Reid: Fix the FISA law.
By on Aug 14th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Reid: Fix the FISA law.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) delivered a letter today addressed to Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Rockefeller (D-WV), urging them to fix the FISA law that was passed before Congress recessed:
I know both of you share my disappointment at the process that led to passage of the recent law, and at the flawed outcome itself, which you and I and many others strongly opposed. [...]
When the Senate reconvenes in September, I fully support your committees working expeditiously together and in a bipartisan manner to develop a longer-term statutory change that better serves American national security interests and comports with the Constitution and proper judicial and congressional oversight.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Too little, too late.
—-
August 14th, 2007 at 6:03 pmStop Muslim Man’s Burden
“Oh, and now that the horse has left, could you close that barn door, please?”
August 14th, 2007 at 6:06 pmI will cut the Democrats some slack until 2009, to give them a chance to show what they can do when Republican anti-American obstructionionism is put to a stop to by the democratic process in the next election. Come 2010 if they haven’t taken major action to withdraw from Iraq and reestablish the rule of law in this country, I will abandon the party for which I have voted for nearly three decades.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:13 pmI wonder why Dianne Feinstein and Jim Webb voted “YES?”
August 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pmWell Senator Reid, I guess your constituents let you know how happy we are with your enabling of the Bush Regime. I’m sure you’ll forget about it when you get back to DC and go back to your backslapping ways.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:16 pmFavorability Major TV News: 71%
Favorability National Papers: 60%
Favorability Democratic Party: 55%
Favorability Congress: 45%
Favorability Republican Party: 42%
Well at least the Republicans are more popular than Bush – BUT NOT BY MUCH!!! BAWAAHHAHAHA!!
August 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pmWhat a crock. We as voters are supposed to fall for this? As I wrote Pelosi a week ago when she did the same stunt (fat chance anyone read my note or paid attention), the horse is out of the barn. What are the odds Bush will sign such a change to this law? Zero. What are the odds the Democratic leadership can go to the public and create a groundswell of opinion that forces Bush to sign this law? Stop laughing.
Republicans will make the Democrats look like wussies when this comes up for renewal, which they were in this case. With a Presidential election coming up, this sort of letter is a waste, perhaps even a fraud.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:20 pmLies Lies Lies…. 7 years of wasted votes…. thanks for all you didnt do democrats.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:22 pmRon Paul may end up getting shot…. but he wont lie to you to get your vote like they lied to us last November.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:23 pmWhat’s with all the frickin’ letters Harry? You could have said something in person. Before your vacation.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm“I will cut the Democrats some slack until 2009, to give them a chance to show what they can do when Republican anti-American obstructionionism is put to a stop to by the democratic process in the next election. Come 2010 if they haven’t taken major action to withdraw from Iraq and reestablish the rule of law in this country, I will abandon the party for which I have voted for nearly three decades.
Comment by VerbalKint — August 14, 2007 @ 6:13 pm”
That is not good enough……
EVERYONE needs to vote out those Dinasaurs…… We need to tell those Congressmen/women that their time is limited…….
Only allow them too serve a couple of terms then boot them out….. Force them to actually listen to the public…….
This is the only way CHANGE is going to come……
Please don’t wait that long…… Don’t vote for an Incumbant at all……. Vote them all out…….
This is how we make a change…..
August 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI wonder why Dianne Feinstein and Jim Webb voted “YES?â€
Comment by Christopher — August 14, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Maybe because the media would have tore them a new a$$hole? Called them terrorist lovers? Traitors, and so on?That’s what the media does. You don’t see them slamming ole Dick Cheney for making 8 million dollars off his stock in Haliburton do ya? Oh must be nice to get all those no-bid contracts for a company you have a ton of stock in.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:25 pmHarry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer should both resign their leadership posts, sorry to say. There is just no excuse for allowing legislation that so blatantly violates our Fourth Amendments protections while bestowing such unchecked power on such untrustworthy characters in the Executive Branch. It’s as though MCA never happened.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:25 pmFolks, we need to give the dems a break, they’re trying to bide their time until they have 2 branches of govt to straighten out this mess.
