'...dismal failure on homeland security?'

I suppose it's just good luck, then. So why not spit in the faces of the thousands of police and DHS people, your fellow Americans, putting in long hours to ensure your right to shoot your mouth off.

How far back in history do you want to go? Our incursioin into Lebanon? Gulf of Tonkin? Crassius adventuring into Parthia? (Kind of reminiscient of GW in Iraq). Look it up on Google Jack, I will wait...

You are wrong, Anjin San is a pilot

He piles it here and piles it there. and tries to plie it everywhere.

As for data mining, or wiretapping or whatever you want to call it, I think most people object to the effort to bypass FISA. The WOT may well last for decades as did the cold war. I simply don't trust our leaders (of either party) with a blank check to do anything they wish in the name of fighting the war. If we are no longer a nation of laws, then we have already lost in a very meaningful way.

As for hysterical shrilling like "You probably don’t even think there IS a threat", well it would probably get laughed out of a middle school debate club...

Perhaps the value, and more to the point, the timing, of these pronouncements is to drum up support for Bush's spying program?

Personally, I want all restraints removed from this program so that we can catch the SOB's that much faster. There is no way that you can fight a war while having to constantly refer to a rule book to see if it's okay to do something. Whatever happened to the saying "All is fair in love and war"?

But you can bet the farm that some liberal weenie is going to demean Crumpton's comments as nothing more than scare tactics by the Bush Administration.

Now, don't argue with Anderson. Everyone as well as himself knows that he is the authorty and last word on the law. If he says that Bush broke the law, then thats it. If you don't think Anderson knows more than the Attorny General, The Supreme Court and even knows more than what the Constitution says, Then, just ask him.

Amderson is the God among us and knows all.

He doesn't say "Oh My God", he says "Oh My Me"

IIRC, the administration's 'strategy' for Iraq says that specifically. This doesn't prevent failure, and probably helps failure. If a pilot says 'crashing ain't an option', while conducting rigorous pre-flight inspections and preparations, I'd be reassured. If the pilot says that while screwing up/preventing such inspections and preparations, I'd be worried.

The $64,000 question here, the one that should have any real "conservative" worried, is: given how easy it was to (1) comply with FISA and (2) get the law changed if necessary, why didn't Bush do either or both, if it was really necessary to national security?

Instead, AG AG has said that the White House's best guess was that the Republican-controlled Congress wouldn't vote to change the law to let Bush do what he's doing.

Why not?

Other Americans (not G.W.'s SS) are working fervently to locate these terrorist SOBs. They don't care about one individual's perverted phone conversations or e-mails. Frankly, they simply do not have the time or resources. So sleep well at night Anderson, no one gives a crap about your conversations.

I suppose you can provide a long list of people, whose 'civil rights' have been horribly violated because of this?

I think the president should obey the law, asking that the law be changed if it impairs national security. You have a problem with that?

NEWS: - Senate Panel's Vote on Alito Delayed Until Next Week - Three Months In, Roberts Leaves Mark on Supreme Court - Iran threatens to curb some UN atomic inspections - For Senate Democrats, a last stand on Alito -...