http://nytimes.com/2007/05/19/opinion/19sat1.html

The New York Times, Saturday, May 19, 2007
Editorial

Their Master’s Voice

. . . The president is still standing by . . . Mr. Gonzales . . .

. . . It’s a familiar pattern:

. . . Mr. Bush protects his embattled advisers because they are doing precisely what he told them to do.

. . . Mr. Tenet put the party line and his own career above the good of the country . . .

. . . Mr. Rumsfeld did Mr. Bush’s bidding . . .

. . . The president also clung to his nomination of Ms. Miers . . .

. . . The more of these White House psychodramas we get to witness, the more obvious it is that Mr. Bush’s warm embrace is really a payoff to yes-men who didn’t challenge his orders or question ideology-driven policies. It is a cynical way to run the United States government. And, as Mr. Tenet’s recent book shows, it doesn’t even buy silence.

Good points. Also note that Clinton had, and wanted, advisors who gave him conflicting advice, e.g. Cutler vs. Clarke., as opposed to Bush's yes-men.

But it still seems that the most effective check and balance on the White House is a foot-dragging Pentagon.

Lets hope the academies are turning out lots of cautious foot-dragging officers.

http://technorati.com/chart/comey?chartdays=10

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/03/08/bernard-lewis-applauds-the-crusades

The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON WIRE
March 8, 2007

Bernard Lewis Applauds the Crusades

Famed Princeton Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis drew a standing ovation from a packed house of conservative luminaries Wednesday night in a lecture that described Muslim migration to Europe as an Islamic attack on the West and defended the Crusades as “a late, limited and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad” that spread Islam across much of the globe.

Lewis gave the nearly hour-long speech at the annual black-tie dinner of the American Enterprise Institute after receiving the group’s Irving Kristol Award. Among the attendees were Vice President Dick Cheney, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and ex-Pentagon official Richard Perle . . .

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080

from The Wall Street Journal editorial page
Was Osama Right?
BY BERNARD LEWIS

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

. . . We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility . . .

What is Neoconservatism? It's the view that Osama bin Laden is a kick-ass tough guy, whom we should emulate.

It's the view that we need to be as amoral and ruthless as the Soviet Union was. (so that we can be as successful as they were, eh?)

It's the view that we should worship jihadism -- that jihadism is the way to uphold Judeo-Christian values.

I may be a bleeding heart, wooly brained liberal, but isn't it clear that all rational people should hate jihadism?

Doctor: How is a speedboat like a car?

Patient: They both have windshields, but I don't really see how they're alike.

As Kevin Drum correctly observed today,

http://washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_05/011346.php
May 21, 2007
. . . McConnell's op-ed is a masterpiece of vagueness, distinguished more by what it doesn't say than by what it does. Most notably, in the course of 600 words he never says what kinds of changes he'd like to see in the law. In fact, he never so much as hints at it . . .
— Kevin Drum 12:50 AM

However, McConnell's office did issue a press release on Friday, April 13, 2007, entitled, "Fact Sheet: Proposed FISA Modernization Legislation."

http://bespacific.com/mt/archives/014568.html
. . . Key Provisions of this Bill Are . . . Improving the way the United States does business with communications providers. The country’s communications providers are important partners in the ability of the United States Government to protect our national security. The proposed legislation includes needed authority both to protect those carriers [emphasis added - - sysprog] when they do comply with lawful requests under FISA, and to enable providers to cooperate with authorized intelligence activities.

Also, McConnell, and other Administration officials spoke to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, about "FISA modernization."

Ken Wainstein said

http://earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,98339.shtml
. . . While a thorough description of these consequences can be discussed only in a classified session, I can state the bottom line here: considerable resources of the Executive Branch and the FISA Court are now expended on obtaining court orders to monitor the communications of terrorist suspects overseas. I believe most Americans would be surprised and dismayed to discover that America's intelligence agencies routinely use scarce resources to make a showing of probable cause, a notion derived from the Fourth Amendment, and obtain a court order before acquiring the communications of these individuals. To make matters worse, these individuals frequently are communicating with other persons outside the United States . . .

Note the artful use of the word, "frequently."

The fact is that, if a warrant is required, it's usually because one of the parties is in the USA. So the word, "frequently" is used quite artfully here, and *doesn't* mean, "usually".

I'd bet it does mean that the communication is passing through a switch in the USA, and that the proposed FISA revisions would make it easier for phone companies to give the federal government access to such switches with broader, less frequent warrants, and/or without any warrant.

Why do you think I'd take offense? Your interpretation is pretty close to mine. I only chipped away at one little piece of the whole horrid mess of Wainstein's testimony on May 1, 2007.

Chip away.

Deconstruct.

Have at it.