Can you imagine what would have happened had they voted against this, and we had a terrorist attack? EVERY media organization would be slamming them for allowing an attack. We would have lost congress, and the white house..
Chill folks, to beat evil as bad as we know there is running the govt, sometimes you gotta lose a battle to win a war.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pmlittle late there Reid-o. The only chance congress would have to revise FISA before 1-20-09 is to remove the chimperor and cheney-maggot from office, which should have been done already, but instead no effort has been initiated other than Kucinich’s ignored attempts.
So like Pelosi, what is this crap? And how much contempt for our intelligence can you possibly exhibit?
August 14th, 2007 at 6:36 pm.
The problem with the first round of FISA changes in August 2007 was the speeed without debate. Supposedly, after the WMD sham evidence, Congress “learned” to take its time.
Reid hasn’t departed from this flawed approach: He wants Leahy to continue with speedy problem solving. What’s the rush, Reid?
August 14th, 2007 at 6:40 pmHarry continues to be over his head and waaaay behind the curve. Rove’s gone…let Hat-In-Hand-Harry go too.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pmI no longer trust the Congress to defend the Constitution. What, besides prosecuting Members of Congress, can be legally be done to discipline them now outside the election?
August 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pmConyers approach to leadership: “GOP might be mean: DNC should roll over and be safe.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:43 pmWhat else can be done?- comment by Anon
Got a revolution? Got to revolution.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm“Comment by Uncle Ho — August 14, 2007″
No, I was asking about Legal options to discipline Congress. Violent revolution is not lwaful.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pmOne power retained through the 10th Amendment: The power of We the People to lawfully dscipline Congress outside elections.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:00 pmJust because someone is elected to Congress, or they might be elected, doesn’t mean that beteween elections they cannot be lawfully discpilined. There are options.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:01 pmAnon; actually revolution IS legal. It says so in the Declartation of Indepence. Go back and read the part that says when the government is no longer responsive to the people or are repressing their freedom, the people have the RIGHT TO ALTER OR ABOLISH THAT GOVERNMENT.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pmLet’s consider the problems of this DNC Congress in the context of the problems of the Articles of Confederation:
- Insufficiency of the Congress to Presrve the Constitution
- Power Necessary to We the People To Discipline Congress Between Elections
- The idea of restraining Legislative and Executive Authority to Defy the Constitution
- Restrictions on the Authority of the Speaker and Members of Congress
- Alleged Dangers to the Constitution of the Federal Government
- The Particluar Structure of the Federal Government to Prevent Defiance of Constitution
- The Remedy to Solving Failure of Branches To Exercise Constitutional Control Over Other Branches
- Concerning Failure of Congress to Regulate Its Members on the Oath of Office
- The real character of the Congress and Executive: At Odds With the Constitution
- The Oversight of Congress by We the People Between Elections
- The Mid-Election Prosecution Power of State and Local Prosecutors Against Members of Congress
Time to start discussing a New US government that will compel the Members of Congress to act, not roll over, as the lazy poodles in the DNC adn GOP have done since 2001.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:09 pmComment by Uncle Ho — August 14, 2007
WHITEHILL v. ELKINS, 389 U.S. 54 (1967)
August 14th, 2007 at 7:12 pmAnon; READ THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE YOU F*CKING SH*T-4-BRAINS!!!!
August 14th, 2007 at 7:23 pmYou know Reid, we knew the bill was not acceptable – why couldn’t you ‘in the business of laws’ know too? Too busy with you own agendas? Just because we can not stand the Rethuglicans doesn’t mean we will vote for incumbents and Democrats. Jeeper, earn some respect.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:26 pmWho you quoting there, VerbalKint?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:34 pmUm, you mean Reid is now railing against the law he and Nanci Pelosi just processed and passed?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pmThis is pathetic. The Congress passed a law that has been almost universally criticized. The Democrats rightfully mocked. The Constitution trashed. But Congress got what it wanted – a vacation. Now they want us to believe that they are serious about correcting the problem they created??? What leverage do they have to get Republican support? What chance do they have to get it past a veto?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:43 pmThey are trying to play us for fools.
