Heartbreak Alert on the Left: FISA deal rumor
posted at 11:14 am on March 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
According to a report floating around Capitol Hill, the Democratic House leadership may have made a deal with Republicans to get the FISA reform bill passed — with telecom immunity intact. Instead of bringing the bipartisan Senate deal to the floor in one piece, Nancy Pelosi will schedule votes on its component parts. Both will pass, but it will allow some members to cast nays against the immunity to protect themselves from the netroots activists opposed to the immunity:
To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill’s second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles.
In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP. It remains to be seen if such a move will placate liberal Democrats who adamantly oppose giving in to the Bush administration on the immunity issue.
The original reporting is behind a subscription wall, and the link takes readers to a blogger who is none too happy with this development. Moe Lane at Redstate and Karl at Protein Wisdom are delighted, however. Moe calls it the “cynical betrayal of the Democratic netroots,” although he does put it in the form of a question.
I wouldn’t go that far. It looks far more like the recognition of reality. Democrats in the Senate backed this bill, which has cut out the ground from underneath Pelosi and the House in arguing that the White House and Republicans should compromise. Why should they, when the bill on the table in the House garnered a 68-29 passage in the upper chamber? President Bush has hammered Pelosi on this point, and even Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has gone public in pressuring the House to get the bill passed.
This mechanism makes sense for all involved. It puts everyone on the record for the two parts of the bill separately, which allows the few who strenuously object to the immunity to make their record clear. It’s a compromise that will satisfy all but the hard Left, who by this time have to finally wonder exactly how far out of the mainstream they are.
UPDATE: Moe actually wrote “netroots”. Sorry for the mistake, Moe!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning!
sondiehl on March 1, 2008 at 11:20 AM
So I grabbed my morning cup of coffee, checked out Hot Air for my morning read, and what’s the first thing I see on the front page?
Those eyes! Those eeeeeeeyes!
Well, guess I’m awake now.
Dave Shay on March 1, 2008 at 11:21 AM
This, in relation to yesterday’s decision by Attorney General Mukasey, shows it just does not pay to be a Botoxed old battle ax.
(That picture is truly horrifying. I think for next Halloween I’m going to enlarge it, put it in my window and have Hillary’s cackle playing in the background and I will have something to really scare the bejezzus out of everyone.)
Ceroth on March 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I’d like to see how Obama votes on the bill that would authorize surveillance.
amkun on March 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM
This is a smart move. Everybody wins.
SoulGlo on March 1, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Pelosi is the most unethical, crooked, secretive and manipulating Speaker since Ft. Worthless Jim Wright. So much for the “most open, ethical and forthright” House under Pelosi the Tuna Queen.
jimbo2008 on March 1, 2008 at 11:26 AM
“Present.”
Dave Shay on March 1, 2008 at 11:27 AM
I am ashamed that this horrible woman is from my home state. Talk about the land of “fruits and nuts”. Geez! It will be interesting to see how O’Bama Hussien votes.
Winebabe on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
You’re talking about her … ?
Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Obama’s people will call in to let congress know that he’s behind them, and just ignore what he says on the TV. Uncle Jesse and Al taught him all about that.
Hening on March 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Stand by for “IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS” in the leftosphere. Nothing more fun to watch then A level seething.
William Teach on March 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM
It’s amazing that the national G.O.P. and pretty much everyone with any sense from the likely candidate to Ed Morissey understands and has said running down Obama’s middle name is a political loser, and you still see a high percentage of conservative blog commentators doing it
Not very smart.
Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 11:32 AM
What a terrible sight! How could you Ed. Those eyes are seared into my brain for the rest of the day.
Pax americana on March 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Good god that pelosi pic frightened me. It was like The Ring
Crawling out of my monitor after me…
Mazztek on March 1, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Reminiscent of Brownback’s last minute vote switch on shamnesty, after he saw it wouldn’t pass. These guys spend more time worrying about perception than reality. Speaking of that, I see Waxman wants to have the feds see if they can pin a perjury rap on Roger”White Bread” Clemons. Any guess as to why that is so important?
a capella on March 1, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Hey Winebabe, me too, but add Boxer and Feinstein to that list.
