That’s funneee Samuel. Since I don’t know your political bent, I’m not sure if your being facetious, against Bush, or literally for. The amusing thing is, it’s humorous either way.

There’s a nice piece in the brand new Atlantic that does a good job describing the potential dangers of the program, by the way. Which then leads me to wonder why these Gang of 8 Democrats proclaim suich strong support for the essence of it.

Do any of you jokers have any ideas about how to have a really legal, kick-ass spying program?

“Tim to Roberts: What is the authorization for this action? Roberts: Every other president has done it. Also, he “disagrees with my good friend Jane.” I don’t believe a word this man says. Says FISA is unwieldy: “You gotta figure out what committee you go to and what details you reveal and what are you gonna say.” Solution: Eavesdrop first, let God sort ‘em out.

Courtesy of Wonkette. http://www.wonkette.com/politics/jane-harman/index.php

Sensed? That’s not a legal term. It amounts to feeling not thinking one of the biggest problems in political discourse.

“She doesn’t disagree with Roberts’ assertion that concerns were requested to be voiced. Does she? Am I missing something?”

She doesn’t address it at all. So you get to fill in the blank for her? Maybe I’ll ask her myself?

Having a qustion doesn’t mean you answer it yourself, as you seem to be doing.

REP. JANE HARMAN, (D-Calif.): “My briefings started in 2003 and have been in existence for about a year and a half, and I didn’t join this group until I was ranking member on Intelligence. The briefings were about the operational details of the program. I support the program, I’ve never flinched from that. However, the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program, nor were they about the appropriateness of the Gang of Eight process. I talked to absolutely no one, because I would have violated three different federal criminal statutes had I talked to anybody.”

That’s what I was referring to. I don’t see how she would have to disclose details of the program to research for herself, even with staff assistance, whether there might (might) be some issues worth bringing up to the committee.

She doesn’t claim that she sensed bringing up issues would do no good. She doesn’t disagree with Roberts’ assertion that concerns were requested to be voiced. Does she? Am I missing something?

Rockefeller’s memo seems to imply a rebuffed request for more info; but no one in the transcript disagrees with Roberts that Rockefeller never brought it up again. Why not? What was going on? This was possibly a major constitutional crime. Right?

It concerns me, yes, that the Democrats seem to be engaged in mass BS on a serious matter. (Although the “obsession” taunt can work in any number of directions on a site like this, can’t it?)

You seem like a reasonable fellow in general; other thandissing Roberst you haven’t really respodned to any specific. I suspect you kind of see what i’m saying but don’t really want to.

I think you’re just remaking the same odd argument that the Gang of 8 process is inherently pointless. And when you say the “Republicans have the whole game in their hands,” you’re making the point I was making: that same “our hands are tied” argument would just as well apply to the whole intelligence committees of each house, bound as they are by secrecy, for whichever party happened to be in the minority.

Second, we really should recognize that he past few unsuccessful presidential campaigns have left us with some significant voices who have each in their own way begun to speak lately: particularly Gore, Hart and Bradley (in CA). Not to mention older vets like Carter, Kennedy, Mondale and McGovern [well, haven't heard from Mondale....I hate to ask, but is he still "active"?].

Democrats should be listening to these people, and encouraging them, not the cautious candidates of whatever stripe, and not necessarily the party chair, speak for the party and develop issue stances. If we wait for presidential candidates to develop substantive positions themselves, it will look like, well, the past half-dozen years.

I don’t know about Feingold’s resolution or, frankly, Feingold himself. I would like to know what his thinking was in bringing this up (his political thinking, that is…we pretty much understand the merits of his proposal to censure the preisdent for unlawful eavesdropping). Does he have a plan for the hearings? How does he intend to pursue the campaign? Has he worked out who is going to support this, and when, and how? I dunno…but without this knowledge, it is difficult to say from a strategic point of view–the point of view from which Marc wrote and most have responded–whether this makes sense or not.

Certainly the analogous impeachment resolution by John Conyers can be criticized. However, for me it has already proven that it is worth the candle. His staff has produced what may be the most important document published by the anti-war side in the past 3 years. It gathered from public sources a devastating and thorough analysis of how the president and his PR palace guard moved the country behind the plans to invade Iraq. [Confessio: I have only read excerpts...]

The committee’s report was itself analyzed in a Harper’s front page article last month, I believe written by Lewis Lapham. It advocated for impeachment, for better or worse. But its publicity for the committee’s report is all good. So to the extent Cong. Conyers intended to use his offices to put together a solid version of the truth, and find a mechanism to get it out to the public, he and his impeachment idea have been successful.

Personally, in view of the current on-deck hitter, I remain agnostic on the question of impeachment.

In other words, play defense, do nothing remotely risky in order to deny “wins” to the White House. If these guys can’t kick this president when he is down they can’t be trusted to ever get it right. The source also says the Dems are trying to bolster their image on security and that most people support the spying, and thus… Well, that’s the kind of leadership that really gets me charged up! Woo hoo. Don’t Think of an Elephant!!

Without any ad hominem, anyone care to comment?

(Had Kerry actually won, I’m not convinced things would be going a whole lot better in Iraq. This whole adventure was so ill conceived from the get-go that after that first year or so of big planning failures, I’m not sure a more competent leadership could have significantly improved things. The gaffes in the last two years have been fairly minimal yet we’re still watching things spiral out of control. And perhaps, with a Democratic president at the helm and receiving the blame, we’d be watching the Republicans make big gains in ’06.)