"The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence."

Heer is a list of lessons you can glean from just the above first two paragraphs of today's AP/AOL story:

1. The revealing of this CLASSIFIED program was an act of TREASON.

2.  This action was taken to protect us right after 9/11 (when leftists were saying the president had not done enough to prevent 9/11).  This lawsuit, as well as the Democratic attempt to criminally prosecute CIA intelligence people for aggressive interrotagion afte 9/11, gives lie to the idea that we ever "came together" after 9/11.  BEFORE Iraq, the ACLU, Michael Moore, leftist types were NEVER "together" with the rest of us.

3.  This lawsuit NEVER had any merit (could not even get the liberal votes on the Supreme Court to HEAR the case).

4.  NO American citizen was ever harmed by the terrorist surveillance program (allthough the lives of many were saved).  You go through more serious "invasions of privacy" when you board a civilian airline plane.

5.  The despicable Associated Pess never quits with its agenda. Therefore, I never quit pointing it out (see my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative").  ",,,setback to civil rights and privacy advocates" indeed:  Now THAT Is a "neutral" way to begin a story--NOT.

6.  "..setback to civil rights and privacy advocates..."  Aside from making clear the agenda of the despicable Associated Press, the quoted phrase makes clear what is really going on hear.  This is a POLITICAL setback in a POLITICAL lawsuit, where the ACLU was attempting to use the courts to advance its POLITICAL agenda.  That is why the lawsuit was rejected.  In the real world, the courts are there to REDRESS HARM.   They are NOT there to give advisory, political opinions.  The people suing could show NO harm (because there was none).  It was all an attempt to use the courts POLITICALLY.  This is what leftists DO--they try to get the courts to impose their POLTICIAL opinions on the rest of us (whether there is any legitimate legal basis or not).