Monday, March 06, 2006

One day left for the White House to squash an investigation

(updated below - updated again)

(1) Today is the first day for the supplemental guest posting necessitated by the circumstances I described over the weekend here.

I'm genuinely excited about the fact that a regular contributor over the next few weeks here will be the truly superb blogger Anonymous Liberal. A.L. (he loves it when you call him that) is a lawyer and is otherwise . . . anonymous. He has been writing some truly insightful posts on the NSA scandal since its inception, and has made some important analytical and evidentiary discoveries which reveal glaring contradictions in the excuses given by the Administration for its law-breaking. His first post is below.

There will also be some posts contributed by regular commenters here, beginning with Hypatia, who has a great post this morning on the way in which "conservatives," now that they control the federal government, are abandoning their previous, purported belief in federalism in order to impose federal control in every area, including those previously reserved exclusively for the states. She specifically analyzes what this intellectually dishonest reversal could mean for abortion if Roe is overturned.


(2) It appears almost certain that the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to vote tomorrow in favor of Sen. Rockefeller's motion to hold investigative hearings into the operational questions surrounding the NSA program. Sen. Snowe's office has been confirming that she intends to vote for the motion, which would guarantee that it passes at least 8-7.

That development is certainly what is causing Sen. Frist (undoubtedly directed by the White House) to resort to such
extreme and frenzied threats in order to stave off what looks to be an inevitable investigation. They seem to be out of moves. After he single-handedly blocked an up-or-down vote on Sen. Rockefeller's motion on February 16, Sen. Roberts expressly promised to allow a vote to take place on March 7. Sen. Snowe previously proclaimed publicly that the Committee must investigate and has not backed off (despite what must be an avalanche of both promises and threats from the White House, which likely offered to send half the federal Treasury to Maine if she changed her mind).

Nonetheless, this is no time for complacency. Those who spent the last five years counting on the allegedly independent Republicans like Snowe (or Hagel) to take a meaningful stand against the Administration's excesses have nothing but a unanimous string of disappointments to show for it. Thersites at Vichy Democrats has all of the
information needed to take meaningful action today to ensure that this vote proceeds tomorrow.

For those with connections to Nebraska, here is an
excellent Nebraska blogger, Kyle Michaelis, who is working as part of our Roots campaign to coordinate action directed at Sen. Hagel. Kyle has some interesting Nebraska analysis and, if nothing else, please visit Kyle's blog and, in Comments, leave whatever suggestions or encouragement you think is helpful. Triggering local activities in the states of key Senators really can make a huge difference in how the NSA scandal plays out.

(3) The Heretik has a great discussion of the utter incoherence of Bush's confused and seemingly random actions with regard to India and Pakistan over the last couple weeks. The stakes are very high in that region and, as Heretik observes, our "foreign policy" literally seems to be made up as Bush goes along.

UPDATE: Thersites reports both in Comments here and on his blog that Snowe's office is refusing to say whether she will vote for Rockefeller's motion. My basis for reporting that her office was confirming her support for the motion is set forth here. At this point, who knows? As I said in comments, the only thing that would be surprising is if this turned out to be easy. If nothing else, this highlights the need to intensify the calls and the e-mails today.


It's a little difficult to imagine Snowe actually voting against the motion given her prior statement urging the Intelligence Committee to hold hearings (a statement also signed by Sen. Hagel), but given the pitiful history of the "independent" Republicans falling meekly and obediently into line behind every White House decree over the last five years, nothing is a foregone conclusion with them.

Speaking of which, the New York Times editorial page -- which, credit where it's due, has been highlighting as aggressively as anyone the corruption and danger which lies at the heart of this NSA scandal -- published an excellent editorial today (h/t Ommzms) excoriating Senate Republicans for their self-imposed humiliation and abdication of all oversight responsibilities, and urging a full-scale investigation and imposition of accountability for the Administration's law-breaking.

UPDATE II: Apparently, things are completely up in the air regarding what the Intelligence Committee will do (or won't do) tomorrow when they vote in closed session. According to this report from ABC News, the vote "could go either way." ABC also reports that "Republican leaders in the Senate have been working to convince moderates on the committee that a vote for an investigation is unnecessary."

