NYTimes:Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers

[spanone]

LOSING MY RELIGION....this is absolute horseshit

...they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

~snip~ WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[BridgeTheGap]

1. "Here, take this knife and stab me with it!"

How can any sane Democrat go along with this shit!?!
It is a weapon to be used against them, as when they used Homeland Security to track down the Texas Dem legislators who had fled the state, as when repubs in congress tapped phones and read email of Dems. It's more "dirty tricks," plain and simple, and our Dem reps & Sens WANT IT!?!

[spanone]

2. here's my response to ANY democrat that supports this: FUCK YOU

[leftchick]

8. oh I said FUCK YOU to the majority of them MONTHS ago

I am so ready to vote third party or write in a candidate. This is fucking insanity and I believe it can not be fixed by 'democrats' any more.

[ClassWarrior]

10. Like giving up...

...isn't insanity?

:eyes:

NGU.

[still_one]

22. There is only one reason to vote Democratic in 2008, the Supreme Court

I understand you feelings, in fact I pretty much feel the same way, but the odds are good that Stevens will retire, and quite a few of the justices are way into their seventies.

[NewJeffCT]

3. How depressing

why are they so afraid to stand up to Mr 26%?

[Orsino]

4. They are not of us.

I have no idea what they think they're getting in return for selling us out.

[tridim]

28. I think they want the power for themselves in 09

Which is pretty damn disturbing IMO.

[Solly Mack]

5. and no one could have anticipated....

Yeah..I'm not nice. So?

[spanone]

6. i'm not a dem basher, but i'm beginning to wonder who they represent.

i don't see one iota of principle in the democrats..

[Solly Mack]

12. I don't see it as bashing to question the motives of those who represent you

when they have given you reason to question their motives


Sometimes it is just good common sense

[leftchick]

9. "who could have predicted"??

I know bush/cheney did. There is a definite pattern here. :grr:

[spanone]

11. is howard dean taking acid? who the fuck is leading the democrats?

[KoKo]

18. Howard Dean is being attacked by Dino State Parties defying the rules

over primaries. He won't be head of the DNC much longer. They've been after his butt just as they have the progressives who worked for him in 2004. They've censored the Get out of Iraq wing...helped in shutting down the media by not making any effort to support their netroots and activists...and so now they shove the knife in again...just so we know what they really think of us, in case we missed the message the first times.

[spanone]

19. it's such a shame....the democrats could walk away with everything...imho

[leftchick]

20. don't blame Howard

he has been effectively neutered by the DLC's Hoyer and Emmanuel.

[Solly Mack]

13. They were counting on it

[HereSince1628]

14. Seems ya can't teach an old Donkey new tricks.

[HereSince1628]

7. People re-elected incumbents, the leadership is composed of the re-elected

Yea, I know there were new folks elected. Enough new folks to swing control over to the--incumbents.

Our frustrations are a consequence of our voting.

When the voters re-elect the same people why do we really act surprised when the new Congress behaves just like the old Congress?

[spanone]

15. if the dems are STILL worried about being called 'soft on terrorism' we're fucked

cause the terror card will be EVERYWHERE come 2008.

[Double T]

16. democrats are looking more like rethugs everyday.

Pathetic what SOME will do to be reelected. Count me OUT!!!

[spanone]

17. i have no clue how this will get them 'reelected' NO CLUE

[Double T]

21. democrats are focusing on courting the rethug voters and expecting the Democratic voters to remain

loyal; like hell and noway with their new positions on the important issues. What a bunch of wimpy sellouts.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. They already have the reputation of being soft. What do they have to risk now?

Why don't we make it a rule that we don't support a bad Democrat for more than one term? If they're too spineless to do the job, why do we keep supporting them?

[Rose Siding]

24. Greenwald: More complicated, less depressing than NYT suggests...

After noting that dems have done precious little to prevent us from assuming the worst, Glen Greenwald writes:

snip>
But at least thus far, from everything I can tell, the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests, and the defeat is not yet a fait accompli. To begin with, the bill to be proposed today by the House Democratic leadership actually contains some surprisingly good and important provisions.

That bill would compel the administration "to reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program." It would also require the maintenance of a data base to record the identities of all Americans whose conversations are surveilled. And it provides nothing at all in the way of amnesty or immunity for lawbreaking telecoms or administration officials. The bill introduced by House leadership is a bill the White House will never accept and would certainly veto, and it is vastly better -- in important ways -- than the atrocity they enacted in August.

That bill would compel the administration "to reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program." It would also require the maintenance of a data base to record the identities of all Americans whose conversations are surveilled. And it provides nothing at all in the way of amnesty or immunity for lawbreaking telecoms or administration officials. The bill introduced by House leadership is a bill the White House will never accept and would certainly veto, and it is vastly better -- in important ways -- than the atrocity they enacted in August.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

[Solly Mack]

26. Thanks for this!!

[lonestarnot]

27. Well you offer light in the storm.

[tridim]

29. Interesting, now what does this tell us about the NYT and their agenda?

[lonestarnot]

25. What fucking bullshit!