Screw them.
Why didn’t they just do their job the first time and uphold the Constitution?
Cowards.
“What are the odds Bush will sign such a change to this law? Zero.”
The current law expires in 90 days. A new law will have to be passed to apply after that.
Instead of defeatist arguments about closing the barn after the cow has run off, it is essential to put as much pressure as possible on the Democrats in the Senate and House, AS WELL AS REPUBLICANS IN BLUE DISTRICTS, to make the revised law consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:44 pm“I wonder why Dianne Feinstein and Jim Webb voted “YES?â€
Webb, I have no idea. Feinstein, I have my theories. I doubt that she is going to run again in 2010. She is already in her late seventies. And she and her husband are getting very rich off his investments in the military industrial complex. I suspect that Diane Feinstein is voting in her own best economic interest since she wants to have a cushy retirement. May god have mercy on her soul, because she is selling out the people who have supported her all these years, including me when I lived in California.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:02 pm“Can you imagine what would have happened had they voted against this, and we had a terrorist attack? EVERY media organization would be slamming them for allowing an attack. We would have lost congress, and the white house.”
And you don’t think they are going to do it anyway? No matter what, if there is another attack, the Republicans are going to blame the Democrats. What do you think they will do, blame themselves or blame Bush? Even if they did that, all the Democrats have to do is to point out all the things that Bush could have done to protect us that he hasn’t, and the fact that the Democrats voted to implement all the 911 recommendations to make us safer, and the Republicans and Bush have blocked that legislation from becoming law.
Besides, there is no way that the stupid NSA legislation is going to result in stopping another attack. Probably because the attack will be manufactured by the Bush Crime Family. And if not, Al Quaeda is way too smart to be using telephones to plan an attack. If they use telephones, they will use the throw-away cell phones and then get rid of them after each call. If they call someone in the US on one of them and the person in this country is not already being wire tapped (which would still be against the law), they will never catch them.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:09 pm” urging them to fix the FISA law”
*****After the idiot(Reid) allowed it to come to the floor now he asks them to fix it.Reid as been a very poor leader in the Senate & it’s his kind of Democratic figure that has lead to the dems being seen as weak.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:21 pmThey are corporatist Dems and don’t care about ordinary folks like you and I.
The current law expires in 90 days. A new law will have to be passed to apply after that.
Comment by CaptainVideo — August 14, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
Actually
By its terms, the new law will sunset in 180 days. But this is a specious limitation. The AG and DNI can authorize surveillance for up to one year. So just before the statute is set to expire around February 1, 2008, they could approve surveillance that will last until after Bush leaves office.
The Dem leadership is completely worthless, the Dems weren’t elected to roll over for W every time he has a hissy fit
They’ve shown no spine when it comes to standing up to W, short of a few bright lights, like Feingold, Durbin, Waxman & Leahy, so when Petraeus issues his BS “Progress Report” iin September, look for the Dems to completely cave in yet again, same with the FISA revisit in 6 months
Actually, the Dems will probably roll over even quicker the next time W threatens them with a strategy of “Dems want another terrorist attack on US soil, Dems=Terrorists” that the Dems themselves demolished back in November 2006
I wanted to see the Dems hold W accountable for how badly he’s run things, not appease him at every possible opportunity when it comes to meaningful votes
August 14th, 2007 at 8:23 pmIt didn’t take long for “buyer’s remorse” to set in did it. The bill was passed because everyone wanted to go home, now they’re eager to amend it. Shoulda done that before.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:51 pmThe current law expires in 90 days. A new law will have to be passed to apply after that.
Call me skeptical but my hunch is that Bush will do the old rope a dope again on the Dems when this bill expires. Plus it’ll be a Presidential election year and, since the Republicans appear to set the debate, you’re not tough unless you vote for this garbage.
