Glenn,

The actual vote is 56-43, with one no-vote (Chambliss). Joe Lieberman actually voted "nay". (I'm going to zip it now because I don't have time for a diatribe.)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00340

Johnsonjohnson, are you a farmer? Because that's a hell of a lot of straw.

If you have a point, try stating it clearly and succinctly.

You read just like one of those jargon or argument generators.

(American) might makes right!

That was easy...

The actual vote is 56-43, with one no-vote (Chambliss). Joe Lieberman actually voted "nay". (I'm going to zip it now because I don't have time for a diatribe.)

I don't count Lieberman as a Democrat. As I understand it, Harry Reid voted "no" on cloture because of some procedural rule (which provides, I think, that re-consideration can be requested only by a Senator voting "no," so it's common where the majority will lose a vote for one Senator who supports it to vote "no"). Thus, with Reid favoring cloture, I counted 57 votes in favor of cloture.

What are the eventualities that follow particular courses of action?

-- Johnsonjohnson

because I couldn't find it after trying twice. Lots of really great words though. I considered if it was generated by one of those "empowering a new paradigm" technical babble programs, but I suppose not.

Still, I'll call that B.S. and raise you this quote:

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding"

We were engaged in a rather vigorous trade relationship with the Chinese. Was there some reason I was supposed to think that was a bad thing?

What masochistic mechansims cause people to be complicit in enabling harm to occur to themselves is problematical

Oh, indeed. Gotta get rid of those masochistic mechanisms.

I buy your argument completely. I am now breaking into your house and stealing anything of value, empowered by your essay on self interest. Sorry about your wife and daughter, but as you say, we are competing for desirable assets! Anyhow, best of day to you. I'll leave the light on for ya.

look at the history of our country during times of war.

You are the dangerous one because you live in a fantasy world.

Stick your head back up your ass and eat your own shit. You moron.

Winning new hearts and minds every day, aren't we, Tiberius?

"As I understand it, Harry Reid voted "no" on cloture because of some procedural rule (which provides, I think, that re-consideration can be requested only by a Senator voting "no," so it's common where the majority will lose a vote for one Senator who supports it to vote "no")."

--GlennGreenwald

Now wonder so many people would rather come home from work and watch Seinfeld re-runs than C-SPAN.

Thanks for the prompt DCLaw1. It may not do as much good as I'd hope but contacting Senators is not a labor intensive activity. I kept up a steady drum beat in both my Senator's inboxes going into the vote on Habeas Corpus and the Webb amendment. Costs me little to do it on FISA. I got the drill down, and one can always hope.

JohnsonJohnson, apart from noting the bloviating style of your comment, not much can be said, except I'm sorry it is so scary for you inside your head. May I recommend 5 Myths About Terrorism by Alan Krueger at WaPo; http://tinyurl.com/22uf67 As for energy concerns, imagine what our engineering and science world could have done with a cash infusion like the one Bush put in Iraq. You are being both unimaginative and defeatist. Ain't no American Can Do you.

As for tiberius, I invoke Mona from yesterday. No 12 Step Program needed.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule13.php

http://rules.house.gov/archives/reconsider_mot.htm

See also Robert's Rules of Order:
http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-06.htm#36

How can Seinfeld compare to these thrills?

You forgot the part about all this Wisdom being too complicated and lofty for us mere citizens to grasp.

You also forgot to explain that the urgent Clear and Present Danger of that Real Mean Scary World Out There (aka China's thirst for oil... hey don't forget India!) means there is no time to explain it to us, or to allow us to even debate strategy, tactics, diplomacy, and Constitutional issues.

Other than that, excellent - if somewhat verbose - distillation of geopolitical considerations for the 21st (New American) century.

Thanks much,
Gordon Ginsberg

Should the police sandbag the windows at the station house, or are you just in town to catch The Brave One?

Will someone please explain to me why (other than their usual spinelessness) the Senate dems are not FORCING the repugs to carry out their threat to filibuster?

I would pay good money to watch spaghetti-muscled Mitch McConnell try to talk for just one hour non-stop while standing, without food, water or breaks.

Every single such threat should be met with three words and three words only:

Bring. It. On.

C'mon, you cowardly bullies. Let's see you actually pull off a REAL filibuster. Just once.

Bet it never happens again. Bet a lot of voters are shocked to find out who's really being obstructionist. Bet you all look really stupid on the floor trying to make good on your schoolyard taunt. Bet you learn the better part of valor is sitting the fuck down and shutting the fuck up.

It's a fair point, but I trust Jim Risen's reporting skills, especially on FISA, at least enough to conclude that there must be something real here for him to have included this possibility in such a clear way.

My impression is the opposite. While I don't belittle Risen's investigative prowess for breaking the original NSA surveillance story, I have found his reporting on the legal and legislative aftermath to be pretty bad.

Risen totally failed to report the action while the PAA was being enacted just before the August recess, and even a week later the NYT thumbsucker to which he contributed fundamentally misstated what the act actually did. It took yet another week for the NYT, focusing on "critics," to wake up to the fact that the bill was hugely controversial and enacted things not previously covered by the Times.

Even Risen's story today, which lacks any quote to support his lede, is basically wrong. McConnell actually testified last May before Senate Intelligence that there was no longer warrantless surveillance going on, so this element is not news.

I watched the House hearing on C-SPAN yesterday (it is temporarily archived there) and found it quite unenlightening -- primarily because of the inept questioning by most committee members.