The tenacious Thersites from Vichy Dems -- who has been relentlessly contacting Sen. Rockefeller and other Committee members almost to the point of stalking -- provides a full update worth reading, including this e-mail he received this afternoon from Rockefeller's office:


Wish I had some insight for you, but it’s really unclear what’s going to happen. My best guess is Republicans will come up with some alternative proposal for a review and that they’ll try and get Hagel and Snowe to vote for that version. It’s really up in the air at the moment.


One truly hilarious sentence (in a demented and perverse sort of way) from the ABC report was this: "Majority Leader Bill Frist and committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas have recently been trying to play peacemakers." Is that what they call people these days who try to block investigations into allegations of law-breaking by the President of the United States? "Peacemakers"?

And is an example of Sen. Frist's solemn efforts to bring peace to this nasty conflict the threats he made on Friday to transform the Senate Intelligence Committee into yet another partisan rubber-stamping tool for the White House unless it called off its investigation -- a threat which, just by the way, still has not (to my knowledge) been reported by a single establishment media outlet. The ABC News report certainly didn't mention it when reporting on Sen. Frist's peace missions.

Regardless of what one's views are on the NSA scandal, surely one can agree that it constitutes at least noteworthy news -- something that merits just a small mention -- when the Senate Majority Leader threatens to radically restructure the 30-year-old operating framework of the Intelligence Committee unless that Committee agrees not to investigate a controversial program of eavesdropping on American citizens secretly ordered by the President of the United States in violation of the law.

The blogosphere seemed to instantaneously recognize without any difficulty just how newsworthy that development was. Really, the significance of it is self-evident. And yet the media just breezes right past it, even calling Sen. Frist's role in this conflict that of a "peacemaker." Our national media really is so dysfunctional, slothful, inept and sometimes just outright stupid, that it is actually hard to believe, no matter how many examples one sees of it.

65 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:44 AM

    I'll believe it when I see it. I want to see Olympia Snowe stand up and give a big defiant FU to the Administration and really take a stand for Congressional oversight. But as you point out, I've hoped for that many times with her, Collins, Chafee, McCain, Hagel, Voinovich, etc. and it NEVER happens. They always back down in the end. I'm nowhere near as optimistic as you. I think they'll find a way to avoid these hearings or at least delay a vote, but we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m a little confused as to just where Frist’s threats to “re-structure” the committee are at this moment.

    Does Snow’s (and others?) insistence on going forward with the investigation mean that Frist, at this point, doesn’t have even the Republican support necessary to “re-structure” the committee?

    Is this why virtually no one in the media has picked up on Frist’s threats – because they aren’t going anyplace, or is that still a possibility?

    Have I missed something?

    Obviously, there’s going to be some heavy-handed Rovian backroom tactics in the next couple days, what should we be looking for in terms of where this is going?

    When do we find out if the Republicans are going to stand up to Frist’s threats?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I spoke to whatever staffer answered the phone at Snowe's office last Friday, and he said that "she has made no public statement" on this question. And this was only after being pushed off of the position that the committee's actions were all classified.

    I wouldn't bank on this vote. If you can get in touch with Snowe as a constituent (I live in New York, but I'm from Maine, my family still lives there and I have a 207 voip line), you should do so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zack

    What you're missing is that Frist alone controls committee composition. He can, if he wants, replace "partisan" republicans who vote against the administration's wishes with "non-partisan" authoritarian cultists

    ReplyDelete
  5. He can, if he wants, replace "partisan" republicans who vote against the administration's wishes with "non-partisan" authoritarian cultists

    Ah, thank-you.

    At that point, Frist’s move will become a big story. The media, for all its faults expressed here many times, does like in-fighting, and if there’s a Republican food-fight, the radical nature of Frist’s move will get a lot of attention.

    Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean, it seems, that it will not go forward.

    Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:05 AM

    Good posts by the guest bloggers.

    I, too will be surprised if the SIC votes tomorrow in favor of Sen. Rockefeller's motion to hold investigative hearings But let's suppose hearings are agreed to. There's little to stop any hearings from becoming a carefully controlled "show" not unlike the 9/11 hearings?

    Monday morning pessimism, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:21 AM

    Do you think that a writing campaign asking Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann to cover Frist on this would serve any purpose? I have already written.......

