".... and don't forget the weapons of mass destruction!".

"Oops, we're the ones with all the weapons of mass destruction (10,000 nuclear warheads, according to the last count)..."

GWB really cares more about the rule of law that he hasn't quite got control of, as yet. He justs need a few more legal tools to enhance his control over Congress. The next cry is EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE.
The Senate caved on their responsibility to protect the rule of law. Hopefully the House will make a stand to protect the rights of their constituents.
Hooey with his horror stories. Some one should tell him to shut his lying mouth.

PLEASE go to Africa....AND DON'T COME BACK!

It's not even about money or about finding out what lawbreaking the telecoms actually did, it's about closing off the only remaining avenue to find out what lawbreaking *Bush Administration officials* did. That's why they care, and that's why he's willing, by his own admission, to expose the country to danger to protect the telecoms -- he's protecting his own ass.

Remember to call your congressperson and thank them, and ask for more of the same! They need to know we have their backs on this one.

They've got the biggest 'tool' of all... this president.

By giving the telecoms retroactive immunity, the Bush Administration also immunize themselves from prosecution. They know that their crimes are completely indefensible hence their urgent need for retroactive immunity. [The complete lack of debate over whether any law has been broken is conspicuous by its absence. This from an administration still arguing that water boarding is not torture!]

While Bush & company try to scare us into supporting an immunity that benefits no one else but themselves, the telecoms are flexing their considerable monetary muscles by twisting Congressional arms. According to Opensecrets.org, the telecom/electronics lobby ranks #4 w/$2 billion+ spent since 1998. That’s a heckuva lotta of campaign contributions, free dinners and bar tabs. My guess it that that a majority of this went to Bush, Boehner, DeLay, “Duke”, Blunt, Stevens, Doolittle, Lewis, etc.

No small wonder the Republican Representatives walked en masse yesterday. They had been already paid for their day's work by the telecoms to ignore their sworn duty to the American people. Just how many of those Dems voting for the bill also received some sort of renewed "support" from the telecom lobby?

-AF

Those who lead by fear are the most fearful of all.

The President shows signs of fleeting desperation. Perhaps he needs to rest. The President failed to discuss why the changes to FISA must now include retroactive immunity/amnesty. The issues are two completely separate problems, which the President lumped together. Let's review the President's assertions:

1. Insult His Crumbling GOP Base

He starts by suggesting the American people are retarded, and that they have not noticed the President has not defeated the group of 19 hijackers behind 9-11. This isn't the fault of the American public. It's the fault of the President. There's nothing new here for the public to "understand". The President is really asking that the GOP believe what he himself will not accept: That he has failed as their leader:

"The American citizens must understand -- clearly understand that there still is a threat on the homeland, there's still an enemy which would like to do us harm, and that we've got to give our professionals the tools they need to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so that we can stop it...."

Mr. President, the reason the enemy is "still" out there is that despite the illegal surveillance at home, you're not translating that inforation into credible military strategies. The problem lies with you, as Commander in Chief; not with the public who see this bungling war is bungling because we have a [wait for it] bungling Commander in Chief.

2. Fear Stares the President In The Mirror

Next the President makes a sweeping assertion, without citing any specific name. The "evil Them" with a capitol T:

"People say, oh, it doesn't matter if this law hasn't been renewed -- it does matter."

No, Mr. President, you'[re saying that the law must be renewed only if there is amnesty. That matters. The only thing this President fears is accountability. The prospect of an attack, which he well knew about before 9-11, didn't mobilize him; and the failed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not mobilized him to credibly prevail. He's merely making excuses for his incompetence as "Commander" in Chief.

3. More Unfulfilled Promises

Then the President promises to provide "several" reasons why his incorrect-characterization of the problem is solvable, correct, and can be explained.

"It matters for a variety of reasons."

This is the sound bite: "Because I assert there are reasons, I have proven my originally absurd statement. Never mind that my reasoning is defective because of my reliance on retarded American lawyers working in DOJ OLC." Never mind the "reasons" are absurd, do not support his premise, and are false to facts.

