Kahones? Perhaps, but small.

So let me get this straight: Bush says that it is essential that the House pass the Senate FISA bill (the dubiously titled, "Protect America Act"), which would allow the Government to continue to spy on Americans without a warrant. However, he says that he will veto any form of the bill that does not contain retroactive immunity for phone companies that have, in the past, cooperated with the government in eavesdropping activities.

Doesn't that mean that Bush thinks that its more important to protect phone companies from lawsuits than to, in his words, "protect the American people"?

Seems pretty clear to me. And that certainly shouldn't surprise anyone. Since day one of this Presidency, protecting and enriching corporations has been Job One.

Let's be clear, the government can, under original FISA provisions, listen to anyone they want to at any time, assuming they have even a minimally good reason to do so. Their sole complaint with the FISA rules is that it creates too much red tape. So in essence, what they are saying is that they want to be able to spy on people without telling any one about it, because, of course, they simply can't be bothered with going to a judge every single time. It would just be a huge hassle.

Isn't that just chillingly creepy? Basic civil rights are trumped by excess paper work?

But, in stark contrast to their performance in recent history, House members declined to pass the "Protect America Act" by the deadline on Saturday.

Bravo! Did Democratic members of the house finally grow some kahones?

Perhaps they did, albeit abysmally small ones.

Crucial to comprehensive interpretation of this matter is the fact that Bush did have the option of extending the provisions of the existing FISA ammendments, which he declined to do. In other words, the ONLY effective difference between the "Protect America Act" and a Presidential extention of the current FISA ammendments, is the controversial retroactive protection for phone companies included in the Senate FISA bill. Hence, if one may extrapolate from the administration's own analysis of the situation, they have made us less safe by refusing to enact provisions that did not offer protection for phone companies.

That isn't hard to figure out. WHERE IS THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA ON THIS ONE?

But the obvious question is, Why is the Bush administration so reticent to go the the FISA court (which has rejected a small handfull of warrant requests out of TENS OF THOUSANDS) to get a warrant? Several explanations come to mind, each more sinister than the last.

Kucinich, 2002: