It truly frustrates liberals when we take terrorism seriously. That’s why John Edwards considers the war on terrorism a “bumper sticker” and local blogger autoegocrat thinks of terrorists as cavemen or insects and prefers that we pay them no attention.

But if there’s one thing they consider even worse than that, it’s doing anything to actually thwart terrorism.

It’s no surprise, then, that the local liberal bloggers are completely losing it over what they consider Democratic treason (which is essentially the opposite of real treason) on FISA reform.

Just a few months ago, Democrats in Congress agreed to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a temporary basis, allowing the NSA to intercept terrorist communications routed through the United States.

The Protect America Act of 2007 passed with the support of 41 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate. The entire Tennessee delegation voted in favor of the bill, with the exception of Memphis Democrat Steve Cohen.

This reform became necessary after the FISA court ruled that our intelligence services could not monitor foreign communication if it has passed through U.S. networks, which is now common due to advances in technology:

Foreign-to-foreign communications now travel in diffuse packets of digital data through sophisticated networks, which route them not via the shortest route but via the least-congested terminals. Because American networks are the system’s best, a Peshawar-to-Kabul phone call or e-mail may pass through the United States.

Now some Democrats have sponsored a bill called the Restore Act of 2007, which offers some necessary concessions but is nevertheless opposed by the White House and GOP leaders in both chambers.

The liberal bloggers want no part of it. Peskyfly was the first to criticize the Democrats, exclaiming “fuck ‘em” if the party intended to cave in to the administration. Earlier this week, “Bob” of 55-40 chimed in to admit his embarrassment being associated with party leaders who are “soft on GOP terrorists,” and Jeff formulated a conspiracy theory, saying the move only makes sense if Democrats are trying to protect themselves:

Ever since they first got wind of the illegal NSA wiretapping, their main concern has always been what have they got on me? Thus - their silence. Thus - their compromises. Thus - their spinning of the wiretapping story as politically dangerous for Democrats…

We can be pretty sure that the Bush administration isn’t protecting it to keep Al Qaeda from learning the extent of our capabilities. They’re covering up crimes, which most likely means surveillance of political opponents and journalists. Democrats like Steny Hoyer are willing to trade immunity for those crimes in exchange for information that can’t be used to prosecute anyone. Therefore, their only interest in the information must be personal.

I’m glad some Democrats are at least willing to consider allowing us to listen in on terrorist communications. But I feel so bad for the liberal Memphis bloggers that I’d like to dedicate a song to them, embedded below the fold:

UPDATE: Added illustration from the Wired article NSA’s Lucky Break: How the U.S. Became Switchboard to the World.