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous11:47 AM

    Reference your item three (3): Please note the absolute insanity of Bush's India proposal as junxtaposed to BushCo and Bolton's stance favoring sanctions against Iran for doing the same thing; i.e. developing a nuclear program outside the governing treaty dealing with nuclear development. This hypocricy is all over the international news today beginning with BBC World.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Living in Omaha, NE, I can say that people around here don't like Chuck Hagel too much. The letters to the editor in the Omaha World-Hearld frequently accuse Hagel of being a RINO because he dares go against the president. On the other hand, they kind of like Ben Nelson who is a real conservative. He's pro-life and voted for Alito. I think Hagel can do whatever he wants because he'll get re-elected by a huge margin here. Hagel will do what's good for Hagel, and his presidental aspitations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:44 PM

    Dammit, Glenn, I miss your voluminous wordsmithing already. On the other hand, I may get some billable hours in today.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous12:56 PM

    So, any hope that there will be meaningful hearings on this mess nearly hinge on the Presidential aspirations of a character like Senator Hagel?

    Ironic.

    Here's a question examining the story from a slightly different angle:

    Suppose Senator Roberts actually allows the vote (an 'I'll believe it when I see it' proposition), which ends in a decision to go ahead and hold hearings. The question then becomes how genuinely effective and substantive will those hearings be?

    Can someone here address the personalities and likely politics involved on this panel, vis a vis the program under discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous1:27 PM

    I'm genuinely excited about the fact that a regular contributor over the next few weeks here will be the truly superb blogger Anonymous Liberal.

    Yippee!

    His is my second favorite blog.
    AL is among the few best thinkers and writers about the present situation.

    This is great news. Welcome AL!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Glenn: (3) The Heretik has a great discussion of the utter incoherence of Bush's confused and seemingly random actions with regard to India and Pakistan over the last couple weeks. The stakes are very high in that region and, as Heretik observes, our "foreign policy" literally seems to be made up as Bush goes along.

    I think that's a tad unfair. The maladministration doesn't do "seat of the pants", ad hoc policy (foreign or otherwise). They are far more principled. Their approach is, "if it fails spectacularly at first, try it again, and louder this time, because reality doesn't seem to be listening carefully enough."

    That does allow, albeit, for the many too-common lapses in judgement and knowledge concerning things not Texan. Because the policies aren't grounded in fact, logic, or the situation on the ground (or even on the planet), they can at times seem ad hoc, particularly because the actualization of the specifics of an incoherent and absurd high-level "policy" obviously leads to logical inconsistencies and contradictions when reduced to "practise".

    Just to be specific, so that the Dubya supporters don't think I'm carping without any real complaints, it's kind of hard to say we're for non-proliferation and then hand Idia the store, and then deny (and even threaten with military action) the very same situation WRT Iran. It makes "non-proliferation" a matter of "our friends can have 'em, but you can't because you're bad, nya-nya-nya." Missing here is the fact that the folks you want most to sign on to non-proliferation are not your friends, but your enemies ... and such an approach is not likely to impress anyone about anything other than that the overarching U.S. policy is actually summed up in the Phil Ochs song: "We're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world...."

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous1:41 PM

    The article then proceeds to list a number of Congresspeople -- including Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Feingold, and Rep. Narrold -- who, it claims, have criticized the warrantless domestic spying but have not demanded that the program cease.

    I will be watching Sen. Feingold's words, but mostly action, in the days ahead to determine whether I think he can "walk the walk" as well as he can "talk the talk."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous1:53 PM

    via: Do you think that a writing campaign asking Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann to cover Frist on this would serve any purpose? I have already written.......

    Yes. I have been sending Lou Dobbs emails about this since Glenn first broke the "real" story, and forwarded Glenn's post to him.

    Lou is going to need another issue during the 75 days ahead (I heard it was 45 + 30) waiting for the Port deal issue to be resolved, to keep whipping up the enthusiasm of his newly enthusiastic audidence.

    This raw attempt at unprincipled, partisan thugery by cat-killer Frist has that same "stink" to it as the Port deal, although the stench is more subtle to the average viewer.

    I urge everyone to write Lou and loudobbs@cnn.com and ask him to get on this story. Even if cat-killer Frist does not succeed, the fact that he would even threaten to do something like this exposes the type of dirty pool that has become characteristic of this Administration.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:59 PM

    Is this the "divide and conquer" strategy for your "meta-troll" infestation of the past week or so?

    ;)


    Haven't seen the "copy and paste" and the repititious talking point crowd yet...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous3:11 PM

    eyes wide shut, I just have to ask: who in this Senate, has been walking the walk more than Feingold? Standing up 99-1 and being proved right in the end is walking the walk. Filibustering bad deals is walking the walk. Openly calling the AG a liar and perjurer is walking the walk (as this call has actual consequences should an investigation bear it out.)

