That's not "soft" as in "soft-hearted." It's "soft" as in shirking their mundane duty they swore to uphold. The Democrats are being extremely weak in protecting the privacy of American citizens against the prying and abusive eyes and ears of wicked, lying, war-mongering, insane neocons. Why is that? Is it because the Republicans will call them weak on terrorism? Well, the neocons are terrorists. Look at what they've done. If you don't impeach and remove them, you're being soft on terrorists.
Tuesday June 10, 2008 08:15 EDT
The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau has a long, prominent article today on the pending debate over FISA and telecom amnesty — headlined: "Return to Old Spy Rules Is Seen as Deadline Nears" — that features (and endorses) virtually every blatant falsehood that has distorted these spying issues from the beginning, and which is built on every shoddy journalistic practice that has made clear debate over these issues almost impossible. The article strongly suggests that a so-called "compromise" is imminent, a "compromise" which will deliver to the President virtually everything he seeks in the way of new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty.
One paragraph after the next in Lichtblau's article features shrill warnings, mostly from unnamed "officials," about all the scary things that will happen if Congressional Democrats do not quickly pass a new FISA bill that is similar to the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill and that is agreeable to the President. If a "compromise" isn't reached, reports the article, then we'll all have to live under the so-called "old" FISA law — meaning the law used by the U.S. to defend itself from 1978 until August, 2007 and then again from February, 2008 until the present. Moreover, the one-year surveillance orders obtained last August under the now-expired Protect America Act are set to expire in August, 2008.