Personally I think this is the most duplicitious method of achieving safety for this country. It is unfortunate that the larger population won’t hear or see anything about it and if they do, they probably wouldn’t understand. Shameful
As to Barack’s middle name…blame his father and mother. Why should he get special treatment.
sharinlite on March 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
+1
Tru dat, playa.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Dude. No one should have to wake up to that image. Damn you.
lorien1973 on March 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, Hussein, and so on and so on and so on.
Ceroth on March 1, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I can hear the shieking now. I love the smell of pissed off Pelosi, it smells like victory.
limowilliam on March 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Actually, Obama and Her Thighness already had their chance to vote on it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201202.html
Dave Shay on March 1, 2008 at 11:45 AM
The far left will never consider that they are out of the mainstream. It’s everyone else whose out of the mainstream. Remember, they exist solely within their own echo chambers. (Not sure if this is the exact quote, but recall this musing: “No one I know voted for Nixon”?)
mogilla on March 1, 2008 at 11:48 AM
ceroth…That was to much…now I have coffee to clean up..thanks for the laugh tho…
twiggman on March 1, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Most awesome Pelosi screencap ever!
Did I hear that congress’ approval rating is down to like, 11% now? Wow, what a surprise, and now Pelosi wants to file a lawsuit against Bolton and Miers over the fed attorney firings. Does that awesome screencap not reveal Pelosi’s underlying insanity lurking just beneath the surface?
Fishoutofwater on March 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Jeez, Ed! That picture! ::shudder::
(Although this proves Gollum got his looks from his mother’s side of the family….)
irishspy on March 1, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Hey another Californian weighing in here, just thank god that illegally funneled billions of dollars to her husbands construction company Feinstein isn’t the speaker, cause then we would really see what “most open, ethical and forthright” means to democrats. If she weren’t a democrat Diane Feinstein would be sharing a cell with Randy “Duke” Cunningham right this minute.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 11:58 AM
You can’t call a guy by his LEGAL name ??
redrock on March 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Heh heh heh Capitan Ed is giving Allapundit’s headline Dude articles a run for their money in the visual department…
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Code Pink is seeing RED.
SouthernGent on March 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM
they just don’t make lame-duck presidents like they used to.
hoser on March 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Those eyes. That stare. Goes right through your soul, travels up your spinal cord and rattles your brain.
Conservative_SAHM on March 1, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Oh well, I’m sure they have other methods in store for punishing “Big Telecom”.
Dork B. on March 1, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I love, love, LOVE that “deer-caught-in-the-headlights” picture of Pelosi. Pretty much sums up how inept she and her buddies are on pretty much everything.
ThePrez on March 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM
When you start cheering large corporations being given immunity to violate the Constitution…it may be time to rethink your politics.
alphie on March 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them. Watch out for some kind of trick.
Bill_M on March 1, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Fair warning… The Hot Air staff may want to save some time and frustration by banning alphie now. His only purpose on blogs is to disrupt threads at conservative sites.
Stashiu3 on March 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Spooky picture. She reminds me of that cult leader Applewhite from the Heaven’s Gate in San Diego. You know, that one where they thought they would commit mass suicide and then ride the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet into some heavenly celestial portal.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Yes, and it’s transparently stupid. Congress disgusts me for their inability to take the full weight of responsibility for their (in)actions.
James on March 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM
How does this “exclusivity” issue that HoldFast’s Matt Hamlin talks about fit into the picture? I haven’t heard a peep about it from this side…
Math_Mage on March 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Amen to that. It’s Obama’s legal name. If he doesn’t like it or thinks it may be a political liability, then he’s free to go to court and change it. Until then, nobody should presume to tell commenters (or anyone else) that they should not refer to a candidate by his legal name.
AZCoyote on March 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I presume that you called Fred, Fred Dalton Thomas every time? Or you’ll start referring to McCain as Sidney right? Or Maybe John Sidney McCain III.
lorien1973 on March 1, 2008 at 1:45 PM
“Spineless political class types need backbone implants.
Wildcatter1980 on March 1, 2008 at 1:59 PM
ACLU lawsuit in 3…2…1…
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I find it interesting, the Donks have to pull the wool over the eyes of their own electorate.
