>>>>>>But Bush said he has only been eaves dropping on those known to be in communication with Al-Q.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So we apparently have the intelligence we need to determine they are a terrorist or working with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Unless Bush has backed away from that position? Is that the case?
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming you are paraphrasing, then persons known to be in communication with members of AQ may or may not be terrorists.
>>>>
>>>>I don't buy that.
>>>
>>>Why not? Could just be Uncle Ali in Detroit, and we won't know if he's a link in the chain unless he's checked.
>>
>>What would cause us to think to check him, if we didn't already know he was a link in the chain?
>
>Because Al-Q calls him, or takes calls from him. Yes, this is a simplistic example, but you see my point.


No I don't. If Al-Q calls him or he calls Al-Q, then he is a link.

And a case for the FISA court would be pretty simple to make.

You think the court would say "he talks to a terrorist network that is actively plotting against us, but, that's not really evidence that he's probably up to no good"?

I don't.


The most logical explanation for all this is Bush didn't feel the beaurocracy was worth it, so he didn't do it.

Whether he committed a crime or not, I have no clue, but it simply conveys poor judgement, considering you can get the warrant even after you started the spying.

Given the drama with missed intelligence clues leading to 9/11, ect., choosing to bypass the system and go at it with a secretive style isn't a good choice either.