Oh now Timmy brings up FISA and says why not obey the law.
Frist says he has constitutional use of force passed by statute and as CIC. He also says FISA may need to be changed.
First, if the President feels he is operating under the law, which many lawyers have said he is and I agree, why would he go to FISA? First, it could set a precedent and tie his or another President's hands in the future, and, as I've pointed out on other threads (I believe on this one as well), FISA has turned down or modified more warrants from the Bush admin than IIRC almost all of the other ones put together. Prior to this Admin, they hadn't refused any and since 2001 they have refused 6 and modified many more.
Roughly:
This NSA issue is about whether the Democrats can take AWAY those rights from Bush that other Presidents had. This is what they really want to do.
========
I'd have to agree. Why do they want us to LOSE this war?
The MTP round table actually allowed a reasonable presentation of the legal arguments of the President's position on the NSA controversy. Byron York did a very good job of rationally laying out the case and the rest of the panel never really challenged anything he put forward. They wanted to stick to their faxed "talking points," such as "why didn't he just follow the law," implying that Bush broke the law.
They (I think York again) also correctly pointed out, in reference to the polling questions on NSA, that if you say "domestic wiretapping" people are split, but if you say "wiretapping Al Qaeda" then support is overwhelming. He specifically said that this is a fight over how you ask the question.
Maybe they did read my post on their web site.
Nah.