I’ll bet, they don’t even pass out the Visine, to get rid of the itch.
franksalterego on March 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
George
Not to tango with you lorien, but I recall the media, with gusto, calling 41 “George Herbert Walker Bush”.
Entelechy on March 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Note to self - there is a “preview” button at HA now.
Entelechy on March 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Forgot to comment on the picture - Nancy
PelosiPinocchio?Entelechy on March 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
i’m not sure your point. Are you agreeing that it’s done to score a cheap point? When someone says Barack Hussein Obama, I figure they do so because they cannot intelligently make a good point against him. Why minimize your argument with something so trivial? He is no relation to Hussein; its just an unfortunate middle name that is all.
lorien1973 on March 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
lorien, my only point is this - here are the 44 presidents of the U.S.A., anyone like it or not:
George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
George Walker Bush, 2001-
Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-
Entelechy on March 1, 2008 at 2:09 PM
That picture of Pelosi on the front page is pure gold. Or is it “Magnum”?
http://www.uploadgeek.com/uploads456/0/pelosi_zoolander.jpg
If they ever make a Zoolander sequel they have to cast Pelosi as Zoolanders mother.
gumble on March 1, 2008 at 2:12 PM
No one would be aching to call Obama by his middle name if it were Bob - the only reason it’s done is try to make a non-existant connection between him and Saddam. Face the reality.
lorien1973 on March 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Which reminds me…is Sheehan still running against Pelosi in SF? What are her chances of winning; and wouldn’t it be oh so sweet if she did?
lorien1973 on March 1, 2008 at 2:13 PM
I agree. A civil society is premised upon an expectation of privacy in communication. Civil society is a value of the highest order and transcends party lines. Any characterization of it being “far left” to oppose such intrusion by the government is intellectually dishonest. This is just more paradigmatic fascism making its home in the good old USA. Not like there is anything left of the 4th amendment they haven’t shredded already.
Fortunately you do not make those decisions, but your jingoism is transparent to the extent you do not engage what someone is saying with anything rational, and instead resort to ad hominem. Apparently, you’ve lost the argument.
petit bourgeois on March 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM
lorien
That may be partially true. But there is something else at play. It simply unnerves me, for instance, to see the Democrats nominate a hard left individual with a Muslim background directly after and during a hot war with Muslim extremists. Whether or not Obama has any ties with these extremists is irrelevent, what unnerves is the coincidence that he is nominated when he is and by whom.
The Democrats are trying less to please our principles with his nomination and more to please The World at large, particularly the Muslim world. It also is no secret that the Democrats have made a political industry out of apologizing for and protecting extremist Muslim interests.
Imagine if you will a post-WW2 period where one party had made a similar political game out of appeasing Nazi sympathizers. And then imagine they nominate a man named Georg Hitler Guggenheim. Would this seem a coincidence to you?
I do not agree with calling attention to his middle name, but it would be incredibly naive to think that his Muslim heritage and name doesn’t carry a tremendous cache with Democrats in this day and age.
Dr. Manhattan on March 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM
In other words, anti-war people often wear the keffiyah, out of both rankly ignorant solidarity and fashion (as is often the case with the Democrats).
I see Obama as essentially the embodiment of a keffiyah. Fashionable anti-war affectation. The keffiyah is only cloth and ink, but it is a symbol.
Dr. Manhattan on March 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM
PALOMINO!!!!
(bwuhahahahahah!!!-welcome to reality dems)
scottm on March 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I just know alphie. Now, where is the jingoism or any ad hominem attack in my comment? Where in the Constitution is there anything about wiretapping? Where has it been proven that any violation of the law occurred? Why shouldn’t patriotic companies who comply with good-faith requests of the government be protected from spurious litigation?
Apparently, you value a thesaurus more than honest argument. I would suggest buying a dictionary as well so you understand the words you are using. Anyone using the phrase “paradigmatic fascism” in regards to the United States is clearly unaware of what fascism truly entails. There is a difference between having a vocabulary and being intelligent. Learn it.
Stashiu3 on March 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
When you start cheering large corporations being given immunity to violate the Constitution…it may be time to rethink your politics.
