The DLC gave advice on surveillance in January this year.

[madfloridian]

See if it sounds familiar.

Idea of the Week: Fighting Terrorism Within the Rule of Law

The debate over the president's approval of a National Security Agency surveillance program aimed at communications involving Americans and overseas terrorism suspects is being turned by the Bush administration into a false choice between fighting terrorism and observing the rule of law. And as White House political guru Karl Rove made clear in remarks to the Republican National Committee last week, the GOP intends to make this issue a partisan fight, and ride it like a hobby horse all the way into this November's midterm elections.

...."We see no particular value in dwelling on the administration's past behavior. The more important question is how to bring counter-terrorism surveillance under the rule of law in the present and future. The goal must be to give national security agencies the authority they need to stop terrorist attacks, while also providing the oversight necessary to ensure their efforts are effective and do not violate Americans' civil liberties.

..."For their part, Democrats should focus less on hashing over the administration's past behavior, and focus more on working with responsible Republicans to set new and reasonable rules for the new war that began on 9/11. That's the right thing to do, and it will also help Democrats avoid the political trap Karl Rove so publicly set last week.

..."Democrats should take the position that they are happy to give the administration all the legal authority it wants and needs in exchange for accepting responsibility for actual results.

In the end, the war on terror does not require a president above the law, and the rule of law does not require unreasonable restrictions on surveillance.

Read it once and then again.

[Warpy]

1. And people on this board wonder why I've been

savaging the DLC for so many years!

Face it, they're an Eisenhower Republic fifth column within the party.

While I don't advocate getting rid of them completely, it's obvious they need to be removed from the center of party power and reduced to a minor advisory group.

[madfloridian]

4. A post at Kos said Pelosi tried to stall the bill..

but she's the one that is being targeted here at DU.

:shrug:

She is about to be done in by the DLC types, and the guys on the left are helping.

[Warpy]

7. I'm not complaining about Pelosi

She's been doing an admirable job, considering so many blue dogs in her own party are trying to cut her off at the knees.

[madfloridian]

8. There have been several posts tonight....

that got me angry. I hate that some are targeting her instead of the New Dems and Blue Dogs.

Not you...sorry did not make it clear.

[AuntPatsy]

10. far too many of those like posts, far too many....

[OzarkDem]

2. F*ck them n/t

[Solly Mack]

3. "We see no particular value in dwelling on the administration's past behavior."

Gee, I bet all people who break the law wish they could get that deal

.."Democrats should take the position that they are happy to give the administration all the legal authority it wants and needs in exchange for accepting responsibility for actual results. "

That's an extremely dangerous statement...


all the legal authority it needs to torture..spy...detain...break any law, really...(and you can't break a law once your crimes are made legal)

[IChing]

5. Bill clinton went to their last big meeting and spoke.

[Connie_Corleone]

6. The American people want their congress to fight back, not roll over and play dead.

[madfloridian]

9. Well, looks like the Dems listened. They gave Bush MORE than he wanted.

"..."Democrats should take the position that they are happy to give the administration all the legal authority it wants and needs in exchange for accepting responsibility for actual results."

And they listened further in not worrying about Bush's past arrogant behavior.

""We see no particular value in dwelling on the administration's past behavior."