The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday rejected Sen. Rockefeller's motion to hold hearings to investigate the President's warrantless eavesdropping program by an 8-7, strict party line vote. Yet again, every Senate Republican followed White House instructions not to investigate the President, and this time did so despite the statements of several of those GOP Senators just within the last 8 weeks that such an investigation was urgent and necessary.
In lieu of fulfilling their pledge to discover the scope of the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, Sens. Hagel and Snowe decided instead that they would support legislation which would create a 7-member Subcommittee (4 Republicans and 3 Democrats) to which the Administration is required to report all warrantless eavesdropping activities:
The proposed legislation would create a seven-member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee" and require the administration to give it full access to the details of the program's operations. . . .
The agreement would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to issue special warrants for spying but was sidestepped by the administration. The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the court whenever possible.
If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant. The attorney general would be required to give an update to the subcommittee every 45 days.
Sen. Rockefeller stated the obvious:
Emerging from a closed-door session in which Democrats lost two party-line votes, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), the vice chairman of the committee, said the outcome pushed the panel "further into irrelevancy" and reflected the influence of the Bush administration."The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Rockefeller. . .
The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings are still ongoing and, when he was last heard from a day or so ago, Sen. Specter was still squawking about being angry that Gonazles lied to the Committee and insisting that the Committee would at least find out whether there were other warrantless eavesdropping programs in place:
The NSA issue was brought up at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is drafting his own bill. Specter warned that he will try to reduce the administration's funding unless Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales agrees to answer more of his committee's questions.
"We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program," Specter said. "I want to put the administration on notice and this committee on notice that I may be looking for an amendment to limit funding as to the electronic surveillance program -- which is the power of the purse -- if we can't get an answer in any other way."
Sen. Specter is, of course, of the same rancid strain as Sens. Snowe and Hagel -- the group that struts around self-lovingly preening as some sort of "independent Republicans" only invariably to fall in line, meekly and without exception, with White House commands. In fact, of all of the well-behaved good little boys and girls which the White House has assembled in the Senate, Sen. Specter, his ritualistic maverick pretenses notwithstanding, is one of the most easily controlled. Placing one's hopes for Congressional oversight and integrity in Sen. Specter, of all people, is just an invitation to further disappointment.
With all of those facts assembled, here are a few preliminary observations:
(1) Initially, it is almost unfathomable how little personal dignity these compliant GOP Senators have. Sens. Snowe and Hagel issued a statement in December pompously expressing their "profound concern" over the eavesdropping program and proclaiming that it is "critical" that the Senate hold hearings in order to learn what the Administration did when spying outside of FISA and without warrants on Americans.
After standing up and publicly making those statement and issuing those demands, they completely reverse themselves a few weeks later when the White House decrees that they do so. They thus vote against the very investigation which they both insisted, in public, was so critically important. If nothing else, just on a personal level, shouldn't they be way too embarrassed to be so blatantly manipulated and controlled, to the point where they demand hearings only to then vote against those same hearings a short time later all because that's what the White House demands?
(2) Let's think just for a brief moment about the always depressing topic of the role of the media here. Here are some rather critical and glaring questions which the hearings would have answered but which, now, remain unanswered:
Did the Administration engage in warrantless eavesdropping on Americans who have no connection to Al Qaeda or to other terrorist groups?
As part of any program, did the Administration engage in warrantless eavesdropping on the purely domestic communications of Americans?
Did the Administration initiate any other warrantless eavesdropping programs aimed at Americans besides the one revealed by The New York Times?
Why did the Administration never seek revisions to FISA if it believed that the law was inadequate or too cumbersome to permit necessary eavesdropping?
It is so obvious as to be painful to point out that the purpose of the Senate Intelligence Committee is to find out answers to those questions. But the White House has exploited its control of the Committee to block that from happening.
But in our system of government, we have multiple checks on government abuse. Congress is but one check. The media, intended to be the "Fourth Estate," is another. Are they really going to just walk away from this story without finding out the answers to these questions and informing Americans as to the answers? What possible excuse is there for reporters not to be hounding every Administration official at the White House, the Justice Department, everywhere with these questions; editorializing continuously about the obligation of the Administration to answer those questions; and making clear to the public how irrational and absurd it is for Congress to start exercising oversight on these programs without having any idea what the Administration secretly did in the past, outside of the law, and without even bothering to find out?
(3) The legislation that Sens. Snowe and Hagel embraced in order not to defy the White House is really nothing short of a bad joke. I have no doubt that, in their minds, they courageously stood up to the White House by demanding that the Administration come to this new little Subcommittee and report in detail on warrantless eavesdropping activities every 45 days, and further, requiring the White House to obtain FISA warrants "whenever possible," whatever that might mean. But this "oversight" is self-evidently illusory and meaningless.