No. It’s time to cheer louder. And by the way, what hat did you pull this out of?
No one would be aching to call Obama by his middle name if it were Bob - the only reason it’s done is try to make a non-existant connection between him and Saddam.
Not Saddam. Muslims in general. So? Some of us think he would be worse than having a Taliban president.
Forgot to comment on the picture - Nancy
PelosiPinocchio?How about “Nancy Lugosi”?
Squiggy on March 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Willy-nilly wiretaps of everyday Americans would probably be an infringement of your right to not be searched without cause.
However, in this case, the government targeted only 500 people and had plenty of reasonable cause: these people had dealings with terrorists in the Middle East.
amkun on March 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM
If I understand this right, we will be able to start surveillance again but without the help of tellacommunications companies. I assume it would be without their help because, what company would stick their neck out there to help the U.S. only to have it chopped off by Pelosi’s lawyers once some nutroot thinks his privacy has been invaded because the C.I.A. knows his library card number.
What about the telecoms that has helped stop or expose terrorist activity in the past. Pelosi gets to tie up the courts with her attack lawyers on the telecoms and taxpayers dime. She and her trial lawyers get what they’ve wanted all along. This has NOTHING to do with rights.
Telecoms that helped save American lives could go to trial. Do I have that right?
oakpack on March 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Not a foregone conclusion… Oh and George Washington was not America’s first president, that distinction belongs to John Hanson, Washington was America’s Seventh President. Washington was however the First President of the United States after the ratification of our current constitution.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
You don’t think maybe it had anything to do with a previous President named George Herbert Bush?
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Dorian, #41 was George Herbert Walker Bush.
Entelechy on March 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM
Yes, but #39 was George Herbert Bush, hence the distinction of calling #41 George Herbert Walker Bush.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Meh… never mind… My bad…
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 4:34 PM
HA! Nancy dropped Magnum on us! Breathtaking!
Dork B. on March 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
And Pelosi once again plays games in the House. Typical.
Carl on March 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Oh come on. Like anyone had a doubt Pelosi would fold faster than Superman on laundry day.
Chuck Schick on March 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
As one of the .000001% that gets that reference- well played Sir.
Chuck Schick on March 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I find it strange that no one is talking about the fact that two weeks ago the House went on vacation after ending the wire tapping of terrorist. Now we find risin in a hotel in the United States. I knew that the drive by media wasn’t going to report it but I actually expected that the serious news journalist would have made the obvious connection.
pwb on March 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM
pwb,
Interesting connection.
If this is indeed a way to get FISA reformed and to permit telcom companies to cooperate with the Government without worrying about massive nuisance lawsuits, then the national interest is well served.
It would have been better well served if this dance was not occurring.
hunter on March 1, 2008 at 5:08 PM
I’m sorry they didn’t have the balls to get rid of the Telcom immunity clause. Just another slap at the Constitution and more proof that Congress and the Pres can do whatever they want with no consequences.
Too, too bad.
tgillian on March 1, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Is Nancy vying for a shot at playing The Joker? Egads, man. Let me pull the forks outta my eyes after I beheld that image…
Sir Loin on March 1, 2008 at 5:37 PM
At least if this goes through it will shut up Arlen Specter and his ludicrous amendment to somehow substitute the government as the nominal defendant in cases alleging wrongful surveillance. If we were lacking proof of Specter’s senility, that bill was it.
VG
Voiceguy on March 1, 2008 at 5:45 PM
No, a Utopian society is premised on such an expectation. Here in reality, no such thing exists, nor has it ever. Any communication, other than a private in-person conversation, is susceptible to interception and it always has been. Civil society finds people who understand that and act accordingly, yet it is replete with examples of those who learn that lesson the hard way.
Pablo on March 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Good point Pablo. I guess they think that if only our communications can be totally private will people be civil. Criminals and terrorists won’t dare be uncivil if their communications are just kept private.
Civil society is predicated on the rule of law. Nobody has shown that any laws were broken because that didn’t happen. This legislation is to prevent money-grubbers and anti-administration (anti-American, if you will) slugs from trumping up bogus claims for their own profit and agenda.
