Thing is, it’s old discredited BS anyway, and not just because,as you claim, it was a republican congress. Tossing out your reasoning for why it should have been different doesn’t make it, any more than your claim that Clinton wasn’t charged with perjury sometime back. The record says differently in both cases and tossing out might have beens based on information you dig up without understanding the relevance just makes you appear foolish.

My advice is that you wait on Waxman in the House, and Conyers in the Senate for your impeachment scripting rather than recycle old nonsense. They’ve both been making grandiose claims since January of uncovering criminal or impeachable offenses momentarily and digging frantically to back up their claims. If you think that they didn’t consult with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on surveillance matters very soon in their hunt and found no joy there, you haven’t much appreciation for the impression of how partisan the two men think or do business they themselves project. Even predisposed to find something, anything, to go on, they aren’t getting anywhere against what has been a remarkably clean administration. Not pristine certainly, but compared to past administrations both Republican and (especially) Democrat remarkably clean and moreso when one considers the scrutiny the administration has been under by the ankle biting crowd.

“The danger is that the ones doing the surveillance are also the ones put in charge of oversight.”

No argument there. However, the articles mentioned in the post that you haven’t bothered to read clearly point out that the two Intelligence committees are performing their oversight function. I see no reason to think they won’t continue to perform that oversight function. It is, after all, why they sit on those committees. It is, after all, integral to why those committees exist in the first place.

“This is what the Bush administration is demanding now…”

No, they aren’t. Or at least there’s no support for claiming so. Since the classified briefings addressing the request for FISA changes was made in closed session, you have no factual basis for making this statement other than your predilection for making Bush and his adninistration your personal boogum. You don’t know the rationale presented in the brief any more than I or the WaPo or the NYT do.

This is the first time you’ve made an argument that I actually agree with, Old Man. Yeah, I probably should have been reading and commenting on those articles, but I only had time to skim through quickly and my comment was what came to mind. And yes, when I said finding out if crimes have been committed, I probably should have specified Congress, but I thought it was pretty obvious to all that the Justice Department isn’t going to lift a finger.

As to the rest of OldMan’s comments and everyone else who commented, my reply is the same: If you think the type of action that has been taken was necessary, then change the law. Otherwise, you’re breaking it. In a lawful society, everyone must obey the law, especially those in charge. This was not a mere technicality. The law provides for a felony charge for wiretapping a domestic communication without FISA approval. Even a very, very strict constructionist like Surley knows you need a warrant with probable cause before you can conduct search and seizure.

Same thought goes for changing FISA. The danger is that the ones doing the surveillance are also the ones put in charge of oversight. This is what the Bush administration is demanding now, and it’s incredibly dangerous. Think of it this way: when Hillary becomes president, do you want Janet Reno in charge of wiretapping AND in charge of overseeing the legality of that wiretapping? I don’t think so.

Yes, it’s quite depressing.

Old men, digesting lunch, trying to remember their lines.

(what wazzit I was “outraged” about 3 decades ago ?)

And then people like subpoena happy Henry Waxman, chair of some new oversight committee.

Ze French (it is said) do not mess around when it comes to invading the privacy of, incarcerating et al and etc. suspected troublemakers/would be terrorists/plotters of evil deeds (fill in the blank)

Despite that ultra liberal persona that attaches to Ze French.

In the latest chapter today, some people from Grassroots America apparently approached Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota) about impeaching the President.

It smacks of payback for the (former) sitting President who clearly perjured himself in both the federal and state (Arkansas) cases against him.

From individuals who don’t understand and don’t care to understand the concept of “impeachment”.

To hear corndog tell it the government can harass people for the sheer nasty fun of it, but they can not put terrorists under surveillance.

Speaking for myself, I’m sick to death of the waste in time and taxpayer money spent just so that they can preen and pose and pretend to be doing something other than scandal-monger.

If corndog does believe that, he ought to read up on this person. For that historical perspective, I mean. The one that lefties usually ignore.

If you’re not willing to read the artciles that Jules links in the post, then why should your comments in the thread be taking seriously?

I concluded corndog was not worth taking seriously because he kept on chasing his own tail in arguments. Now I see why. To paraphrase an old Hollywood cliche’:

“Facts? We doan need no steenkin’ facts!“

Nope. When I first registered on another site waaaay back when (bulletin board days), I meant to type in ‘Time’ but fumbled fingered both the ‘T and ‘Y’ at once. Liked the way it looked, dumped the I’, and stuck with ‘Tyme’.

Give me a break. If you’re not willing to read the artciles that Jules links in the post, then why should your comments in the thread be taking seriously? Jeez.

‘Second off, there is no need for probable cause in a congressional investigation, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from…’

Well. for one, when I asked why one would assume from the two articles that your three simple inquiries , your response never mentioned a congressional hearing. So your new response is rather specious on two levels. You said, and I quote (because I’m not above reading information relevant to the discussion before sticking my nose in):

‘Because in law-abiding societies, it’s important to find out if felonies have been committed.’

The other specious factor is that you answered the question of why one would assume from the two articles…etc. It turns out reading the articles in question is beneath you and making any response to the question under those circumstances was rather dumb.

By the way, what country you from? The congress is this one most certainly does operate under committee rules that determine when and for what reason they can call investigations and those rules do address cause.

Well, be that as it may be, that’s as far as I’ll go addressing the flights of fancy about impeachment and probable cause in the rest of your last comment. That’s KOS kiddie marching moron drivel (if you ‘don’t go to the sites you’re referring to’, you certainly march with them it seems). I see no reason to bother with you if you find reading the articles the post is based on not worthy of your bother.