What the legislation does, on its face, is replace FISA judges with Republican Senators in approving the government's eavesdropping activities. Whereas the country agreed to a framework 30 years ago which allowed the government to eavesdrop on Americans only if the Government persuaded a FISA judge that such eavesdropping was warranted, this proposed legislation eliminates that requirement and allows warrantless eavesdropping as long as 4 Republican Senators agree with the White House that such actions are warranted.
But there is a far bigger and more important problem. Congress already enacted legislation regulating the Government's eavesdropping activities. They called that law FISA. The Administration has been violating that law because they believe they have the power to do so, because they think that Congress has no power to regulate or limit the President's eavesdropping activities. Since the White House still believes it has this power, isn't passing another law facially moronic, given that the Administration has already said that they are free to violate whatever Congressional laws they want which purport to regulate eavesdropping?
And, just by the way, there is also another law passed by Congress more than 50 years ago called the National Security Act of 1947, which already requires the Administration to brief the full House and Senate Intelligence Committee on all NSA activities, a law the Administration also plainly violated.
The Administration has told Congress to its face that it has the power to ignore Congressional laws with regard to eavesdropping and that it is free to defy Congressional law mandating briefings on these types of intelligence activities. So, Congress' response is to pass another law to replace the one the White House violated, and to require some more briefing. Isn't that too absurd even for the Congress? At the very least, would it be possible for the media to explain to the public what has happened here?
(4) The issue which is left unresolved by all of these Congressional shenanigans is the issue that lies at the core of this scandal and several others: namely, we are a country in which the President has seized the power to break the law.
For that reason, I think it's important not to overstate the importance of yesterday's vote. Recall that this vote was previously scheduled to take place three weeks ago, on February 16, and Pat Roberts blocked the vote from proceeding. At the time, it was reported that this meant that the Intelligence Committee would not investigate the NSA program. The day after Roberts blocked the vote, I wrote:
[N]obody ever thought that a just resolution of this scandal was dependent upon an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, dominated, as it is, by the mewling, slavish and indescribably dishonest Pat Roberts. The notion that this scandal has come to an end all because Roberts blocked, for the moment, hearings that were to be held by that Committee is nonsensical. Thankfully, this scandal never depended upon the integrity of Pat Roberts, and hearings in front of that Committee were merely one of the many ways to compel a real investigation, but it was hardly the only or even primary way . . . .
[O]ne must remember that there are numerous other branches of this scandal which are alive, well, and growing. The investigation of the Senate Judiciary Committee continues, with disputes raging between the Republican Chairman and the Attorney General over the scope of further witnesses testimony and the DoJ’s obligation to disclose documents. . . . . And, as I posted about yesterday, the judiciary is now involved in this scandal and is beginning to assert its institutional role in our democracy.
In sum, there are numerous governmental processes underway far beyond the Senate Intelligence Committee which are engaged in serious and potentially fatal investigations of this scandal. And beyond those, what will ultimately determine whether the Bush Administration is held accountable for its law-breaking are two components which neither Dick Cheney nor Pat Roberts can shut down – the investigative work of the press and the opinion of the public.
I would encourage anyone who thinks that the law-breaking scandal is over or that the Administration has won again to read that post. None of what happened yesterday should be a surprise. That we live under one-party rule is not a revelation. It is one of the principal reasons why our Government has become such a cesspool of unchecked corruption.
And the checks which are meant to exist on Presidential abuses -- checks and balances from the other branches as well as watchdog functions from an adversarial media-- are largely broken. The only real check left is the power of public opinion which, throughout our country's history, has been the most potent of all of those forces when it is activated.
Finding a way to activate it -- to make the public aware of how radical this Administration has become and to persuade them why they ought to care about that, not just with regard to NSA eavesdropping but generally with regard to the Administration's belief that it has the power to engage in any conduct, including violations of the law -- has been and remains the central challenge. Yesterday's vote is but a blip in that mission.
UPDATE: As far as I can tell, there is nothing in any of this proposed legislation which would immunize the Administration from future investigation or criminal liability for its past law-breaking. I doubt Congress even has the power to immunize the Administration from liability, and it certainly couldn't bar a future investigation into these matters. Howard Dean issued a warning yesterday to Republicans (h/t to a scared Kathryn Jean Lopez) reminding us of why that is so significant:
"I am not ready to say we will take back the House and Senate,'' Dean said in an interview. "But we will take back the House and probably the Senate if we run a national campaign.'' If Democrats do gain control, he said, Republicans should expect to be investigated: "If we get subpoena power'' in congressional committees, "the corruption will come out on America's TV screens, and that scares the daylights out of the Republicans.'' he said.
