrats?

I don't wanna die.

How come I'm not safe? Please, make those people in the turbans go away. Take whatever you want, just make those people in the turbans go away. And electronic numbers flashing down 3... 2... 1....? Whew, don't ask, just do what you gotta do to make it stop.

At least we all understand that the Republicans respect our intelligence and wouldn't stoop to cheap theatrics. I feel safer already. Now if we could only waterboard a few more bad guys, I'd be cruisin'.