Another thing to consider is that the bill essentially makes the converse of what the Administration wanted legal. That is, because it allows monitoring transmissions that can "reasonably be expected" to be outside the U.S., and because monitoring a line that went into and out of the country could provide grounds for reasonable expectation, it allows them to monitor transmissions that originate and terminate in the U.S. but get transmitted abroad. They only have to throw it away once they find out it is U.S. to U.S. but not until they have looked at it to determine whether the contents pose an imminent threat. So U.S. to U.S. through a foreign country requires no more warrant, at least temporarily, than foreign to foreign through the U.S.

Oh, and since there is a clause already existing that "foreign intelligence" can be anything that could affect the foreign policy of the U.S., the scenario of eavesdropping on Nancy Pelosi I put up earlier is perfectly legal now.

But this thing never was about phone calls, it was about Narus STA 6400 machines and data mining. Same as the midnight visit to the hospital was.

So, those of you who want to excuse the group for the individual continue to learn nothing of the brutal environment that we are in.

I believe it was LWM (if I'm wrong--all props to the author--my bad) who asked what happens when an aggressive tribe encounters a peace loving tribe...

I'll answer that one: extermination of The Weak by The Strong.

I have seen talk like that coming from the war crazed right-wing. Do you now propose that progressives must invade and kill to 'stay in the game'?

Or perhaps I took you too literally and you mean that Democrats need to be more Rovian?

Regardless of which you meant, it looks like you are calling for dropping any principled response to the neo-cons and to adopt their tactics. Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Best of all, when call your broker to buy their stock, you'll get a personalized thank you from your investment choice by email before you get off the phone!

I feel neglected. Nissed your list. ;-)

Cheers,

[Christopher Dodd]: I should have been more skeptical about it. I grew up in a time with the old anecdote of Kennedy sending Dean Acheson over to meet Charles de Gaulle to show him airiel photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba. And they met in de Gaulle's office and de Gaulle said "Take these down. I don't want to see them." And Acheson asked: "why not"? And de Gaulle said: "the word of an American president is good enough for me."

This is how Chris Dodd excuses his gullibility in front of the Bush Administration? That he was lost in a dream about some past that never existed?

That was Kennedy. This is Dubya. Dubya was born with a lislver-toungued lie in his mouth (this was apparent to anyone who paid attention in 2000, and to Texans long before then).

Cheers,

If the Democrats' overpaid consultants came up with that strategy, they hardly deserve a job at Wendy's.

They couldn't find a job at Wendy's. That's why they're on the DLC "welfare rolls".

Cheers,

are we in danger of falling into the "good vs evil" mindset that has proved to be so disastrous for the Bush presidency?

'We' have been there for a long time. The Republicans see 'evil' in the world and the Democrats also see 'evil' in the world. They often disagree on what is 'evil' and normally both are blind.

At this point the Democrats eyesight is better, but after they take full control in 2008 we will see how things go. In the almost four decades that I have followed politics I have seen a lot of things from both parties that make you just want to hang your head.

Actually we'll contend the election was stolen and that any Democrat in the White House is illegitimate.

Yeah, I'm sure you will. But you'll look pretty stoopid since you won't have a half million more votes than the "winning" candidate. That won't stop you though. See, e.g., the Miami "citizen's riot". You're quite adept at brownshirt tactics, and will use them whenever you can. It's in your nature ... besides being all you have.

Cheers,

"Basket warrants" for all communications involving one person in a foreign country, without knowing where the other party or parties to the communication are located.

I really don't have a serious problem with such (as long as the foreign "person" is a legitimate "target". When a FISA court order is required, there's (hopefully) at least good reason to believe that the "target" is an agent of a foreign power, and I don't worry too much about recording all calls of such a person, even if they call someone in the U.S. Allowing such is consonant with current domestic wiretap law, where you don't need a warrant based on probable cause for all parties, just the "target".

Allowing snoops on all international communications, without more in terms of "suspicion" or "probable cause" (as well as court review of such) is a different matter.

If someone told the American public that from now on all international communications are fair game without a showing of need or cause, I suspect you'd see a hue and cry. If that's what it is, I'm agin' it.....

Cheers,

Aside from all the dancing and "if only" points of view being expressed here by people who think history started in the year 2000 and/or are loathe to jettison their emotional ties to the Democratic party, there's something I'm wondering about.

There seems to be a fair amount of "well, if we make this progress in 2008 and replace some certain politicians for more acceptable ones, then we'll be in position for (fill in the blank) at sometime in the future..." My question is, seriously, how much time do you think you have?

I think when one looks at the speed and velocity of how things have been going, that to posit a leisurely timeline in which to turn things around is a sucker's bet. I'd further suggest that the people who are bringing this down on our heads are counting on us being suckers.

My suggestion is to think outside this box. For one, I'm with previous posters regarding a 9/11 inquiry. Six years later, we're still letting them get away with using those events to do anything they want. If it wasn't clear at the time that these people would use literally any awful tactic necessary to achieve their ends, I can't imagine it isn't clear now. Further, I agree that perhaps coming to some sort of closure about 9/11 might really be the only thing that can heal the schism that the fallout from that day created.

In any case, the sense that this is just a parlor game and that we can take all the time we need and not get our hands dirty cleaning up the mess is missing the mark, in my opinion.