Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6304 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

That's the summary of the rule under which the FISA bill is being debated. One hour. One fucking hour to debate what the Times today called "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years."

Sing with me now: And I'm proud to be an American...

That's a terrific ad, Glenn.

Glad to see they're breaking for lunch before plunging in the final knife. Taking a dump on the constitution is hard work, it makes a guy or gal hungry!

for the egregiously mixed metaphor in my prior post.

So, what needs to happen, it seems to me, is for the victims of the anthrax attacks to sue Ivins' estate (in federal court, if possible), and then subpoena ABC News and Brian Ross. If it really was Ivins who fed the info, then I would think that they would not be able to assert any journalist privilege -- who would they be protecting? In any case, given the current state of the journalism privilege under federal law, there's a distinct possibility ABC would be compelled to disclose anyway.

The argument that the anthrax letters "were actually more consequential" than 9/11 is indeed going too far. The Bush administration was in a state of confusion after 9/11 and did not push the anthrax matter very hard.

I suggest you read the opening chapter to Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side." The anthrax attacks created an extremely paranoid atmosphere in the White House and, particularly, in Cheney. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that this paranoia was a significant contributor to the assault on our civil liberties and destruction of American ideals that this administration then perpetrated.

Glenn, all good points but you lost me when you approvingly quoted that Gorbachev piece in the Times today. According to at least some of the press who've actually been to Tskhanvali, Gorby's claims of razed blocks and smoking hulks, etc., are just not borne out by the evidence. Now, maybe those reporters are simply furthering the anti-Russian propaganda machine, and I don't dispute that possibility. But isn't it also possible that Gorbachev is spewing pro-Russian propaganda here as well? Isn't it, in fact, more than just possible but likely?

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Perhaps you will find the Chairman of the World Congress of Russian Jewry more creditable than Gorbachev

Why no, no I don't. Sorry. Is there some reason I should?

Fair enough. The specific claim he makes, in the first paragraph of his Op-Ed, is this;

But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

The evidence to which I referred was primarily Tom Lasseter's report for McClatchy. Some of his comments:

Russian politicians and their partners in Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway region South Ossetia, said that when Georgian forces tried to seize control of the city and the surrounding area, the physical damage was comparable to Stalingrad and the killings similar to the Holocaust.

But a trip to the city on Sunday, without official escorts, revealed a very different picture. While it was clear there had been heavy fighting — missiles knocked holes in walls, and bombs tore away rooftops — almost all of the buildings seen in an afternoon driving around Tskhinvali were still standing.

Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia have said that 2,100 people died in fighting in Tskhinvali and nearby villages. But a doctor at the city's main hospital, the only one open during the battles that began late on Aug. 7, said the facility recorded just 40 deaths.

You will correctly point out that not everything Gorbachev said here is disputed, although the "razing of entire city blocks" certainly seems to be and I would argue that overall the impression Gorbachev makes is inconsistent with Lasseter's report.

As I said, I do not claim that Lasseter is free from bias or even necessarily accurate (although you would have to agree, I hope, that McClatchy has generally been noted for reliable reporting). My point is only that there is no less reason to doubt Gorbachev -- indeed, probably a lot more given that he is, after all, a Russian politician.

to Lasseter's story in McClatchy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/48860.html

Just to head off the comments... when I said that Gorbachev is less trustworthy "because he is, after all, a Russian politician" I meant because in this instance -- a dispute involving Russia -- he's not a disinterested observer. I didn't mean that Russian politicians are inherently less trustworthy. Certainly I'd stack the liars in the US up against the Russian pols anytime.

I don't even particularly have an opinion on the merits of Pearlstein's position, but his smugness deserved every bit of this excellent smackdown by GG.

What's your evidence for that, Glenn? That he doesn't directly challenge McCain's statements on Georgia? Hardly the same thing as "adopting" McCain's position, is it?