    I'm not necessarily one of the people who thinks he should run for President, but damn if he's not a fine, walk-walking Senator.

    Back to our regularly scheduled program: call your Senators today. If they just hear that there are people who know about and care about the vote, it's worth something--even if your Senator is (R). Don't let them think all this slipped off the radar. It'll keep them nervous and unsure, and that's when the opponent will make mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous3:48 PM

    UPDATE: SNOWE'S OFFICE SAYS SHE HAS NOT ISSUED A POSITION STATEMENT YET. Details here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous3:51 PM

    Just noticed that Jay said that already. Anyway, it's unchanged, and it's not good.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous4:06 PM

    The NYT deserves credit for its editorial today, entitled Kabuki Congress,which condemns the contortions this compliant (and complicit) Congress goes through trying to sell illusion as reality:

    Let's call this what it is: a shell game. The question is whether the Bush administration broke the law by allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans and others in the United States without obtaining the required warrant. The White House wants Americans to believe that the spying is restricted only to conversations between agents of Al Qaeda and people in the United States. But even if that were true, which it evidently is not, the administration has not offered the slightest evidence that it could not have efficiently monitored those Qaeda-related phone calls and e-mail messages while following the existing rules.

    In other words, there is not a shred of proof that the illegal program produced information that could not have been obtained legally, had the administration wanted to bother to stay within the law.

    The administration has assured the nation it had plenty of good reason, but there's no way for Congress to know, since it has been denied information on the details of the wiretap program. And Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, seems bent on making sure it stays that way. He has refused to permit a vote on whether to investigate the spying scandal.


    A.L.'s excellent delineation on press compartmentalization (a word I would have never thought to use),and thus obfuscation of story/issue relativity, illustrates the difficulty of keeping these vital and concomitant issues regarding our civil liberties and our Constitution salient. If we could get these kinds of editorials discussed on the cable and network news programs, it would go a long way toward exposing the out-of-blance of powers plaguing our republic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My reporting that Snowe's office was indicating she'd vote for the motion was based on these comments sent to me via e-mail by Georgia at Kos, along with these comments about the individuals reporting it (in response to my asking her if she knew the commenters and if they were reliable):

    Comment 1

    "super-reliable"

    "solid kossack"

    They do all seem to report that Snowe's office said she'd vote "yes" on the motion. Who knows? The only thing that would be surprising is if this were easy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I added an update to the post summarizing the mixed signals re: Snowe (and adding the great NYT editorial linked to by Ommzms).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous4:33 PM

    Below is what I could find in short order on Snowe's public statements. She might wiggle out with "I didn't specifically mention Rockefeller's proposal" but esp. the first one would seem to make that argument silly.


    Snowe's original 12/21 press release calling for an investigation



    Her 2/21 press release (right after the tabling motion) saying we need the facts

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous4:42 PM

    Ping ommzms: gave you props. Thanks for the NYT editorial!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Glenn said:

    My reporting that Snowe's office was indicating she'd vote for the motion was based on these comments sent to me via e-mail by Georgia at Kos, along with these comments about the individuals reporting it (in response to my asking her if she knew the commenters and if they were reliable

    I notice that the Kos post was made at 7:43 PST (I assume). I called later in the day. I don't doubt the Kossack's report.

    As I said, the staffer was much more defensive than Snowe folks have been in the past. Even when she had not yet announced a position, the staffer would say so firmly and unequivocally. I had to press to get an answer.

    I'd say there is a lot of arm-twisting going on.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous5:23 PM

    "once the jihad incursions resume"

    I am keeping score.

    So far, the "jihad" hasn't stripped me of any of my civil liberties, whereas my own government is close to obliterating them.

    I'll keep you posted if things change.

    Until then, go scare someone else with your phony boogeyman.

    ReplyDelete
  27. David Shaughnessy said:

    I wouldn't sigh too deeply over this one if I were you. I see no reasonable prospect that Frist will rig the Intel Comm.

    I happen to agree with you. It's too naked a power grab, and Frist does not seem to have control of his caucus.

    But why would he make such an obvious bluff? Was this aimed at the wobbly ones--an indication that there would be substantial price to pay, even to losing committee membership for going against the Bushies?

