The American Spectator

, did a vaudeville act worthy of Abbott and Costello. Reid refused twice to answer Chris Wallace’s questions as to whether Reid was briefed on this program by the President. Levin, taking a preemptive tact with Russert, declared that presidential briefings with Senate leaders did not constitute constitutional authority. Oh, really, how often has executive policy been enacted in D.C. with the knowledge and approval of Congressional leaders? It’s good that the Bush White House has not been caught flatfooted on this because the MSM and the Dems once again smell the blood of impeachment in the air. Bush should be prepared to name names, times, and dates of these briefings to keep Reid et al. from their usual prevarications. Once again, no matter what actions Bush takes, the MSM and the Democrats will always spin the negative. He is either inattentive and unresponsive or dangerously provocative and rash. The MSM and the Democrats are playing a deadly game of chicken with America’s security. The other half of America had better wake up to this fact and quick. br> — A. DiPentima /p> p> Jed Babbin clearly explains why the NSA did not need warrants. Furthermore, the President’s critics seem to have forgotten a Clinton era program that eavesdropped on all communication in the entire world. Key words like “bomb” would trigger a further investigation. But most important, shouldn’t the leak be investigated? If Valerie Plame deserved an investigation, a leak of this magnitude certainly deserves one. br> — David Moshinsky /p> p> Jed Babbin’s citation of portions of Sec. 4 of USSID 18 is confusing, and it’s not obvious that his excerpts support his thesis. Thus, while the Attorney General can approve interception of “communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States…international communications,” this does not appear to address the interception of communications to or from U.S. persons inside the United States. So while the directive provides “a lot of swinging room,” that room is limited to extra-territorial intercepts. I’d dearly love to argue this issue with my liberal friends, but I’m afraid Babbin’s piece doesn’t provide me with any usable ammo. They won’t accept, “Because Jed Babbin says so,” and I won’t either. And by the way, what’s the authority for a regulation that permits an end-run around FISA because complying with the statute would be ineffective in catching terrorists? br> — Michael Hertzberg br> New York, New York /p> p> Jed Babbin replies: