The New York Times' Lichtblau and Hulse report that the Dems in Congress "seem ready to extend wiretap powers" for the Bush administration:
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.
So what's the problem the Dems have with protecting our Constitution, our liberties, our trust in government? You guessed it:
Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.
Sigh. I'm almost too disgusted to rant about this latest, and arguably most disgraceful, capitulation. And they apparently are unlikely to filibuster:
Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.
Deep in the story, the ACLU sounds the right note: Dems are putting themselves at greater risk by supporting this un-American legislation than they would by showing some guts and standing up to the Bush noise machine:
Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad, blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court. [...] "There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable," she said, "But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle."
This isn't going to be a long diary, but I'll just say if this happens, it may be my final straw. Do the Dems really want to turn lifelong party members like myself (formerly a Democratic Committee member, even) into independents?