    ReplyDelete
  28. But why would he make such an obvious bluff? Was this aimed at the wobbly ones--an indication that there would be substantial price to pay, even to losing committee membership for going against the Bushies?


    I’ve been thinking about that very question. That may be a bluff, but they can pull other strings, and make them pay in other ways – look at what happened to Rep. King’s trip to Iraq when he dared challenge Bush on “portgate.” It’s off. They have lots of little ways of threatening members of Congress.

    Frist’s threat may have been just a signal from the administration that the gloves are coming off for anyone who dares to vote against them. There’s lot of things the administration can do to make life difficult for Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous6:36 PM

    Sen. Snowe, 1 202-224 5344

    You know what to do so DO IT NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous6:45 PM

    Anonymous said...
    eyes wide shut, I just have to ask: who in this Senate, has been walking the walk more than Feingold?


    In my view, nobody. Not one single person. Not even close.

    I am just saying that I hope he stays that way, gets more vocal, screams out loudly in protest if this Rockefeller motion is squashed, and loudly leads the protest.

    But so far, I could not agree with you more. He's the best, the ONLY Senator who has consistently been aware of the potential dangers of all these intrusive government programs.

    Meanwhile, they've sent Wolf Blitzer over to Dubai to report from there. Why am I not surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous6:46 PM

    Right Glenn. Credit where due. You rock, NY TIMES. Seems there's a little life left yet in the old gray lady.

    ReplyDelete
  32. a few horse heads later and voila!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous7:40 PM

    From the update:

    "It's a little difficult to imagine Snowe actually voting against the motion given her prior statement urging the Intelligence Committee to hold hearings (a statement also signed by Sen. Hagel), but given the pitiful history of the "independent" Republicans falling meekly and obediently into line behind every White House decree over the last five years, nothing is a foregone conclusion with them."

    The good news is, Republicans trying to get elected are running from this administration as one would a fart in a bar. From yesterday's Union-Tribune, where we're having a special election to replace Randy "It'll cost ya" Cunningham: Running the other way for Congress

    If this is a sign of things to come, Hagel, Snowe and other "independent" Republicans will have no problem defying the WH for the forseeable future.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous8:28 PM

    The NY Times 'Kabuki' piece today was welcome and well written. Even the Times, however, has failed to pick on the Frist Letter last week, scary as it was, and has been spending more ink on NY real estate matters than on the FISA issue, of late. Then again, perhaps we should not expect even the Times to be as focused as this blog is...
    My bet on Snow: no show. Reps are falling in line quickly...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous8:33 PM

    Am I the only one a tad confused by the comment by js_vp?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous8:41 PM

    one would a fart in a bar.

    Bad analogy -- who runs?

    When one farts in a crowd, isn't it more likely that they look at everyone else like, WHY DID YOU DO THAT!"

    Actually, that's more like what we ar seeing...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous8:44 PM

    anyone else confused by js_vp?


    Obviously another "copy and paste" troll -- thanks everyone for ignoring. Evidently the smart people are all in this thread.

    The stupid people are bloggin' downstairs...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous9:06 PM

    Pax Fristiana.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous9:08 PM

    "Thersites reports both in Comments here and on his blog that Snowe's office is refusing to say whether she will vote for Rockefeller's motion."

    I called Senator Snowe's DC phone line this morning. The person answering the phone indicated that it was her understanding that Senator Snowe was likely to vote in favor of investigations. Not that this proves anything, but at least its a bit of positive thought. KEEP CALLING! Just after 8am EST time this morning I was able to speak to live representatives in the offices of Rockefeller, Reid, Hagel, and Snowe. So it is possible to make some human contact - the more of us the better.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous9:15 PM

    WOW! WOW! WOW! I will cross post this on all of today's threads.

    Did you all catch Lou Dobbs just now? It was unbelivable. He's madder than we are!

    He said "This government is telling the American people: go to hell."

    He hit all the points, way beyond the Port deal. The incompetance, the corruption, the multinational corportist control of government, the huge deficit, the Indian nuclear deal fiasco, the war, the transparency of trying to change the topic with this line item veto proposal which has already been ruled unconstitutional by the SC, everything. His guests were all with him. There was talk of a Third Party.

    There was talk of a revolt in the heartland.

    It was great. Catch the rerun. It'll really cheer you up.

    Looks like Pandora's box has not only be found and looked into, but it's in the process of being nuked open.

    Spead the word to watch Lou every day. He's doing on TV what Glenn, thersites, AL, hypatia, others and the rest of us are doing on the Internet, trying to, as he put it, save democracy in this country.

    And we points out both parties are totally corrupt, but he keeps suggesting that a first step is to end Republican control of both the Presidency and both houses.

    Also, does it make you mad that we have to now "beg" another government to revise a deal which is seen by 75% (the new polls) of Americans as being a threat to our national security?

    And Bush is supposed to be "macho"?

    Define macho.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous9:43 PM

    Hey, someone in the MSM finally caught the Frist story!

    VichyDems

    ReplyDelete
  42. A talking point for Dobbs:
    "If Dubai gets our ports this administration will be guilty of harbouring terrorists."

    A little extreme perhaps, but I love the double entendre.

    ReplyDelete
  43. One thing I'm confused about with the NSA program. The administration is reluctant to have any legislation written, even to bleach the stain of illegality. Can't future administrations prosecute this apparent illegal activity? It seems as though their willing to leave their flank exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous10:41 PM

    OT, so sorry for that.

    Gedaliya has the following email address in his/her Blogger profile page: gedaliya@narrowcorner.com.

    So, I went to narrowcorner.com, and found the following post at the top of the blog:
    http://narrowcorner.typepad.com/the_narrow_corner/2006/03/gedaliya.html

    So, one way or another, that pretty much proves that Gedaliya is a troll. Feel nothing bad about keeping him/her away from here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Can't future administrations prosecute this apparent illegal activity?

    They're essentially betting the house on staying in power (all three branches) indefinitely. Hence the mid-census TX redistricting. Hence the stripping of power from the Congress and the bureaucracy. Hence the appointment of unitary executive justices. Hence the amping up of the war on terror--shutting down the constitution because of, I dunno, tens of thousands of stateless, impoverished people in caves.

    As Glenn says, we didn't shut down the constitution when threatened by thousands of nuclear warheads. They want to shut down the constiution in response to a bunch of ill-equipped, stateless individuals. It's not about the threat, believe me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous11:34 PM

    There should be no doubt where Chairman Pat Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist stand on the issue. Roberts, who continues to stonewall the promised "Phase II" Intel Committee investigation into the misuses of pre-Iraq war intelligence, authored a letter on February 3rd staunchly supporting the dubious White House legal justification for the program. And just this past Friday, Frist fired a shot across the Democrats' bow, threatening to curb the committee's charter should it proceed with an inquiry into Bush's domestic spying. Far from playing the role of "peacemakers" as described by Byron Wolf of ABC News, Frist and Roberts are trying to stop any oversight of the Bush White House dead in its tracks.

    For the full story, see:
    "Senate Showdown Tuesday on Domestic Spying."

    ReplyDelete
  47. Glenn: Speaking of which, the New York Times editorial page... published an excellent editorial today (h/t Ommzms) excoriating Senate Republicans...David Shaughnessy said...
    Glenn:

    David: I thought I'd point out this article in USA Today on the NSA spying matter. This is the gist of the article: Despite widespread criticism of President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, even vociferous detractors in Congress stop short of calling for an end to the anti-terrorist eavesdropping.


    After comparing the hysteria of the NYT editorial with the nonchalant tone of the USA Today, you can tell the NYT is really sweating its criminal liability for blowing the cover of the NSA program to al Qaeda.

    If the NYT can't get the Congress to declare this the next coming of Watergate, the NYT whistle blower defense is basically gone.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous11:55 PM

    Hmmm ... wasn't the Colt .45 known during the 1800s as the 'Peacemaker'? Maybe that was the sense in which ABC News meant Senators Frist and Robert were 'peacemakers.' They intend to put an end to the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous2:00 AM

    Jay Ackroyd said...

    David Shaughnessy said:

    I wouldn't sigh too deeply over this one if I were you. I see no reasonable prospect that Frist will rig the Intel Comm.

    I happen to agree with you. It's too naked a power grab, and Frist does not seem to have control of his caucus.

    But why would he make such an obvious bluff? Was this aimed at the wobbly ones--an indication that there would be substantial price to pay, even to losing committee membership for going against the Bushies?


    I give rigging the Intel Comm a 50/50 chance at this point. As I stated on another thread here, Frist has quite a few more options for taking action because he is not running for re-election and because of the short attention span of the electorate it is unlikely to hurt his 2008 bid for the Presidency

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous2:03 AM

    OT: I post the below to point out what we are up against. The corruption and the sell-outs for money runs so deep that it must touch the bottom of the ocean.

    What Kemp didn't say is that the UAE has invested millions in Free Market Global, an energy-trading company that he chairs.

    You think all those zeroes might have had some influence on his opinion? Maybe not. But I'm pretty sure that a disclosure of his financial connection to those he was so fulsomely praising would have had some influence on the opinions of those watching.

    Especially if viewers learned that Gen. Tommy Franks, whom Kemp used as his debating trump card -- quoting both in print and on Meet the Press the General extolling the Emirates -- is on the advisory board of Free Market Global, and stands to profit from maintaining good relations with the oil-rich emirs.


    Also: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's president failed in a bid Monday to order parliament into session by March 12, further delaying formation of a government and raising questions whether the political process can withstand the unrelenting violence or disintegrate into civil war.

    The deadlock came as snipers assassinated Maj. Gen. Mibder Hatim al-Dulaimi, the Sunni Arab in charge of Iraqi forces protecting the capital.


    Things are really looking grim on every level.....

    I saw something reading Digby today that I had never thought of before, and which I thought was an incredibly powerful point. Maybe some of the men in this country who seem hell bent on making abortion illegal are failing to forget that back in the days when abortion was legal, there was no DNA testing. An awful lot of these guys are going to be spending their lives supporting unwanted babies if abortion becomes illegal...

    I'm braced for Snowe caving. After watching Republican Majority leader John Boehner on Chris Matthews (who seems to have been slapped into line again by the powers that be) looking right into the camera and saying that Bush always speaks the truth to the American people, it's hard not to feel sort of, well, H-Y-S-T-E-R-I-C-A-L.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous2:06 AM

    are failing to forget that back in the days when abortion was legal, there was no DNA testing

    Sorry, I meant back when abortion was illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous3:07 AM

    About us retaining our trust in, and respect for, the Constitution: an older post of mine: The Constutition Abides.

    ReplyDelete
  53. gris lobo said...

    "... the short attention span of the electorate it is unlikely to hurt
    [frist's] 2008 bid for the Presidency"

    i would offer the fact that bush's poll numbers are in the mid-30s with no sign of recovery, the fact that the congressional republicans poll numbers are a half-step behind and the fact that democrats have already begun winning special election seats as proof that the electorate has indeed been paying attention.

    i find it hard to believe that frist has any realistic bid for the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous4:47 AM

    Time for a Special Prosecutor
    Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law
    By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN


    Article of March 5th on Couterpunch.com

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous5:51 AM

    aarrgghh said...

    i would offer the fact that bush's poll numbers are in the mid-30s with no sign of recovery, the fact that the congressional republicans poll numbers are a half-step behind and the fact that democrats have already begun winning special election seats as proof that the electorate has indeed been paying attention.

    i find it hard to believe that frist has any realistic bid for the presidency.

    Frist may not have a bid for the Presidency but what is important at this particular time is whether or not HE believes he will have a bid for the Presidency.

    As for the electorate, yes they are paying attention now. But, how many will remember what was said and done by whom 2 1/2 years from now. Especially by someone that has been out of office for a large portion of that time.

    ReplyDelete
  56. as far as frist's aspirations for 2008 and the electorate's memory are concerned, the public need remember only one thing:

    "schiavo"

    if anything, we won't let them forget that, now will we?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous8:18 AM

    aarrgghh said...

    as far as frist's aspirations for 2008 and the electorate's memory are concerned, the public need remember only one thing:

    "schiavo"

    if anything, we won't let them forget that, now will we?

    You and I won't, but will anybody with a public voice on the national stage be doing any reminding?

    So far the Democrats with few exceptions (Russ Feingold and John Conyers) have been extremely timid about taking on the Republicans, even on issues that are clear winners for them.

    Personally I think they should be in the Republican's faces about a whole host of issues, but I have been repeatedly disappointed lately. Hope things change soon or things may not change enough to make a difference, which will be disasterous IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous8:22 AM

    Hey guys - we are in danger of contradicting ourselves: On the one hand we tell js_vp to go and scare someone else with his Jihad warning (see Eyes Wide Open's response to js_vp's statement "once the jihad incursions resume"- "...go scare someone else with your phony boogeyman."), and on the other hand we are correctly up in arms about the Dubai Ports deal for fear of precisely the threat that Jihadists may use DP World's close proximity to militant Islam and bring the big one on to our soil. So, are we saying that Jihadists are a threat to our lives, but not to our civil liberties?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous8:32 AM

    Jay Ackroyd

    "As Glenn says, we didn't shut down the constitution when threatened by thousands of nuclear warheads. They want to shut down the constiution in response to a bunch of ill-equipped, stateless individuals. It's not about the threat, believe me."

