The biggest problem in DC right now isn't George Bush. We, the people, know the emperor has no clothes.

The biggest problem is that we've spineless Democrats unwilling to say the emperor has no clothes.

The president is, nonetheless, naked and an embarassment. We need to suggest to one and all that our Constitution is NOT up for revision, dismissal, nor ready for the dustbin of history.

You're a silly man.

These Washington types get so caught up in their own egoes and ambitions, they can't recognize a low-grade huckster when they see one.

Who are these terrorists anyway? Why has the Carlile group (which makes a good deal of its money by buying up arms companies and selling them at a profit) historically had both Bush in it, and bin Ladens in it?

Personally, I wouldn't vote to give Bush access to a cell phone.

You're a silly man.

What a privilege to have access here to such eloquent and erudite arguments.

I couldn't agree more with Jack and Frank.

This recent vote is just one more sterling example of why I've never wanted to join the Democratic Party. It's nearly as currupt as the GOP. The only rational, patriotic course is, IMHO, to vote the issues and the candidate, not the party. And if we don't vote the party then why bother joining?

What we need is a viable 3rd party.

The Democrats were scared that Bush and the Republicans would call them "weak on terror" if they didn't pass the bill. How surprised they'll be when he calls them weak on terror anyway. Haven't they learned ANYTHING in the past 6 years?

Failure to act is the tag on this the democratic leadership. Had Abu Gonzales been held in contempt, under impeachment or censured, there would have been ample reason to reject this bill. It's the result of their inaction.

It could be political cowardice. It could be that many Dems are just too dumb to realize Bush is having his way with them and laughing about it. It could also be conspiracy. That's right, I used the "C" word.

Maybe there is a political faction embedded within both parties that has an agenda that is very important to their rich and powerful supporters that they know the public would overwhelmingly disapprove of. Maybe. The likelihood that such a conspiracy might exist is only increased in a nation where the public refuses to recognize and consider the potential of such a threat. The Founding Fathers understood that.

"What we need is a viable 3rd party"

At this point, I'd settle for a viable 2nd party.

"weak on terror"

Why does "Weak on Liberty" seem to have no effect?

I sure wish Ron Paul had a chance in '08 :(

The Democrats are not afraid of Bush. They are afraid of what the American people will do to them at the ballot box if they get as kooky as their base appears to be.

By the way, the Democratic part of the Oregon delegation voted against this bill.

An insight might bring understanding to mind, to stop seeing Dem's as 'spineless' in standing up for the cause that people believe in for good, (that is, people who label themselves Dem's with the thought that the Dem's cause is their cause), and start seeing Dem's as 'resolute' in standing up for the cause that Dem politicians actually believe in, fairly called 'self-interest' -- their personal own, not, and not the same as, the interest of the people wearing the Dem label.

Seeing Dem's as 'strong' standing up for what they believe, same as Rep's, brings understanding Dem's as the people's enemy, same as Rep's.

It is one thing not to be able to force their hand on Iraq, but to continue to allow them to trample civil liberties here at home? W.T.F.!

Actually this is just smart politics. While it disapoints the core of the party who want payback it appears as a "reasonable" response to the swing voters the Democrats need to win in 08. Reasonable as in we are giving our C in C the power he needs to protect us from the terrorists.

Reasonable as in the polls consistently show that those swing voters are tired of the partisanship style of rulng. It's why the Republicans are constatly charging the Dems with "partisan" style votes. (Like the humorous calls of "shame, shame" they did the other night in the US House.) If the Dems are just as bad as the Republicans have been then on the "partisanship" issue then the Repubs hope they can win on other issues.

Unfortunately we have to get the White House back before we can get our constitution back.

Greg C

And yes I have asked my Congressman to impeach Bush and Cheney as soon as possible. But it aint gonna happen folks.

Doing the right thing is not partisan.

By the way, the Democratic part of the Oregon delegation voted against this bill.

So, Sue...

You're saying that Representative Walden voted to trample our Constitutional rights even more?

Did Senator Gordon Smith also spit on the Constitution and the American public?

No longer the "Land of the Free", "Home of the Brave".

Boo-Freaking-Hoo.

Just so we can agree to disagree, I would like to point out that the Japanese Imperial army blithely murdered upwards of 18-million innocents prior to and during WW II.

Had Eisenhauer and Macarthur wasted troops by slogging up the islands, I doubt they would have been so fondly remembered.

In pondering the why of it all, my conclusion is even the modest FISA requirements of a secretly issued warrant, after the fact, by a secret court,slows the process. The obvious conclusion is that the sheer volume of eavesdropping needs makes even modest review impractical. Sure hope my number is not dialed by mistake from an overseas phone.

The biggest problem is that we've spineless Democrats unwilling to say the emperor has no clothes.

And that has a ton to do with the Hillarization of the party. For a generation now, they've been afraid of their own shadow. It's time for new leadership. And unfortunately that's not coming. At least not yet.

Congress has had multiple opportunities to call the president's bluff in the last seven months and have dodged every opportunity. It would have been awesome had they recessed and forced the president into calling them do-nothings while in Crawford.