Continuing to pound these scandals in order to persuade the public of their significance is of vital importance both because there is an election only 7 months away and because if, as it appears it will, that election ends the one-party rule under which we live, all of these matters can be aggressively investigated and pursued, and serious consequences imposed on the Administration, no matter what the GOP Congress does now.
Democrats will have a hard time agreeing on some broad policy programs and alternative vision to sell to the electorate by November. But they don't need to have that. Americans are tired of Republican rule and have abandoned the President. Restoring some balance back to our government and ending the increasingly corrupt, unchecked one-party rule of our country will be, in my view, more than enough for Democrats to at least take over the House. By itself, that will ensure that the landscape shifts dramatically and that the Administration will be called to account for their multiple acts of law-breaking -- or, as George Bush is fond of saying in another context, it will ensure that "they are brought to justice."
It's disgusting, really disgusting, but your also right. The reality is that the Republicans control the Congress. Anyone who thinks that Republicans are going to be the key to bringing down the president is not thinking clearly. The Republicans are loyal to El Presidente no matter what.
ReplyDeleteWe need to do it ourselves. "WE" being the people. A lot of people think thats naive. I think its the only thing that can save America.
Well, I appreciate that, Glenn. I shall allow myself to be soothed by the beige light of your reasoning. Because that vote got me so fucking mad I was ready to....well, I was ready to leave a RULLY MAD COMMENT! But, now, I shall leave only a mildly angry comment. Thanks for the downgrade.
ReplyDeleteGlenn
ReplyDeleteI hope your project entails suing the living daylights out of them.
Paradox,
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong when you say "nothing has changed;" things have gotten WORSE.
One thing that used to occur to people--in a time of perhaps slightly more rational political behavior--is that, power taken by or granted to the party or person you like will be power held and used by the party or person you oppose. The Republicans have been so quick and shameless in ceding all power to Bush, and they thus reap the rewards(either favors and power given, or punishment witheld); doesn't it occur to ANY of them that they will not hold majority power forever? Sooner or later the Democrats--not by their own doing, apparently--will win majorities in Congress again, and perhaps even as soon as the next election, a Democrat will regain the White House.
Do they want a President Hillary Clinton exercising the same unchecked power as they eagerly surrender to Bush?
Of course, hubris and ego and greed are powerful destroyers of rational thought. It's very possible that these people do NOT actually believe they will ever lose majority power.
As usual, great and insightful post....just a quick comment from this usual lurker...saw it spun on the local newscast that Bush had somehow given/caved in to Republican demands who asserted themselves on this issue. Just thought that was very interesting how it portrayed the Republican congresscritters, who essentially abdicated their responsibilities with this new "oversight" committee, were somehow made to look like they were brave and proud for "checking" the president.
ReplyDelete-emm
Paradox,
ReplyDeleteAs to your follow up lament that Bush is "forgiven" everything, for that you can only blame the media.
Corruption and power grabs in government are as much old news as the oldest profession, and the great dramatists of world history of written gripping tragedies of human folly as it intersects with unchecked power. The real scandal of recent years is the degree to which the media has become a mere conduit for lies, sleaze, sensationalism, and propaganda. During the Clinton years, every stray rumor and slur about the President was emblazoned in headlines and 24 hour soundbites. During the Bush years, every crime is ignored or explained away, (among the more witless recent ones was the media personality who said Bush didn't stay on top of the Katrina catastrophe because he didn't want to be "an ambulance chaser like Clinton,").
What can one say to such an appalling apologia for this administration's incompetence and disregard for the people it purportedly serves?
The daily self-disgrace offered up by such as Tim Russert and Chris Matthews, among many others, as documented by Media Matters, tells the story. Until the mainstream media decides to tell a semblance of the truth, this govermnent will continue to suffer no consequence for their ongoing criminal enterprise.
Glenn- I wish I could share your optimism about the November election. However, considering:
ReplyDeleteA) The Administration knows that it must keep both houses of Congress, and
B) The Administration has shown that laws that are intended to restrain Presidential power will be ignored without consequence, then
C) Karl Rove and company will do "whatever it takes" to assure that Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress.
It's important not to get sucked into the DC media's desire for a narrative that features a national strategy or demontrates unity.
