Dropping obscure baseless innuendo about former Clinton administration officials is a sure sign you get a healthy dose of wingnut 'news', which should help account for the Salonista's response here, (That's a real back slapper by the way. At which node on the wingnut talking points network did you collect it? I mean, I've heard it before and am curious which distribution channel information central made available for download and which wingnut cranium OS it's compatible with).

It is particularly difficult to listen to conservatives squawk on about Sandy Berger's taking of 4 documents pertaining to a foiled terrorist plot when you consider their deafening silence in the face of a Bush administration that has rewritten disclosure laws to allow it to bury ALL of its confidential records, forever. 4 documents about an unsuccessful attack vs. a couple million including some potentially documenting the extent to which Bush administration incompetence factored in 9/11- you decide who has the most to hide? After all, we already know from Dick Clarke that the Bush administration justice department/FBI demphasized anti-terrorism upon inaugeration, and of course that "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" was clearly a 'historical' briefing (why else would the president be briefed on it while on vacation, if not to think over the history of Al Qaeda terrorism to that point? He thinks better when clearing brush apparently).

Anyway you ask a question, inane though it may be, which is why is any of this a concern. As I have a tendency to do when trying to help someone learn to fish, I'll just have to respond with a question of my own- why does FISA exist in the first place?... I think you'll find out all you need to know as regards the concerns which underpin this blog post if you manage to get the answer to that one. Happy hunting sport-o.