Chip Reid just TOTALLY misrepresented the NSA-Spying issue

As if he were the White House Spokesman, Chip Reid just said (re: Hayden) that the White House would really like to have the debate about Hayden's involvement in the NSA illegal wiretapping issue.

Paraphrasing: "If this debate is about the government spying on people in this country who are communicating overseas with Al Qaeda operatives, even if the way it was done wasn't precisely correct, that's a debate the White House welcomes."

That is NOT the debate at all!!!! Nobody has a problem with spying on people who are communicating with Al Qaeda -- DUH. The problem is nobody knows WHO they are wiretapping or WHY because they haven't gotten warrants!! :grr:

(Edited to add: and the follow-up had nothing to do with that, but was immediately, "To change topic a bit, what's happening with Patrick Kennedy?")

become a 'journalist', anyway? He's dumb, dim, no personality, and did I mention dim?

you didn't mention dim and you should have mentioned dim.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.html
_________________

Hayden clearly doesn't have a firm grasp of the 4th Amendment, and insists he's responding to a "lawful order" backed up by the Attorney General. He will do anything he's told by this administration without even questioning it's lawfulness.