Obviously Hillary isn't capable of any level of leadership. Bill wasn't either. Too bad, the US suffered as a consequence.

Conversely, I'll challenge any Republican to come forward and amend FISA to, "modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion." Oh wait, some one already tried that . . . Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio in 2002.

The Administration shot that down because it was obvious that courts might, "find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional."

Beat on Hillary all ya want, she doesn't have a chance in 2008 anyways, but every time I stop in here you have some new spin justifying Bush's domestic spying. I say new, because each week these arguments get shot down. Stop being a Bush apologist, it's not becoming.

Once again, Fred, you guys on the left are so busy jumping to conclusions that you don't see the obvious (don't feel bad, your buddy Glen Greenwald is much better versed in law, and jumps the shark as well).

The Adminstration clearly believes that they have the authority under the Executive's Article II Powers and the AUMF to carry out his executive order to the NSA.

The fact that the Adminstration rebuffed Dewine's bill does not weaken the Pserident's postion, it actually reinforces the consistancy of his beleif that his authority already existed.

Only if they had supported Dewine's bill would they have weakened their position.

Once again, lefties look at something, and draw a 100% wrong conclusion.

Fred,

Start reading and listening some more. Even the MSM and top Demoncrats are toning down the "illegal" rhetoric. Another pseudo-scandal.

Even the "always-correct-say-what-I've-been-told-to" Katie Couric, and that outstanding investigative reporter Matt Lauer have changed their terminology. They are now saying, on air, "eavesdrop on suspected terrorists" when 48 hours ago they were using "domestic spying program"

You know what? I no longer care what the left thinks or perceives. If it is working for us in our endeavor to defeat radical Islamic terrorists, and keep Americans safe, then keep it up!

As Specter noted,

Even the "always-correct-say-what-I've-been-told-to" Katie Couric, and that outstanding investigative reporter Matt Lauer have changed their terminology. They are now saying, on air, "eavesdrop on suspected terrorists" when 48 hours ago they were using "domestic spying program"

So, Fred, why are you so lame as to continue the KOS-like rhetoric that insists on using the term "Bush's domestic spying?"

Overcome by dementia at your tender age? Or is it really your ability to engage in rational dialog that is hampered by preexistng notions and rigidity of talking points?

The fact that the Adminstration rebuffed Dewine's bill does not weaken the Pserident's postion, it actually reinforces the consistancy of his beleif that his authority already existed.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I'm glad I checked this tard-shack out one more time.

heeeeeee'sssss baaaack....we needed some entertainment. Hey jpe - didya read about Kerry's aborted attempt at a filibuster? What a joke...and you put this guy up for President?

Ya Specter, and then Kattie preceded to get her ass handed to her by Dean, and da da da, Bloggers come out once again and sink the MSM with some fact checking:

ThinkProgress

"Katie then cited a Center for Responsive Politics study as her evidence, but a look at CRP's website show that Democrats accepted no money from Abramoff."

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape/

You can only tread water for so long.

Fred,

You guys are splitting such fine hairs. Abramoff directed specific clients to direct specific amounts to specific Democratic politicians. Now, you might be able to draw a line between these direct and indirect contributions within the "reality-based" community, but the average American voter sees Abramoff directing funds to politicans through a middleman. And you know what?

They'd be right.

Fred,

Are you talking about another your stellar leaders:

Howlin' Howie "AYIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE" Dean?

LOL...gotta love the Dem leaders. Kerry who says, before counting votes, that he and Splash "I Can't Figure Out What Clubs I Belong To" Kennedy, "We are going to filibuster." What a bunch....And Hillary who can't even get 30% of the people behind her for Pres. Who else ya got? Howie?

Well, Fred, it appears that Kate and Matt did their research. Per Matt Lauer,

"We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and technically [emphasis mine] Howard Dean may be correct but while 66% of the money in this situation went to Republicans, 34% of the money not from Abramoff [directly] but from associates and clients went to Democrats."

And you are so bold as to say that Howie handed Katie her ass? Doesn't appear that way. Howie just crawled under a very flimsy technicality.

If it looks like ...., smells like ...., tastes like ...., the Howie stepped in it. The majority of the American people want the money, no matter the claim of tainted or not, either returned or donated.

From this poll:

Do you think elected officials who
received contributions from Jack Abramoff or the organizations he represented
should return the money, donate it to charity, or do you think it is okay to
keep the money?
Return it.....29%
Donate it.....56%
Keep it.....7%
Depends.....3%
Not sure.....5%

And the interesting thing in the breakdown of that question was the way Democrats answered the question:
Return it.....33%
Donate it.....58%
Keep it.....4%
Depends.....2%
Not sure.....3%

So....Freddie....by an overwhelming margin people want tainted money gotten rid of. How do you then say "But it's miiiiiinnnnnnnnneeeee...." and get reelected. Not bright.

Oh and before you try to say the poll was unbalanced like the last IPSOS poll was:

POLITICAL IDENTIFICATION
When you think about politics, do you think of yourself as a Democrat or a
Republican?
1. Democrat 38%
2. Republican 33
3. (Independent) 22
4. (Other) 4
5. (Refused/Don’t know) 2