Providing for the common defense is essential to this and knowing what bad people are planning is needed to prevent them from succeeding. The same people who claim that laws and rights are being violated are the first ones who scream “They should have been able to prevent this!!” when something bad does happen.
Stashiu3 on March 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM
And *POOF* goes another issue that republicans could win house seats on.
DannoJyd on March 1, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Just a friendly reminder…the text of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Pretty simple.
alphie on March 1, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I’m wondering what happens when Pelosi goes to bed. Can she close her eyes like the rest of us or do they keep popping back open?
perroviejo on March 1, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Hmmm, the war on drugs violates the 4th amendment and others almost every day and no one seems to care.
docdave on March 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Please remove this post. Every time I check in on the home page, her face frightens me.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 1, 2008 at 8:29 PM
That is a scary picture!
JellyToast on March 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Once again, why is nobody talking about the “exclusivity” clause that HoldFast is talking about? How does this relate to the issue at large?
One more question. Are the records being provided records of domestic conversations, domestic-calling-foreigner conversations, or foreigner-calling-domestic conversations?
Math_Mage on March 1, 2008 at 9:06 PM
So…that Heaven’s Gate guy got elected to the House as a Dem?
18-1 on March 1, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Well, it does make it easier to *not* pull a Kennedy and call the man Osama, now, doesn’t it?
18-1 on March 1, 2008 at 9:12 PM
That’s a rather simplistic view of the situation. Have you ever stopped to look at it from the other side? That the telcos were responding to an urgent plea from the intelligence community to help capture - and/or prevent another attack from - terrorists?
What, exactly, would you lot do to protect the country without the benefit of exactly the sort of intelligence that FISA provides? (I keep asking this, and usually get ad hominem and handwaving in response. Prove me wrong with an intelligent response.)
Paul_in_NJ on March 1, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Youch, that (picture) hurt! Where do I sign up to get added to the list of those held In Contempt Of Congress?
dhunter on March 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I think it’s pretty simple. If you need to spy on regular Americans, then come out an say it out loud. Don’t simply do that in a backroom when you know it’s illegal. Don’t come back a year or two later and argue you need retroactive privacy.
Last I checked, we the people are supposed to decide where things are headed. And in cases where we don’t explicitly decide (say same sex marriage), then we ought to know what is going on, so that we can take corrective measures. (Same sex rulings are public, so we can react to those)
The situation here is really different. The telecommunication companies knew they were potentially doing something wrong. Or they ought to have known. Either way, they should have gone to Congress to get the proper law passed. If the Constitution stands in the way, then we should amend it. To grant retroactive immunity at this point makes a mockery of the constitution. I cannot understand why right wingers are not as mad as us for this blantant violation of civil rights.
mycowardice on March 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Oh My God, the one below it is just as bad, stop it Hot Air your killin me!
Someone throw some water on these two I really need a Wizard of Oz moment to get these visuals out of my mind.
dhunter on March 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM
The second title should be voted first. I trust Nancy D’Alesandro as far as my six month old grandson can through her. She is quite capable of agreeing to a deal and then not completing it.
burt on March 1, 2008 at 10:13 PM
The US Military needs to use this picture of Pelosi for its psyops and as a “inhanced terrogation method” down at Club Gitmo. They’ll sing like canaries.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 1, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Paul_in_NJ,
I’d rather the intelligence community took a billion dollars a year from the Iraq budget (it wouldn’t be missed) and hired an extra 10,000 lawyers to process their FISA warrant requests in a timely manner.
alphie on March 1, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I just bought gas today, here in CA it’s $3.39/gal…. and headed to $4.00/gal.
And Ms. Facelift and the Democratic controlled Congress is doing what?
When is enough, enough?
Seven Percent Solution on March 1, 2008 at 10:33 PM
1. Well, I’m in. I wonder if I’ll spend anywhere close to the time I used to spend at Captain’s Quarters.
2. The hypocrisy of the House Democrats seems to surpass my imagination!
Al in St. Lou on March 1, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I wonder if Nancy is still doing pride marches with THE NORTH AMERICAN MAN-BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION. Embarrassing.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Quick History Channel. Wyatt Earp-Shoot out at the ok corral. Two minutes.
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 1, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »