While this opinion piece cites some features of FISA in support of its position, it would have been stronger with greater elaboration on the facts.

This is an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer, written as a review of the President's State of the Union Speech by the former counter-terrorism expert of the Bush Administration from its inception through 2003. It's especially valuable because it's based on an insider's experience though necessarily it is based on his point of view. He states that Bush was reckless and misleading by asserting that the U.S. would be in danger if Congress doesn't allow his administration to continue with warrantless wiretapping. Thiis use of fear to drive an executive's agenda isn't new - either for Bush or for other leaders who have strived to centralize power.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has chosen a good expert witness for a well spoken first hand evaluation. Bush's joy in using fear to motivate might be called his evil-elation?

A highly critical piece from Richard A. Clark, the author of "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," and former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council. This opinion piece mostly presents the author's perspective, and doesn't attempt to contrast it with other viewpoints. As a result, it weakens its overall argument.

It seems that the more mentally impaired or evil the politician, the less chance citizens, who do their best to 'do right', have of controlling or getting rid of them. I have come to depend on the theory: What goes around, comes around. I hope it 'comes around' for Cheney and Bush while I'm still on this Earth to enjoy their 'come-uppance'!

This opinion piece has no journalistic merit. Mr Clarke was held over from the Clinton administration as a gesture of bipartisanship by incoming President Bush, but his sole ability was self-promotion, and he was let go. He embarked on a personal vendetta against Mr Bush, making wild charges—such as in this piece—that have been thoroughly debuncked. Why a serious newspaper published this is not understandable, nor why anyone would rate this is valuable journalism.