4. Faulty Reasoning: Dubious Assertions Given As Fact

Then the President asserts a blatant misrepresentation, pretending that a lie is a "reason":

"It matters because the intelligence officials won't have tools necessary to get as much information as we possibly can to protect you."

Whether the intelligence community has "tools" has nothing to do with legislation, but with technical capabilities. Recall, even if the President doesn't get a warrant, he can still apply for retroactive warrants; and, if he or the AG says its an Emergency, he can conduct surveillance. Also, the DOJ AG says he's not going to prosecute violations of FISA. It doesn't matter if the law is or isn't changed.

5. Distraction from Lawful Options, Unlawful Actions

Then the President suggests another speculative absurdity, but ignore the warrant-option, and ability to get retroactive warrants:

"And it matters because these telephone companies that work collaboratively with us to protect the American people are afraid they're going to get sued."

There is no logical connection between "fear of getting sued" and "whether the telecoms will or will not require a warrant before disclosing informatoin to the government. The "fear of getting sued" is one that lawyers manage by ensuring policies and procedures comply with the law; and risk mitigation plans also include liability insurance.

It's not the job of Congress to manage private business risk management plans. This is an impermissible intrusion into corporate board decisions. Is the President asking Congress to bail out Enron-like CEOs who allegedly defraud the Congress? That isn't accountability.

The problem isn't that the companies are fearful of litigtion, but that the companies despite not securing required warrants, failed to manage the litigation risk. It's not the job of the Congress to retroactively do what cannot be done: Change whether the laws which existed when the violations occurred. Congress cannot retroactively change the law.

Using the President's logic, because all Americans are or could be "afraid of random arrests" he might argue that Americans are reluctant to support the US government. However, this fear is not one the courts recognize as a legal defense because a belief is not a crime; thus, no American should be swayed by the "beliefs" of the telecoms. The issue is whether the US government and telecoms will or will not comply with the law; nor whether they have credible, silly, or absurd beliefs.

6. Flawed Argument: Irrelevant, Speculative Fears

The President then asks that the "fear of a lawsuit" will undermine people's inclination to do the right thing:

"And the American people have got to understand these lawsuits make it harder for us to convince people to help protect you."

If the President's reasoning is valid -- that consequences for illegal activity make it harder for the telecoms to violate the law -- then why is that a problem? Using the President's logic, because the public might be falsely accused of a crime, they will be less inclined to support the government. However, it doesn't follow that those who are lawfully doing the right thing will be less inclined to do the right thing, unless the consequences were unreasonable. But the record suggests the opposite: The FISA consequences were well known, agreed to, and ones the President and Congress jointly agreed to after Sept 2001.

If the President, who led the effort to update FISA, cannot convince the telecoms to rely on his assurances, the issue isn't one for the Congress to address, but for the President to return to the telecoms and say, "I"m sorry, I tried, but I was not able to convince anyone to forgive you for the violations of the clearly promulgated standards."

Then the telecoms, without a shield and facing real accountability, might be inclined to support an impeachment: "He told us to violate the law." But they're not doing that. So, let the telecoms suffer the consequences for following allegedly illegal orders. Is that something the GOP would support or oppose if a DNC President did the same in violation of clearly established law? Alleged illegal activity deserves a review, not a shell game of accountability.

7. Circular: Dubious Assertion To Justify Dubious Premise

Then the President incorrectly asserts that the "legislation" is good despite the problems; and that without the "problematic legislation" the intelligence community will not be willing to use the tools lawfully:

"And so by blocking this good piece of legislation, our professionals tell me that they don't have all the tools they need to do their job."

Noting before us suggests that the tools will change. The issue is whether the US government will or will not fully comply with the FISA requirements. The President has not made his case, not justified confidence in his assertion, and failed to discuss the lawful options still available to him under existing laws.

Excellent suggestion: the existing law does permit the President and AG to do many things, regardless "problems" or "need for changes". Even if there are "technical challenges" to intercepting something without a warrant, the President can still get retroactive warrants. We only need to consider the catch-all provision, showing the President is lying, and there is no urgency to make any FISA changes:

One Year Warrantless Surveillance Continues

"the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing . . . " The above is the catchall: It expressly allows the AG to assert in writing various things, and not require a warrant. Problem solved!