So, yeah, I plan to write my Congress people, Republicans all of them, manly men all of them naturally, but it’ll have zero impact.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:13 pmAh, yeah, September, let’s wait until September. Civil Rights, Executive Overreaching, Iraq as seen from the eyes of the Commander on the Ground (a mere surrogate for the Commander in Chief). All will be remedied in September. After all, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience anyone. (I imagine it’s about as hot in the Iraqi desert as it is on some op-ed page)
August 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by Uncle Ho — August 14, 2007
Subversion is illegal. Please do not advocate violence. I cannot be part of the conspiracy.
I am withdrawing. Help, anyone. SOmeone appearse to be encouraging me to engage in illegal revolution to overthrow the US Government. I do not want to participate. I cannot support nor comment on this. It is illegal. I’m leaving. I must mitigate the possible effects of this. Do not attempt to listen to anyone advocating the illegal overthrow of the US government. It is subversion. I cannot do this. I refuse. Don’t try to make me.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:08 pmContinuing:
Insufficiency of the Congress to Preserve the Constitution
Despite their clear oath, the Congress has illegally pased an illegal bill of attainder: Targeting for warrantless intrusion those, who by no fault of their own, have received communications.
The question appears to turn on why the NSA management, when it had a clear warrant requirement, did not fully comply with it; and the Members of the Gang of 8 did not compel discosure of the contractor procedures targeting Americans from overseas interception points.
A solution to this would penalize Members of Congress, and strip them of the discretion to assent to illegal violations; rather, when the overseas surveillance methods were aimed at US Citizens, the COngress would have to explalinwhy they did not follow-up on the Press reports of this overseas surveillance.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pmContinuing:
Power Necessary to We the People To Discipline Congress Between Elections
Today’s Congress has secretly debated and approved an illegal bill, and put it into effect. The oath was subordinated to partisan vacation interests.
A solution would be to have a chamber which reviewed only the COnstitutionality of the Bill: If the Bill was not legal, it could not be considered by either House; nor debated. The bill would die. Only lawful bills may start.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:14 pmContinuing:
” The idea of restraining Legislative and Executive Authority to Defy the Constitution”
The Constitution’s Bill of Rights was not first supported on teh grounds that the Government had no power to deprive these rights; thus the rights need not be protected. We’ve learned the lesson: Unless expressly protected, the Goverfnment continues to ignore the rights; even with protection, the Government defies the Amendment. This is impermissible.
How do we restrain the power of the GOvernment to ignore the clearly established rights? The oath has not worked; one solution is to dilute the power of the Congress and Executive further, and deny them absolute power and discretion to do what they have abused.
There could be waiting periods; mandatory reviews; and certificatdions that the bill — before debated — did fully meet the requirements of the Constitution. The public could require Members of Congcress before voting to agree to give up their absolute immunity in exchange for their choice to vote for or against what is an illegal bill. Only when the agree to give up ommunity can they vote for or against what is clearly not lawful. By voting for what is illegal they have given up what protections they might assume existed.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:17 pmContinuing
“Restrictions on the Authority of the Speaker and Members of Congress”
The Houses of Congress may choose their officers; but their choice is not above review. When the officers defy their oath doubly — first in permitting votews on illegal bills; then in approving the bill; then in agreeing that the bill is not lawful — they have failed to assert all lawful options.
The President is wrong in putting into effect this bill; and Congressional support of illegalities does not immunize the leadership. Rather, the leadership having the double confidece — first of the people by their election; second by their selection as officers — have shown disdain for their constituents and the Constitution on multiple levels. SHould it not warrant an upward revision of the Sentencing reuqirements?
THe way forward is for We the Pepole to clearly promulgate specific violations which Members of Congress — above and beyond their oath of office violations — know full well they can be prosecuted for, and removed from office outside the elections. Speed of sanction to check slowness of thought.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:21 pmContinuing
“The Remedy to Solving Failure of Branches To Exercise Constitutional Control Over Other Branches”
Today’s problem is the first vioaltion of the law by the President; then the illegal agreement to circumvent the FISA court with additional vioaltions. Having been caught, the President sought the concurrence of the legislature to continue abysmal management: First with promises to do nothing, which is ilelgal; then an unalwful assent to breaches of the Constitution.
The first offense, when not sanctioned, should attach to the Members of Congress; for each subsequent offense not impeached, the sanctions grow. Speed of sanctdions is just as important as any investigation. Lacking the votes to remove is not basis to refuse to investigate. This asks that we choose inaction because others have agreed to put party loyality before the Constitution. This is illegal.
When the Judiciary refuses to act to check the Congress; and the President is without challenge, the Judiciary is wrong. When the Congress refuses to check the President and defies the Judiiary, the Congress is wrong, not just the leadership, officers, and Members. When the Esecutive ignores the law, createse law, and ignores the Congress and the Judiciary, that is a fourfold offense. The size of the offense is not exucxse to do nothing; rather, the size of the ianction attaches to those other branches who fail to act.
Courts could have special powers to independently direct ivnestigations to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies in the Legislature and Exeuctive.
It is a false argument to suggest that the “soverign does not approve”: We the People are soverign and require the Constitutoin to be defended; an agreement to do nothing is not a simple error, but multipe ones attaching to legislative counsel, DoJ Staff counsel, OVP counsel, and the officers of the court. THey have jointly agreed not to assert their oath despite the standards of their discipliary boards. The oath was insufficient; and their professional standards meaningless. No wonder they choose inactdion: Action is not rewarded.
The public may require a fair showing that judicial officers have fully asserted their oath. This is not by way of legal brifes and a review, but a fully accounting of whteher they did fully act when they had the duty to actd; whehter they defended what should be defened; and whether they led the defense not the capitulation.
Where officers of one branch fail, that is one offense; where that failure is an agreement to not act, that is a second offesnes; where the inaction continues despite well konwn abuses, that is a third offense; and where the notifications of the problems continue yet there is no action, that is a fourth offense. Delays and excuses are not a defense, but evidence of havnign not timely acted.
Rewards should be given; where rewards are given for leadership, that leadership needs to be recognized for having defended what must be defended. There is a duty to document the known abuses; and timely sound the alarm, not make excuses the alarm is silent, and agree to inaction in deference for the political calendar.
We the Peole need to scrub from the political debate the notoin that all branches are co-equal at all times. Rather, when one branch breaches the Constution, the other two may assume that they are over the offending branch; when one is alone in defending the Constution against th other two, that branch takes a superior position. Oversight is not possible when the offending branch requires its offenses to ber viewed as co-equal to that of a defender: No, they are subject to review, and below the defending branch.
Inaction by the offending branch, or delays in responding to Constitutional obligations is not a defense, but warrants an upward revision. Loyality cannot be to the Branch, but to the Constitution. A branch breaching the Constution cannot compel its officers to join in that brach; rather, the officers have a duty to break ranks with the branch, and join with the officers of the defening branches. This may be resignation; or it could be in guaranteeing there is no political test for purposes of retaining office.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pmAnon; you are the BIGGEST bag of flatus here tonight. You are making one HELL OF A LONG GOODBYE SPEECH for someone who is supposedly leaving.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:42 pm“Revolution for the hell of it.”- Abbie Hoffman
Continuing
. . . “Concerning Failure of Congress to Regulate Its Members on the Oath of Office”
The oath is one; the Constitution is another; the office is a third; and the Congress is a fourth. The Constitution must be first; the oath must be to the first; and never can the office and Congress take supremacy over the oath or the Constitution. Yet, this is what this Congress has done. Committees and their Membership can be subject to litigation. Not as a civil case, but in the Congressional Court: To what extent that Committee has or has not recklessly defied its oath; blocked legal requirements; or has effectively thwarted oath of office enforcement. These are the issues which require Judicila reivew: The Congress cannot be trusted to independentnly police itself.