We as lawyers and politicians have infinite debate without appreciating the situation. Some of these constitutional niceties scholars debate maybe don't apply to a time when airliners are crashing into 110-story buildings.

Under the war powers (of the Constitution), it is defensible and he has the responsibility to do what is necessary to protect the country. Does this mean federal agents are going to start following me or you? No. This is very circumscribed.

I'm confident that our government is not doing all it should do. We thought about what we could have done or should have done. The potential for destruction is immense. Excess is something I'd rather have on national security than anywhere else.

It was a debate, but it's over now, and we're working together to maintain this key element of economic development. For the most part, everybody's looking at going forward now.

I'm worried about the politicians trying to use the money for things that make them look good and still leave the riders holding the bag.

It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people. All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff.