They were acting far more out of resentment......than out of any principled objection to warrantless eavesdropping or telecom amnesty

Even if they were acting out of resentment rather than principle, the fact that their willing to disarm Bush (the looming deadline was pretty much the only weapon at his disposal) leads me to beleive that they might actually take the time to consider the bill on its merits. And of course, on its merits, telecom immunity makes no sense whatsoever.

If I may take the liberty of quoting my last post on the other thread:

Now, if we can only make sure that the late-night talk-show jokes start falling our way, who knows what might be accomplished?

I have to think that the House, having shown the fortitude to remove the club that GWB had been brandishing over their heads, might be beginning to take its responsibilities seriously. The timing of the Contempt citations might also signal the fact that the bullying and threats are starting to lose their effectiveness. Now, if we can only make sure that the late-night talk-show jokes start falling our way, and who knows what might be accomplished?

It is possible that in the future an agency might request infrared imaging of what is inside a house, for instance a methamphetamine laboratory, and this could raise constitutional issues. In these instances, law enforcement agencies would still have to go through the normal process of obtaining a warrant and satisfying all the legal requirements. The National Applications Office also would require that all the laws are observed when using new imaging technology.

OK HRH! That's your cue......

It reminds me of the fact that much of the expansion of asset forfeture procedures took place during the Clinton 90's.

What I can't wait for is during the next administration when shooter and PW suddenly become vital allies in the fight for civil liberties.

Let's hope that Salon doesn't scrub the archives of what's been said in the meantime.

Ironic how the Republicans are now using the fact that some Dems crossed over and voted against the 14 day extension as a tool to portray immunity as "bipartisan" and thus saddle Nancy Pelosi as the obstructionist villain.

I just want to thank those guys from the bottom of my heart.

Shooter once again proves the point of his critics.

Contrary to the caricature you maintain in your head, many people here are actually quite on board with the notion that the government should live within its means. That is why tax-cuts are only 1/2 the equation. Without commensurate spending cuts, the tax cuts mean nothing. The bill comes due.

The fact remains that GW Bush has been rather radical in his approach to spending, going litarally years before his first veto threat, and any self-respecting Conservative would have rupudiated him on that basis alone. As a matter of fact, many did.

This of course means, that the folks left defending him are not conservatives but instead are liars.

Anyone who speaks of small-government at this juncture is assuming that he has an audience of morons. He is frequently correct.

except in lefty-cloud-cuckoo land.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/

http://www.freerepublic.com

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/

This tour of rabid haters of all things Muslim is brought to you as a public service by your friends at Islamofascists-R-Us.

So instead of planting roadside bombs, they'll instead be high-fiving each other and enjoying the fact that their membership in a religion with 1.6 billion adherents is no longer being used as a justification for a foreign army to be based in a nearby country.

Do regard Islam as an enemy?

Anyplace we deploy our military HAS to become a permanent outpost or our enemies will call us names.

I know that many people will eventually outgrow the fear of being called a "chicken" but allowing that to be the driving force behind a foreign policy is certainly an invitaion for disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to the Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country

Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until 19 months AFTER the invasion. It would appear that the presence of US troops has been helpful for the terrorist networks expansion from their bases in Pakistan.

To conflate the Iraq war with anything related to Al Qaeda or 9-11 requires a degree of ignorance that most people have since found their way past.

But the people who are aware of it, are still relying on inattention and deception to further the interest of those who think that a permanent military occupation in the middle east is just and necessary.

that Al Qaeda doesn't want our troops out of Iraq.

They, like you, thrive on conflict.

Your first appearance on this board was in response to Glenn's observation that the US military budget exceeds that of all other countries combined. Since a huge fraction of that budget goes directly to companies such as Raytheon for items which have little utility except to destroy buildings and pulverize people, its not much of a stretch to refer to you as a cheerleader for those companies.

The mark of a liar:

One of the reasons I regards Glenn as being such a small and petty man (in keeping with most of the posters here)

the military exists more or less for the sole purpose (in actuality if not in principle) of raping babies and kiling civvies. A position I might add that while nobody agreed with, nobody else here was particularly in a hurry to attack or disagree with

Not everyone has sufficient reading comprehesion difficulties to extract "Glenn is a twit" and "Lefties hate the military" from the above senences.