Well that explains the playground fight nature of the 1996 special election. Maybe one of them took the other's girl back in 1960.

Err. Wyden is three years older. (According to Wikipedia.) That makes the claim that they were in the same class seem a bit odd. Can anyone confirm Wikipedia's statement?

I wish I'd remembered this a couple minutes earlier.

Yeah, I deleted the note. I can't find any sources backing that up. It seems highly suspect given their age different.

I can't stand it. Fumigate the place. Hire exorcists for the student body.

This could be the source, sort of a fountain of uncouth.

Jack, you are funny.

Awfully quiet 'round these parts about the President making his own laws and signing off 36 times on domestic spying against Americans. Not a peep...

Meanwhile Gordon votes Aye on cloture to preserve the Patriot Akkkt. Nice.

RF: How do you expect "The Government" to protect us if you would prevent them to employ electronic eavesdropping on international communications?

Frankly, I'm impressed they have to go all the way up the chain of command to POTUS in order to get specific authorization (assuming the reports are true).

I get the feeling that all you B/O types would rather handcuff the authorities and limit their involvement to picking up body parts and investigating the crime AFTER it happened. If you want them to prevent terrorist attacks from happening, you might have to provide some tools that were not available to law enforcement pre 9/11.

If you are a proponent of the "we can't sacrifice one bit of our civil liberties" crowd, then take a pledge here and now not to blame George Bush when something goes BOOM!

W Deux:

The easiest technique for eradicating the Constitution is to say that you will stop at nothing to protect it.

Oops, I guess we had to destroy it to save it, huh? Couldn't see that one coming a mile away, could ya?

Want to be a royalist? Move to England and pledge fealty to the Queen.

Two thousand years, from Caesar to Hirohito. Nothing changes. Nothing. Especially the proportion of divine rule sycophants in our population, like Deux. In the name of the upcoming birth of the religious figure who tried to teach us something about all this, Happy Holidays.

Yes or no, RF.

If the bad guys fire missile number 2, and it's real bad (a dirty bomb, or suitcase nuke)...Are you going to blame George W. Bush?

If you handcuff those who stand between us and the next big bomb, don't come crying to mommy if the handcuffs wind up hurting you.

As I stated above, the mere fact they had to go all the way up the chain of command to the President of the United States (POTUS) is remarkable. They were clearly pursuing the interdiction of global communications on a very selective basis.

I'll repeat the question: when the terrorists strike the U.S. again, are you going to blame George W. Bush for having failed to prevent it.
Yes or no.

If the answer is yes, you're going to blame him for anything bad that happens (Katrina comes to mind); at least give him credit for preventing the next attack (until it happens).

I'm just asking for a little intellectual consistency, that's all.

when the terrorists strike the U.S. again, are you going to blame George W. Bush for having failed to prevent it.
Yes or no.

Er, not any faster than you will blame the ACLU.

Jack: your argument is specious. We both know the ACLU is not charged with protecting our national security; Bush took a constitutional oath (twice) to do so. I expect the ACLU to push the envelope in their rabid pursuit of civil rights protections. I also expect the Bush Administration to push the envelope in their rabid pursuit of protecting our national security. Let the ACLU file their lawsuits, let the liberal journalists level their charges, and watch President Bush keep on doing whatever he feels is necessary to keep us safe. I'm good with that.

Clearly, if something blows up, Bush will be blamed, especially by the left. Unless and until something blows up, I am merely asking that Bush receive credit where credit is due.

In the absence of a follow on attack to 9/11, are you going to acknowledge the Bush Administration has protected our national security? Or would you attribute it to good fortune, or the bad guys losing interest in killing Americans? Uh-huh.

If you think Bush is a lousy S.O.B. whether or not he successfully prosecutes the war on terror, then your politics have trumped your intellect. We all benefit from the Bushies willingness to push the envelope of what is "tolerable" in this preemptive war. Even Nancy Pelosi is better off with Bush in the oral office than V.P. (Al the Bootlicker) Gore or the Anti-War/War Hero Sen. Skerry.

As Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) observed in Hollywood's A Few Good Men:

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!