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:58 pmNor can the Exeutive Be trusted to police what he views as a favorable violation; nor can the Courts be trusted to speak when they know of an illegal actd, but have been gagged or not provided evidence. A solution intolves an independent body, whos loyalty is not to the Congress, Judiciary, or the President, but solely to the Constitution. That Body would have the power to decide whethr a Member of Congress — at any time — was in breach of their oath; and ahve the power of force and law to disclose this offending Conduct. Should Members of Congress be immune to reviews; and only subject to voting reviews? This threat of loss of office has proven meaningless to this Congress: The illegal actdivity continues. A second check is required: One that will without notice force the Member of Cognress to account. They can be denied privildges and power; they can be burdened with things which other branches do not suffer. They can also be put under special review by We the People using special oversight bodies otuside Congress and byeond the tree branches.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:00 pmContinuing
“The real character of the Congress and Executive: At Odds With the Constitution”
When the Executive and Legislature agree to ignore the Constitution, the public must have a means to timely check this abuse. They defy their aoth; abuse their immunity; and think nothing of refusing to respond to the public. This is impermissible.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:06 pmContinuing
“The Oversight of Congress by We the People Between Elections”
This could be solved by having specific standards of conduct, like Judicial Cannons, but applicalbe to Members of Congress.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:11 pmContinuing
“The Mid-Election Prosecution Power of State and Local Prosecutors Against Members of Congress”
When Congress refuses to assent to standards and its special courts at the FEderal Level, the States need to move quickly to remove that offending Member of Congress through State level prosecutions.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:13 pmFor someone who said he was leaving, Anon’s farewell speech is like the Energizer bunny, it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on……………………………………………………………………………………….
August 14th, 2007 at 11:16 pmAnon; Just shut the f*ck up already. No one, and I mean NO ONE wants to hear your droning drivel. STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 14th, 2007 at 11:19 pmUncle Ho — August 14, 2007
You’ll have to be specific: Where did anyone — other than you — say anyone was leaving.
You appear to be delusional. Wishful thinking.
It’s been posted. Someone will read it.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pmNo one is leaving, unless you’re running away.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pmAnon; Check YOUR OWN POST @ 10:08 pm and I quote; ” I’m leaving.”
August 14th, 2007 at 11:27 pmGOTCHA!!!!!
Uncle H — August 14, 2007
This refers narrowly to the discussion you were having about illegal activity. I’m leaving your conspiracy to overthrow illegally the US government. I’m leaving your illegal activity. I will not be a part of it. You’re confusing yourself. I will not participate with your illegal revolution.
Go away. I will have none of it. We can talk about solutions.
But putting that aside, do you have a plan for your outcome? No. You only want change — but have no answers to what. This is imprudent.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:30 pmUncle H — August 14, 2007
Now that we agree that I am not part of your illegal activity, we can continue.
SUppose you were to change things: What do you propose to change to? You have no answer.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pmEveryone excuse Anon. When he heard about Karl he threw up his anti-psychotic medication!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:11 amThe FISA law should be fixed. I wish the democrats had made attempts to block the spying bill which gives Bush expansive powers to spy on innocent Americans without warrants. I’m glad Reid and Leahy will be taking steps to fix this violation of our Constitution.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:12 amYou don’t have to buy the media storyline. The media could as easily attack the Bush administration for not keeping us safe at home by attacking the terrorists elsewhere. I’m afraid there are too many neocons dressed as democrats or independents in American politics. Sad situation, Reid should talk less and do more.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:36 amAnd rescind the Patriot Act.
It seems that another clause slipped through, giving Alberto Gonzales Mengele-like powers. Didn’t anybody read the goddamned thing before they voted for it??
August 15th, 2007 at 6:47 amReid will hold the Senate in session all night long to call the Repubs’ bluff on a filibuster threat, but can’t waste a minute of his precious vacation time to do the right thing and pass a decent law.
As for those who say that the Dems had to give in to Bush or else be blamed for another terrorist attack, this sure as hell didn’t bother the voters in Nov. 2006 when the rightwing, including Bush, was telling us that a vote for a Dem is a vote for terrorism.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pmYou don’t believe this:
August 15th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
August 15th, 2007 at 11:13 pm