Boy, you really got me there. It is pretty obvious from your responses that you really know your stuff on this issue and put me in my place. Trust me, it hurts me deeply when someone of your obvious intellictual capacity calls me “pathetic” – I don’t know how I’ll get over it.

Oh, by the way, I wanted to thank you for your last comment – it was a wonderful gift. I can’t wait to quote it in all my responses to your future comments complaining about the Democratic President and Congress over the next several years.

There’s really one point to consider about the Senate vote – you and your ideas lost. End of story. All the whining in the world won’t change that, but it will continue to make you look pathetic. Better if you quit now.

They are trying to make the best of a lopsided defeat. It is just a shame how much they have mis represented the factual points of the bill and spun and framed their presentations in their own world view rather than transparent analysis of the facts of the bill.

Even worse is the lack of constructive criticism of their presentation by all those following their coverage of this whole legislative history.

Good point – I hadn’t thought about the significance of a majority of the Senate voting for something. One thing we have definetly learned over the last several years is that if a majority of the Senate thinks it is a good idea – it must be a good idea. Authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq to secure the phantom WMDs – that one has turned out really well. All that pork barrell spending and record deficiets over the last 7 years – I guess that is a good thing too? Should I go on? I guess the difference between you and I is that you completely trust that our government always does the right thing and I’m somewhat more skeptical. You know, that old conservative principle of wanting limited government and being skeptical of government efforts to expand its power. Who knew that you were a closet liberal WWS?

(now cue a long and tired lament about how corrupt and soulless and yada, yada, yada, heard it all before)

First, your suggestion that the statement in the FISA court order is the ONLY evidence that the NSA program is broader than that disclosed by the White House and addressed in the recently passed FISA legislation is a joke. The White House itself does not even deny this fact. When former AG Gonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee this Fall and was repeatedly asked if there are any NSA programs that involve the interception of domestic communications, he refused to provide a direct answer and simply said that the program Bush had PUBLICALLY DISCLOSED does not involve such actions. When pressed, he specifically refused to answer questions about any other possible NSA programs for secruity reasons – read the freakin transcript! There is also the whistleblowers from AT&T and Verizon involved in assisting the NSA whom recently testified to Congress that the program appears to involve intercepting all communications, domestic and international. AT&T inadvertently confirmed the existence of the NSA facility in its San Fransisco regional headquarters in a legal briefing, so I guess AT&T is now part of the liberal conspriacy? See http://www.news.com/AT38T-leaks-sensitive-info-in-NSA-suit/2100-1028_3-6077353.html?tag=st.nl. I could go on and on, but it would take me all day.

Second, your claim that the telecomm companies were simply doing what they were told to do and got caught in the middle is completely wrong. You obviously have never read the original FISA legislation. FISA specifically addresses when and how telecomm companies are required to cooperate with the government and provide requested information. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii) provides:

“Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service. . . are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to . . . conduct electronic surveillance, . . . if such provider . . . has been provided with. . . a certification in writing by . . . the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required. . .”

The problem is not that FISA prohibited the telecomm companies from cooperating with the government, the problem is that Bush and the telecomm companies didn’t follow FISA. The Attorney General did not provide them the required certified letter and the telecomm companies (except for Qwest) didn’t request/demand it. Qwest did demand it and the government wouldn’t/couldn’t provide it. Why? Because they knew there request was not legal and the AG wouldn’t sign such a letter.

Have you ever asked yourself why Bush was willing to veto the entire FISA legislation if it didn’t contain retroactive immunity and jeopardize our security? Do you really think it was because he was so concerned about the unfairness of subjecting them to litigation that he was willing to put the entire country at risk? It is obvioius – Bush didn’t want the public to know the full extent of the NSA program and these lawsuits were the best chance to find out.

And yeah, you are right that the left is way too paranoid about this issue. FISA was created after we discovered that the FBI was spying on special interest groups the government didn’t like (anti-war protesters, MLK, etc.) for years. Who cares if the government selectively spys on fellow americans right? And Nixon – what is the big deal? A sitting president spying on the headquarters of the opposition party in order to gain an advantage in the election – what is the big deal, they do that all the time in Russia.

You repeatedly claim that the NSA program does not include domestic communications, but I question that assumption as well. Whistleblowers from AT&T and Verizon involved in assisting the NSA recently testified to Congress that the program appears to involve intercepting all communications, domestic and international, which has not been discredited or disputed by the White House. Now Bush is willing to jeopardize the entire program unless Congress agrees to include retroactive immunity to the telecomm companies so all of these law suits seeking more information about the scope of the program will be dismissed.