On "The Situation Room" today, we asked viewers the following questions, and here are some of our favorite responses that we didn't get to read on air:

Why would the Bush administration suddenly decide to let the FISA court monitor its domestic spy program?

The same reason you back off the accelerator instinctively when you're driving down the road and see a cop car. There's a new sheriff in town in the Democratic Congress, and Pres. Bush knows he just can't ignore the law and expect not to get called on it. This is proof absolute that he knows he was breaking the law in the past. Now he's trying to pretend he wasn't speeding.
Chuck, Macon, Missouri

The Bush administration can no longer count on the legislative branch to look the other way as the president violates the founding principles of this country. Bush said we would not let the terrorists change our way of life. He was right, the terrorists are not the ones changing it, he is.
Ken, Chicago, Illinois

Think impeachment, Jack. The Democrats control Congress now. Time for President Bush to rethink a few things.
Alan, Buxton, Maine

Why should lawmakers' spouses be able to lobby Congress at all?

No way should the spouses of members of Congress be allowed to lobby Congress. Can you imagine the pillow talk that would go on between a member of Congress and their spouse who might be lobbying Congress?
Ben

In my opinion, it's time to redefine lobbying. The currency of lobbying should be information, not campaign gifts, not sweetheart real estate deals, not meals or trips, not the promise of a high-paying job after Congressional service. It should be information, period.
Michael, Worcester, Massachusetts

They shouldn't be able to. It's just more evidence of a corrupt government at all levels. This also proves that we need an independent ethics group.
David, Shreveport, Louisiana

The new United Nations Secretary-General says Iraq is the "whole world's problem." Is it?

Perhaps on a moral level, it is. The state of affairs in any nation should be of concern to others. However, wasn't most of the world opposed to the war in the first place? And didn't we supply Saddam with money and weapons in the early 80s? Why should the whole world now do our custodial work?
Jorge, Bronx, New York

World reaction seems to suggest that Iraq is strictly a U.S. problem.
Jim, Rochelle, Illinois

Iraq is not the world's problem, although I am glad that the Secretary-General is viewing this as a group issue where other countries may now do their part to root out global terrorism. We must do this as a world force to succeed.
Chris, Lewisburg, West Virginia

If the war would have been a success, would "the world" have gotten the credit for it? I don't think so. The U.S. and its coalition of the willing should take full credit for it. The rest of the world knew what the end of this story was before it began.
Will, Toronto