The issue for this AG: Despite him having the power to certify that the target is, in fact, a "foreign terrorist," why is he reluctant to not make this certification? Said another way, if the President "has information" about a "foreign terrorist," then "holes in the law" are meaningless: The AG would have the information to provide a certification to the telecoms that they can conduct warrantless surveillance.

It appears the real problem is one for the President and AG: Despite the broad power of the AG to certify things, the telecoms have a reasonable basis to not believe these certifications; or that the "connection" to a terrorist-related threat is dubious, and not permitted under the waivers. This isn't an issue of "holes in the law", but of the President facing a problem of not being able to use dubious reasons to bypass requirements the telecoms well know are required by statute.

Said another way, despite the AG's sweeping power to assert that something "is terror-related", the AG is unwilling to make this certification because he does not have information showing an imminent threat. Thus, the President's assertion that there would be a "new terror threat emerging after the FISA bill lapses" is absurd: He's still allowed to intercept those transmissions if the AG makes the required certification.

Is the President asking us to believe, despite FISA authorizing the AG to certify something, that the AG -- the man who says he is not going to enforce the law -- is not willing to make a certification? Then the problem isn't with the law, but with the AG and his refusal to do what the law permits him to do: Certify that an emergency exists, there is an imminent threat, or that terrorists have just surfaced, and something needs to be done. If this AG, who says he won't prosecute violations of the law, is not willing to make excuses to violate the law, then the President has a problem. What the President is doing must be so bad, that not even this AG is willing to give a false certification to the telecoms or anyone.

The President should stop playing games. The existing laws allow the AG to make sweeping assertions. The only plausible reason for this "need to update FISA that includes immunity" has no relationship with problems with FISA, but with an artificial timeline to do the following:

President's Manufactured Crisis
- Induce the Congress to rubber stamp something that has nothing to do with protecting the country, and everything to do with insulating the President and telecoms from accountability.
- Induce Congress not to call the President's bluff;
- Induce the Congress to pass immunity connected to non-needed changes to FISA;
- Induce the Congress to quickly pass immunity/amnesty which can be safely debated without any changes to FISA
- Induce Congress to not ask pointed questions for why the AG has not provided certifications
- Induce Congress not to make the adverse inference that the "needed changes to FISA" were not related to real problems or gaps with intelligence
- Induce Congress to ignore illegal intelligence gathering operations which remain unrelated to any terror related threat, emergency, or other situation which the DOJ AG could certify required warrantless surveillance.

The questions for the Congress to pose to the President:

- Why are you monitoring targets which the AG will not certify are related to terrorism, an imminent threat, or a bonafide threat to the United States
- Why is the President monitoring private US civilians without getting a warrant?
- What plan does the President have to expand his list of abuses, intrusions, and attacks on US citizens' rights?
- Why is the President unwilling to let the AG certify that the surveillance of US citizens is connected with activity that would justify warrantless surveillance?
- Is the President using warrantless surveillance to go on fishing trips unrelated to illegal activity to find evidence for purposes of using during interrogations of Americans during pretextual stops?
- How much information is the President gathering not to protect the country, but to harass members of the media and public who are attempting to prosecute this President for war crimes?

Put aside the above: What is the plan of the Congress to develop an independent system that will target the Executive Branch, and electornically monitor -- witout warrants -- whether the Preident, lawyers, and others are among other things:
- Complying with or violating the laws of war;
- Compying with or violating the recods retention acts;
- Complying with or violating court orders; and/or
- Complying with or violating US statute.

Americans have been told, not asked, to put up with these privacy intrusions. Where is the plan to use the NSA-like system to target the DoJ OLC, OVP, and President's communiationsn to ensure Congress and the COurts can get timely information on whether the President is or isn't meeting his legal obligations. The President says that all Americans should put up with his intrusions. Then the President, as an American, should put up with the same intrusions from Congress that he as the President told Americans were are to put up with, despite contrary legal requirements in the Constitution.

The President, as an American citizen, hasno made the legal argument that he is immune to Congressionally-directed surveillance; or that he cannot be monitored like any other American; or that his alleged illegal activity cannot be subject to a US government certification to the telecoms with a warrant that all his communications shall be subject to legal review at all times.

Congress' Electronic Monitoring of President

Is the President asking us to believe that he is "not" an American citizen; and "not" subject to the US government oversight he expects all Americans to endure?

Is the DOJ OLC asking Americans to believe that they are "not" US citizens; and "not" subject to US government oversight, as is permitted when there are allegations of illegal activity?

This is absurd. Congress needs to secure a warrant to collect all electronic evidence via the telecoms related to the DOJ OLC, OVP, and EOP alleged illegal activity. Inherent contempt includes the power of Congress to fully enforce that contempt citation using all lawful options: That includes working with the courts to lawfully intercept all alleged GOP-OVP-OLC-EOP communications.

my favorite part:

"And the AMERICAN PEOPLE have got to understand these lawsuits make it harder for US to convince PEOPLE to help protect YOU."

Where do I begin??? He began the sentence with "And" for god's sake; by my count there are 4 subjects (CAPS) to one object; he is missing the conjunction "that" before "these lawsuits"; i am struggling as to what is wrong with the word "must" rather then "have got";
additionally he was deriding lawsuits against illegal wiretapping...

ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING!!!!

i can't take this anymore...thank god the House finally grew a pair!

If I were to die TODAY from a foreign terrorist attack, I would die with my freedoms and liberties INTACT, as granted to me, an American citizen, by the US Constitution.

Don't think for one second I would acquiesce by precious freedoms and liberties to a man such as Bush, who has shown increasing contempt for the US Constitution and the American citizens. He LIED, not once but twice, when he swore upon the Bible to "preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution upon his Presidential Inaugurations in 2001 and 2005. Bush is not a man to be trusted or believed. Whatever Bush says, I negate it.

The US taxpayers are Bush's CASH COW, his Money Machine. Do you really think he hasn't allowed another attack on US soil for altruistic reasons?

Your argument is flawed: Despite illegal wiretapping before 9-11, we were attacked. Whether someone wants to kill us or not, you fail to explain why the law should be ignored: Whether we do or do not have an enemy does not change that the law exists.

Rather, you fail to explain why "our ignoring our law" is going to safeguard us. That's absurd. It doesn't work before 9-11. Following our law ensures the President and AG can, if they lawfully certify, have unlimited surveillance. The problem is the President and AG did not want to follow the law. Whether the enemy does or doesn't do something does not change the law, the President's obligations, and the requirement to fully enforce the law.

Your assertions are frivolous: the next time they hit us it could be with a nuke,, its real, and when it happens you all will being begging for protection. Then whether we do or do not have intelligence gathering wouldn't be the issue, then would it? We could give them unlimited power, but in your argument, you're supposing that "whatever we do" they're going to get through. Your argument would ask that we certainly give up everything today, without any prospect of a defense against a speculative future threat. That's not leadership, it's a convoluted argument to justify recklessness.

Put aside the above comments. Suppose you're facing the prospect of a "claimed imminent threat from a nuclear weapon about to go off". Consider your problem with your asserted scenario:
- How do you know that there is a "bomb about to go off"?
- Who told you there is [a] a bomb about to go fff; and [b] that the person you propose to detain and ask them about it is worthy of abuse?
- Why aren't you putting attention on the person who made the accusation, who said: "That person of there knows something about the bomb."
- Why should we believe this third person making the accusation?
- What attention has been given to the person making the accusation?
- How do they know about the bomb?
- How do they know who to accuse?

We don't have to torure or abuse any prisoner; the real challenge is to give a good reason why we shouldn't go after the person making the accusations: Where did they get their information; why should we believe them; and how do they "know so much about the bomb and who planted it"?

Is there any way to check on the lobbying efforts of the telecoms in this affair? Meetings with Senators, etc. If there were a way to show the amount of money and hours spent by the telecom business in this mess, it might make the situation a bit clearer to those who might be more susceptible to the Bush spin.