    Again, DP World's acquisition of P&O Ports is either the opening of a backdoor for Jihadists onto our soil and as such a real threat or we have nothing to worry about from a bunch of "ill-equipped, stateless individuals". I hate to concede this in my view blatant contradiction to the enemy within.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Frist...won't hurt his 2008 bid for the Presidency

    That bid ended during the Schiavo business. A Bush toady is not getting the nomination. It wil be a governor with the concommittant distance from Washington and the President. I don't think even McCain can distance himself enough to get the nomination. And the people who run things would prefer someone a little weaker--hence talking up George Allen.

    ReplyDelete
  61. So, are we saying that Jihadists are a threat to our lives, but not to our civil liberties?

    First off, please stop feeding the troll.

    Second, no, the principled position on the Dubai ports business is that the law calls for an investigation and a report that describes any national security risk that would result from a company controlled by a foreign government acquiring a US asset. That investigation, contrary to the law, was never done. The investigation needs to be conducted, and the risk evaluated.

    In the meantime, the sensible thing for democrats to do is to use this issue to generate support for doing what Kerry and other Democrats have called for--implement a screening and inspection system that is at least as thorough and sophisticated as Singapore's. We have the technology to implement electronic screening. Implementing it would cost less than a couple of fighter jets, and could be passed off to the shipping companies as a fee.

    Leave the racist fearmongering to the wingnut radio voices and the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Bart:

    After comparing the hysteria of the NYT editorial with the nonchalant tone of the USA Today, you can tell the NYT is really sweating its criminal liability for blowing the cover of the NSA program to al Qaeda.

    Why? Why would they? After all, Libby, Cheney and Rove are all walking around free.....

    Now get back under your bridge there, OT....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  63. js_vp:

    When you've investigated and litigated away our country's ability to react, I hope the new regime imposed on us by medieval tribal foreigners' religious dicta
    holds your treason in high regard,
    for I will not.


    OIC. "js_vp" is another WATB who thinks that the mullahs are hiding under every 'Merkun's box-spring, and that there's less chance of Hell freezing over than of the mongre... -- um, sorry, "Mongol" -- hordes sweeping the fruity plains of the good ol' Yoo Ess of Aye. Let's take up a collection and see if we can buy him a replacement Betamax copy of "Red Dawn" on E-Bay and maybe he'll go away...

    Oh, say, BTW, "js_vp": Do you think that napalm is better suited for Phelps, Moore, Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson and the other mullahs here, or should we use Hellfire missiles from 11Km?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  64. AL:

    Even for those people who have not been following this scandal closely, the one thing they know, and that they remember, is that the President repeatedly assured them that the warrantless surveillance on Americans was for international calls only, involving Al Qaeda ("If somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why").

    Ummm, the Prenzit assured them that all surveillance was being done with warrants in hand. And he said that WoMD were found in Iraq, and he said that Saddam "wouldn't let [the inspectors] in", and he said no one could have forseen that the levees would break.....

    At what point will people just start to say, "You're full'o'shite, Mr. Preznit," and say loudly "Weee doooonnn't beelliieeeevvvee yyyoooouuuu ... and we're going to start hauling in people right and left -- not you or your minions -- until we get someone who will tell us the truth...."?

    At some point someone has to start holding the Preznit responsible for his lies, and act accordingly. Simply asking him to repeat the same old lies ain't gonna do it.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  65. anonymous:

    So, are we saying that Jihadists are a threat to our lives, but not to our civil liberties?

    Umm, actually, that would be reasonably accurate.

    While it is possible for there to be more large-scale terrorist attacks, we as a nation can endure such hardships and trauma and still not have any chance of actually falling to some terrorist regime. Keep in mind that terrorists do the things they do in part because conventional attacks (such as what we did to Iraq) are doomed to defeat.

    OTOH, the only people that can destroy our civil liberties are ourselves. As Pogo sez, "We have met the enemy and they is us...."

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete