Gimme Gimme Gimme

The President is threatening to veto an extension of the FISA bill that gives him everything he wants. The one he pushed through in August. The one with little or no civil liberties protections and the one that gives the Attorney General jurisdiction over the legality of warrantless spying. That one's not good enough anymore.

The White House told Democratic congressional leaders Saturday that President Bush opposes a 30-day extension of an expiring eavesdropping law and instead wants an expanded version to be passed by Friday.

“The president would veto a 30-day extension,” a senior administration official said. “They’re just kicking the can down the road. They need the heat of the current law lapsing to get this done.”

Harry Reid is holding firm, at least rhetorically. From his office:

The House has already passed a FISA bill, and the Senate was ready to pass its own bill until Republicans blocked all amendments. At the same time, Democrats are ready to extend current law for as long as necessary, but Republicans are blocking that extension and the White House is threatening a veto.

It is shenanigans like this that make Americans so eager for change. We hope the American public will remember these Republican stunts when they go to the polling booth this November.

In any event, current law ensures that no ongoing collection activity will be cut off on February 1. There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap. But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress.

The President wants to rant and rave about this at the State of the Union. He doesn't want an actual bill. And it's good to see Reid's thinking on par with Chris Dodd's, at least on this matter.

Plus, it's good that Senators Clinton and Obama will be on hand tomorrow to vote against cloture on the Intelligence version of the bill without amendments.

However, that would signal the beginning of the fight, not the end. It would simply mean that majority votes would be needed for amendments. And I'm not sure that means immunity could be stripped. What it would too is frustrate the Bush Administration and the Republicans, which is absolutely essential. At some point you have to say the word "No."