http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91724115

Bond starts talking around the 2:40 mark.

From the illustrious Congressman Adam Schiff's website:

“More than two years after we found out that the President was asserting the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval, Congress is set to pass a measure that says otherwise,” said Schiff. “The exclusivity provision included in this bill will make it clear that FISA and federal criminal wiretap statutes are the only legal basis for the surveillance of Americans – without exception."

So he's basically saying that two years ago he found out the president was breaking the law. And instead of impeaching the bastard, he rewards him with a "compromise" FISA bill.

Jeebus sliced in a bucket!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91724115

Just like Obama, maybe we need a website with the above name where citizens can go to find out the truth of what is going on in Congress. It could collect the work of Glenn and others and then have a donation button. If the goal is to only target Blue Dogs, then call it, How White Flag Dems Smear the Truth; but, the perniciousness of the Repugs and the M$M needs to be exposed as well.

Pork sausage upsets the tummy. ache

If your serious about health, tell the truth.

Greasy sausage can put fat around the heart.

Drink herbal detox tea for the digestive system.

Use milk thistle, dandelion root, and burdock root.

Root the walking half-dead creeps out by high noon.

I can understand the focus on Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dogs for targeted ads to unseat them, which is only fitting, but the Speaker is still Nancy "Impeachment is Off the Table" Pelosi.

Had impeachment articles against Bush and Cheney not been bottled up in committee at her instruction, we'd be in a very different place by now. Instead, we've had to suffer through this spineless Democratic led Congress whose only goal is reelection and maintaining the status quo while, amazingly, the Republicans continue to set the agenda.

Talk about your surrender monkeys!

Targeting her for her history of enabling the Bush agenda is not only warranted, it's 18 months overdue. Taking our constitutional right to an impeachment debate and tossing it out the window enabled not only this travesty gutting the 4th amendment, but continues the current war fiasco in Iraq and gives Bush time to start his next war--with Iran.

Just as Bush is responsible for the lies, war crimes, torture, illegal spying, rendition, extra-judicial killings, and the host of Orwellian laws of the past 7+ years (Blue Skies, Patriot Act, Protect America Act, Military Commissions Act, etc.), since January 2007 Nancy Pelosi has been responsible for everything that came after in terms of enabling the legislation and Bush agenda. Responsibility trickles up.

This is what 'bipartisanship' really is ... A Republican rider on top of a Democratic Party donkey. Picture it. Sancho Panza, except more like "Franco Panza."

Of course, that assumes the donkey doesn't want to be ridden. Perhaps it does? Maybe it is an eager and cooperative donkey, not a 'mule' but a passive ass, a docile burro, really, perhaps donkey and rider are ... one.

Bingo. The rider and the donkey are on the same side. It is only the confused angry mules that don't understand.

Time to become a horse.

There seems to be no immediately obvious political calculus to the Hoyer camp's leading the charge on this one. Sure, they are covering their hineys, because the Democratic leadership probably knew about the illegal wiretapping and evesdropping programs all along, but if that's all there were, it seems to me there would be less politically risky ways of dealing with those issues.

I suspect that what may be motivating them might be more sinister.

The Democrats will likely win big this November, both in Congress and probably the White House, and the Republicans and the White House know it. It is also well known that the Bush family has strong historic ties to both the Saudi royal family (well known selective sponsors of terrorism), and to the Bin Ladens. Both of those families have benefited extensively from Bush White House control (and neocon control in general), so would have a strong interest in seeing some kind of terrorist incident destabilize the new administration and congress shortly after it takes office.

Members of the administration may be making veiled threats to the Democratic leadership (and probably Obama's people as well) along these lines unless it gets the FISA legislation with telecom immunity, and possibly other legislation as well, perhaps to be seen later. Certainly, the mutedness of the Obama campaign on this issue is curious.

Because short of these kinds of threats to the Democrats ability to govern, I do not see the political upside for the Democrats to continue to push this telecom immunity thing.

Whatever the cause, Hoyer's (and apparently Pelosi's) active, rather than passive caving on this issue is short-sighted, and a continuation of Democrats' string of hapless strategic and tactical blunders that characterize their approach to politics over the past twenty or so years.

Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6304 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

That's the summary of the rule under which the FISA bill is being debated. One hour. One fucking hour to debate what the Times today called "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years."

Sing with me now: And I'm proud to be an American...

I just spoke to Congressman Carson's office and asked how he planned to vote on the FISA legislation. According to the woman who answered, he plans to listen to the debate and then decide. I asked her to please, please, please urge him to vote against it, to hold Bush and the telecoms accountable for breaking the law, and to stand up for the Constitution. Technically, Carson isn't my Congressman, but I work in his constituency. Besides, my Congressmen is a die-hard Republican (Dan Burton anyone?) and is, I'm sure, more than happy with this so-called "compromise."

I also sent Evan Bayh a lengthy email, although he's pretty much a lost cause. I think he voted for the previous Senate bill.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by the way this is going, but I'm not. It seems the only thing Democrats can be counted on to do, is surrender. As another poster suggested, I'm going to start calling them "White Flag Democrats."