That’s what the objections come down to. When Mohammed Atta was in the U.S. he was virtually invisible to US intelligence (is that an oxymoron?). Gorelick’s wall, FBI incompetence and a Clintonista mindset saw to that. We don’t know if he could have flown to Prague although it seems to be increasingly obvious that he made a second trip. When the FBI had Moussaiou’s laptop in hand nobody could look at in time enough to uncover the 9/11 plot.

The Democrats seem to have discovered that the American people actually think it is a good idea to intercept enemy communications. Their new line is that that is fine in principle but Congress needs to amend FISA to allow such action. Powerline points out how bogus that argument is:

The Times, however, misrepresents the FISA appellate court’s statement and simply omits the court’s recognition that “FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional authority.” In other words, if FISA infringed on the president’s constitutional authority to order warrantless surveillance, FISA would be unconstitutional.

Bonus points for nailing the Times yet again.