ReplyDeleteMidterm elections are ultimately local elections. The national message need be nothing more complicated than attacking the brand, pounding away at corruption, illegal activity and spinelessness on the Hill.
We don't want to get drawn into the "no ideas" or "fractious" narrative that the DC reporters (and to some degree, DC dem operatives) have constructed.
These races are local, and will turn on local issues. We need to make sure that when a voter hears "republican," he inserts corrupt in front of the word, just as the republicans got a lot of Americans to insert the word "liberal" in front of democrat.
maybe i should try to calm down.... but i really think it is likely that electoral politics is not going to be enough.
ReplyDeletei'm thinking back to the nixon era (after all some of the players are the same).... and with the power to spy on political opponents - the only thing holding them back is their own self-control.
sadly, i see this being used to rig elections - and not by vote counting. blackmail a very few people - reports and political opponents and elections, like any contest, can be thrown.
i'm not suggesting capitulation - i'm suggesting (especially to myself) a realistic evaluation of what is is required. including personal risk taking.
The administration is juggling so many scandals and charges of incompetence that it actually worked to its benefit in the NSA scandal.
ReplyDeleteThe “Portgate” scandal lets the Republicans in Congress look like they are standing up to the Administration, while they give up their oversight duties in the NSA crisis.
With so many controversies, the Republicans fear losing power in the upcoming elections. The polls show that the public is more concerned about “Portgate” than NSA (where the public is more evenly divided). And this way, GOP members can distance themselves from an unpopular administration while at the same time, not bringing further damage upon their party by investigating the NSA scandal.
That’s an important point, the Republicans are reacting to the opinion polls on “Portgate” which reinforces Glenn’s point that, The only real check left is the power of public opinion which, throughout our country's history, has been the most potent of all of those forces when it is activated.
In short, even the most “moderate” Republicans have shown a willingness to put party above principles which has, sadly, made “the rule of law” a partisan issue.
That is a point which cannot be understated.
So, the focus must be on the unanswered questions Glenn listed, and persistent pressure on both politicians and the media for not being able to answer those questions – which will slowly turn the public in favor of wanting answers to those questions.
“Portgate” and the Katrina scandals have sucked the oxygen from the NSA scandal for the time being, but none of the controversies have been dealt with, and the GOP is just frantically trying to hide them until after November.
------
(I disagree with Glenn on one thing. He says that “ I have no doubt that, in their minds, they courageously stood up to the White House”…… I do have doubts, I think they know that this is a sham, but it is a sham they will willingly go along with so that their party won’t lose party.)
Tom DeLay won even more handily than Ciro Rodriguez was defeated and that was yesterday, with DeLay dining with lobbyists the night before, and with so-called moderates again playing patsy for BushCo. If anyone was likely to know the issues, it was the voters who made those three decisions. Yet look where we are now. The country has been lost and even being driven from Iraq will not stop leaders of the coup from partisan spying on their domestic foes or from going all the way and dropping a nuclear bomb on one or another of their bugaboos. At this point, I seriously doubt that anything can stop them, not even November, esp. with a compliant media not only supine but still actively groveling to support Big Brother.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the NSA warrentless spying is to gather information that can be used by the WH to blackmail members of Congress and the media into compliance and support of the BushCo agenda. Rove is a gutter rat. His political weapon of choice is inuendo of a sexual nature. He's done it throughout his political career.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, as one someone noted yesterday. If you want to understand the Dubai ports deal, look at a map. They are going to invade, bomb the hell out of, and/or nuke Iran before the Congressional elections of 2006. These guys have not changed their minds about any part of the neo-con world domination strategy. And it is foolish in the extreme to fail to realize that the corporatist who run the media companies are in full support of this plan.
We need to know the members of the boards of directors who run the media outlets in America. Their names and addresses. We need to know what power keeps Americans in an isolated bubble as regards foreign media outlets such as Al Jazeera and BBC. Is there some law or other mandate that prevents these outlets from using the airwaves absent cable or satelite service?
The polls show that the public is more concerned about “Portgate” than NSA (where the public is more evenly divided).
ReplyDeleteThis is true, but here's the problem I have with Portgate as a political force:
Portgate is going to end up being George Bush v. Congressional Democrats AND Republicans. Ultimately, the ones who will kill the port deal will be Congressional Republicans. Duncan Hunter just introduced the deal-killing legislation yesterday, and the GOP-controlled Congress will be the ones to kill it. It's hard for me to see how that issue is going to help defeat Congressional Republicans in November - which is exactly why they're taking a lead in killing it.
I can see the other side, and have argued it before and believe it. It's this: the "Republican" brand has been marketed for five years as an indivisible, Bush-led product, and as that product is tarnished and Bush's image is further deflated, especially on national security, it's going to harm "Republicans" generally, regardless of their specific stance on the port deal.
While I think that's true, and the port deal has done obvious and real damage to both the President and the GOP, I wonder how much more damage it can do for November given that the Congressional Republicans are leading the charge against it.
Republicans in Congress have betrayed their oaths of office. The Dems need to withdraw all support and co-operation in legislative matters until the mid-terms.
ReplyDeleteIt's not simply that Republicans control Congress. The White House controls the Republican majority in Congress. That's a betrayal of the separation of powers.
Fuck security clearances. Rockefeller should go public with everything he knows. The situation demands it.
Oprah spied on! Perfect! She is too wealthy, one hopes, to be bribed. Let's spy on her ourselves and blame them!
ReplyDeleteSeriously, as Glenn has pointed out, sometimes justice takes YEARS! We have a right to impatience, but not to lack of faith and effort.
From the NYT:
ReplyDelete"Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days."
Democratic calls? What about the freaking Republicans who called for an investigation and then caved in?
Jeff
Hi Glenn, Having absolutely no personal dignity is unfathomable, isn't it? And I'm so tired of them that have none, nor integrity, honesty, intelligence, love of country.
ReplyDeleteIf you saw someone killing your child would you wait to stop it?
"Americans are tired of Republican rule and have abandoned the President."
That's what I've been saying:) The demand for accountability and change is obvious in the polls. So obvious the Dems have apparently missed it. The passion and energy on the web has exploded in the last few months for:
"Restoring some balance back to our government and ending the increasingly corrupt, unchecked one-party rule of our country." Name it, please! Our recourse for restoring our government - Impeach! A powerful and worthy word to rally 'round, no?
We've been seeing this pseudo government killing children, destroying our country, other countries, and oh let's see, the Planet! and we've practically screamed via the polls Stop!
We don't need some deaf Dem to tell us when we can demand impeachment. Demand it now. Stop the killing now.
People power, think I've heard that before:)
Anyway, must go muck. Hopefully I won't face a water bucket that's been shat in overnight. Ah, hope....
Take care, Jan
Glenn mate
ReplyDelete"keep pounding". I LOVE it.
Whenever I read your work, or Chris Floyd's, or a myriad of other REAL Americans', I'm given heart to continue do my small share.
Sincerely, thank you
Remember how they are trying to shut up Lou Dobbs on the port scandal, I am sure that the same pressure is being used to silence all critics in the media.
ReplyDeleteWhitewash futures soared today upon word that Republicans had once again decided loyalty to their leader (fuëhrerprincip) outweighed loyalty to their country's laws. Industry spokesman Tom Sawyer noted "Wow, I thought I was good at getting people into whitewashing things. President Bush makes me look like a rank amateur..."
ReplyDeleteGlenn-
ReplyDeleteI envy your optimism. Maybe sanity will return in the long run but those of us of a certain age may not have that pleasure. As for the fourth estate: the once distinguished Boston Globe features on its front page today a story about excessive use of perfumes by teenagers and another about a minor league baseball team seeking to enter the Boston market. "Minor league" says it all. I have written three letters to the editor about the NSA scandal in recent weeks, all of which have been filtered out. To say that coverage of this topic by journalists, editors, and op-ed writers has been skimpy is to be generous. I'm not saying anything here that others are not fully aware of: it's endemic. (Possibly irrelevant, but the Globe is now owned by the NYT.)
But one has to keep plugging: to bitch without trying to work on the problem is dishonest, IMO.
On another tack: what gives these congresspeople reason to believe that the prez will any more respect the spineless DeWine construction now on the table than he did FISA? Isn't it clear to them that Bush asserts unlimited and unrestricted powers in matters of "national defense" and that this silly ploy is just so much fly doo? The answer, I think, is that they don't give a damn, Snowe's (now inoperative) flowery protestations to the contrary.
Glenn, did you what W up to now?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...20060307- 5.html
Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteMay I make a "strategy" suggestion here about how to keep the "pot boiling"?
Our strategy needs to be single-minded, constant and deafening!
And it is very simple. Always refer to this as "The Coverup"!!!
And what do I mean by the word "this"? Anything and everything related to the NSA domestic spying of course, but also to Plamegate, to the lies that the administration used to get us into the Irag war, etc.
To paraphrase the original Clinton election strategy, it's "The Coverup" stupid!
Remember (if you are old enough or read your history), Watergate really was not about a burglary, instead it was about "The Coverup".
Don't let Bush and his criminal cabal define the issue (i.e. an off-putting and national security-fear stroking phrase of Terrorist Surveillance Program), instead stay on message by using the phrase "The Coverup".
Title every post with that phrase! Begin every primary sentence with that phrase!
For example, you entitle the next post as "The Coverup". You begin its first sentence with "The Coverup" continues...
Most Americans on the Left or the Right, don't necessarily understand (or even care) about the technical details of Bush's criminal acts (it was a violation of the Xth Amendment and Title Z of the US Criminal Code, subsection blah, blah, blah).
However, they DO intuitively understand and identify with "The Coverup"!
All of us, whether Left or Right, are deeply suspicious of "The Coverup"! It even doesn't matter which "Coverup" it actually is.
As I stated previously, title every post with that phrase! Begin every primary sentence with that phrase!
Eventually, one will not even have to explain just what "The Coverup" is. Everyone will assume its message! And all will instinctively know that it is wrong!
Lastly, don't ever argue with anyone as to "whether" it is a coverup or not! Assume it! Eventually even the enemy will use the phrase "The Coverup", and in doing so, will not only plant the seeds of their own destruction, but help harvest it too!
While I have no doubt that Mr. Dean would use the subpoena power to air the abuses of the Republicans, I am equally certain that the national Democrats--in the spirit of "comity", "bi-partisanship", and the "post 9/11 world" (would someone please explain to me what that is?), would readily come to an understanding with their Republican co-conspirators and we will be left with nothing but rumors and suspicions.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I want people to emphasize as much as possible, if at all possible:
ReplyDeleteThe RW "spin" that the FISA law prevents you from being surveilled if you dial up Osama to tell him his robe is clean and ready is a LIE!!!
As I've said previously, but thanks to a look at the FISA law which confirms this:
The law defines the "electronic surveillance" as an intercept that "intentionally target[s] [a] United States person":
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;...
Just as in domestic Title III wiretaps, the laws apply to the "target", not to any "associate" that happens to be called or who calls. If you have a Mafia wiretap, you can listen in when he calls his favourite restaurant for a reservation, and when his tailor calls to say the pinstripes are drycleaned. Despite the fact that there is no warrant for them, their conversations, when talking to the "target", can be recorded. What you can't do without another warrant is to take the "associates" (the target's phone book, or his recent calls gotten from an intercept or billing records), and then in turn put taps on all calls for those numbers ... until you go to a judge, show that the associate is also probably a criminal, and get another warrant.
Same applies to Osama's calls to the U.S. Tell any RW nut who tries to spout the RW "spin" to look at the law: If you have Osama's cell number as a target (and there shouldn't be any difficulty in getting that), you can tap whoever he calls (or calls him) at any time. What you can't do is take whoever he calls and in turn tap their phones and all their calls ... and then take all those numbers and in turn tap them ... that devolves very quickly into the Six Degrees Of Kevin Bacon and allows you to tap almost anyone you want (probably including the Preznit himself).....
IANAL, Glenn. But I've been through a couple years of law school, and I also know about surveillance law and technology from the business end. Maybe you can see if I've made a mistake in what I've said above (I don't think so), and maybe write it up as a post and get the word out:
They're lying when they say that U.S. citizens can't be tapped under FISA without a warrant ... when they're talking to Osama.
That the U.S maladministration is complaining about warrant requirements, given the above, strongly hints that they're setting up taps on U.S. persons as the "target" and tapping their calls as well,to Osama or to whoever .... without a warrant.
Cheers,
The NSA situation is worse than Nixon's Watergate.
ReplyDeleteBack then, there was Barbara Jordon.
At the brink of Nixon's downfall, it was the Republican Senators who told Nixon that he would be convicted in a Senate trial.
Nixon resigned, rather than be removed from office and then President Ford pardoned him.
The Democrats should have stood up en masse and decried the NSA spying program. They did not.
One possible reason is that they are afraid because they have skeletons in their closets and if they have been monitored, the skeletons would be dancing in public.
This speaks to the level of corruption in Congress.
One effective method of putting pressure on Congress is to write letters to them. Email doesn't cut the mustard.
They do respond to letters.
Phone calls are tallied, but the individual Congress person does not respond to an individual phone call.
We can't expect the press to fight this. That's not their job, it is ours.
We have to start somewhere.
I do not think the Democrats winning in November is the solution.
If they aren't standing up as a unit now, once they safe again in office, they will avoid confrontation.
One last thought; take a look at other party candidates.
We would be better off if there was at least one more political party in Congress. It would break up the game of trying to divert attention from the real issues by using partisan bickering.
We can use the Consitution to get things back on track. That document gives us the power correct wrongs.
If we don't use the power available to us as citizens, then we can't complain.
Folks are asking "What to do" here --
ReplyDeleteThere are multiple options:
Find your local DEM webpage and the candidates running in your area - HELP and Support them with donations, time, signs in yards, etc.
Go to Feingold's Progressive Patriots and (10 suggest Candidates for HELP, (2) donate to this cause, (3) offer help with this project.
Look for other organizations in your local area that provide this kind of campaigning - and Help them.
Read this article: "The Politics of Shoe Leather" by William Rivers Pitt. And consider helping to form similar efforts in your area to help get folsk registered to VOTE and talking about these ISSUES. And regardless of whether they are REP or DEM or IND or LIB ...TOO many folks DO NOT VOTE to make an difference.
But they CAN Vote and it can make a Difference. 2006 is our opportunity to do this!!
It is so obvious, so clear, that what this Administration seeks to do, with the complicity of the so-called moderate Republicans, is the complete and utter perversion of law in this country. The "Padilla" and "Hamdi" cases, the sweeping assertion of Presidential authority, the Gitmo prisons and secret renditions and torture are the open and obvious signs, for those who are willing to see, that this Administration seeks to reduce law to the extension of the will of the executive. All of these are merely the "thin end of the wedge", a sort of test run to see what the American public will accept or ignore, before its application here. And it will be applied here, because the ideology of extremism, which is in control now, resists all forms of moderation and restraint. Prediction: Martial law within 5 years.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot underestimate the power of Rovian spin, which will go into overdrive in the Fall. There will be swiftboating on all levels. The Dems who questioned the NSA scandal will be characterized as "not working with the President" and obstructionist bordering on treason. The Repubs will claim victory in the Portgate scandal insisting *they* had the guts to stand up to the President and protect American citizens. There will be a few more scandals between now and then but short of having video tape of the President having sex with an intern it will all get the Rove spin. Come September there will be an endless barrage of deception, itimidation and repetition of talking points that will make our heads spin.
ReplyDeleteThat is the real challange: to come up with a forceful, clear, effective strategy to negate Rovian tactics.
Nothing has worked so far.
The architects of the 2000 and 2004 thefts of national elections knew they were going to be playing "hardball".
ReplyDeleteThe people behind this fraud and treason go far beyond chimpy, cheney, and rove...
They just stand in front of the camera and do the dirty work for the real forces. Yes, this administration and the republicans are totally corrupt, but the REAL people that make this happen are smarter than to stand in front of the American public and talk these nonsense talking points.
Refreshing to hear Dean be direct, but let's not kid ourselves -- our problem is not just the republican representative. Its the military-industrial complex that works in the background to promote their agenda.
They have created a tough to beat formula:
Proclaim the election is about gay rights, that they have a "highly energized base," and that the win elections with non-verifiable vote flipping software even when they obviously hare in the minority.
"... and making clear to the public how irrational and absurd it is for Congress to start exercising oversight on these programs without having any idea what the Administration secretly did in the past, outside of the law, and without even bothering to find out?"
ReplyDelete"Get Out Of Jail Free". See? We may use this at any time. Can't you folks just ... ummm ... "move on"?
This is a "pass" given to the maladministration, and a mild slap that from now on, they'd better make sure they don't do anything embarrassing or politically inconvenient to the Republicans (at least in public).
The composition is 4-3, so the good soldiers will make damn sure that nothing gets out, and if it does, they'll prosecute. And figure that Frist or another loyal Republican henchman wil be vewwy cawefull as to which four get selected....
That sad part is that when I read the Constitution, I don't see anywhere in that document the definition of "magistrate" as "Senate sub-committe" and a "warrant" as "assent and/or silence".
Cheers,
Let me see if I have this right.
ReplyDeleteThe Intelligence Committee has agreed to create a majority-Republican subcommittee, sworn to secrecy, that the executive branch will brief on activities that Congress has defined as illegal?
What sorts of records will they keep?
How will the subcommittee report on its activities?
Can senators selected for the subcommittee refuse the invitation to degrade themselves and their institution further?
What will this gathering of mute clowns call itself? How about the Insider Comatose Subcommittee on Illegal and Impeachable Activities?
While we debate, amongst ourselves (and indignantly proclaim an erosion of our rights as US citizens) the country is going down the tubes. An article in today's paper cites the fact that 1 out of every 20 workers in this nation is an illegal alien. We all accept the conventional wisdom that they are here because they do the jobs that nobody else wants to do. Isn't it ironic that for over two hundred years we were able to attract in an orderly fashion all the legal immigrants we needed to provide labor for our progressive economy. What's more, our nation became great because we used ingenuity and inventiveness to overcome imbalances in work and labor. The reason we were, until recently, the greatest nation on earth is because we solved our problems by creating technology to do things that high labor costs made prohibitive. Not any more. Now our tycoons outsource and hire illegal aliens at low wages to enhance their corporate bottom lines. To hell will inovation and employing American engineers and scientists to create new ways to do things. Let's take the easy way out - one that assures profits for the few but condems the remainder of our citizens to second rate lives - and move off-shore or hire cheap labor. Our country has lost its way and we argue the Constitution and the fact that our rights are in jeopardy. Wake up America before it's too late.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else see the contradiction here?
ReplyDeleteThe WP starts by quoting Rockefeller whining that he can't get "a careful and fact-based review of the National Security Agency's surveillance eavesdropping activities inside the United States."
Then, in just the next paragraph, the WP tells us...
Rockefeller said he had spent 6 1/2 hours at the NSA last week getting answers to more than 450 questions he had submitted to the agency...
Some coverup...
BTW, I don't hear the good Senator claiming after his 6 1/2 briefing that he believes the NSA program is in the least illegal or that he is withdrawing his support from the program because it amounts to "domestic spying."
Dems win back the house or senate?
ReplyDeletePoll aside, don't get your hopes ups.
On December 6th, 2004 , The BRAD BLOG (www.bradblog.com) published a sworn affidavit by Florida software programmer Clint Curtis. In his affidavit and videotaped sworn testimony presented before members of the U.S. House Judiciary committee, Curtis claims to have been asked by U.S. Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) to design a "vote-rigging software prototype". This request took place in October 2000 during a meeting at Yang Enterprises, Inc. (YEI), a computer consulting firm in Oviedo, Florida.
http://www.bradblog.com/ClintCurtisSummary.htm
Funny, how the "superblogs" only link back and forth, like FDL, Atrios, C&L are doing anything more than providing snarky comments and put-downs or performing mental masterbation.
This is the story that needs to be kept on the "frontpage" because without fair and free elections, nothing else matters. Way to go bradblog, even though the "superblogs" never give you the credit you deserve.
Guess its becuz there is more money in proclaiming you have all the answers and providing a snarky comment board then there is to be made by talking about the real issues.
That is the real challange: to come up with a forceful, clear, effective strategy to negate Rovian tactics.
ReplyDeleteThe strategy is the truth, forcefully stated. The Democrats have all the same points now that they had 24 hours ago, and that is a lot.
The White House squeezed a free pass out of Specter, Snowe, and Hagel - this is not a surprise. When the GOP Senate is eating its shoe to excuse the admin in both its acknowledged and its still-secret domestic spying programs, we have a lot to talk about - and that's on just one piece of the puzzle alone.
Howard Dean is approaching political prophet status with his pointed but factually based charges against the GOP establishment. Why is he so unique in being able to speak plainly?! He is mapping the path to victory but the DLC's perpetually cold feet are shutting us out.
Take heart, and get out there! History will tell whether we backed down from this fight. The people who we need to be talking to aren't reading Greenwald and Kos.
I really have come to believe over the last few years that alot of this secrecy,spying,and so on has to do with political blackmail.Same goes with the media.People are being blackmailed,opponents being spied on etc.It's the only thing I keep coming back to that makes any sense to me.Stuff that makes Nixon look like a boy scout.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is full of dysfunctional families.We've ALL got various skeletons in our closets,stuff that could be exploited politically.Media and politics is certainly not exempt from that,in fact,I'd argue that people in either of those occupations are probably more tempted than most of us to do things that might not otherwise happen.Access to money and power makes people take lots of risks,it often makes them arrogant,greedy and stupid,and so they make asses of themselves.Stuff they really don't want getting around,personal stuff.
This could range from someone having an affair(or multiple ones),drug addiction(either themselves or a close family member),domestic abuse,or crimes involving the political process or stealing money in some form or fashion,your general debauchery sort of thing.
I know this sounds tin foil hatty,but I think a few good bloggers/writers should start looking at this angle.If my little theory is correct,then looking at who is doing this would lead right to the heart of the cabal.
And IF this is true,the only way to end it is for those on the recieving end to come clean.That ends the power of the extortionist.In politics though,it can end careers.It often makes me wonder how BAD some people's secrets are.(((shudder)))
When I see people cowering,or being wishy washy,or just following along,even when they know stuff going on around them is wrong,I can't help but think someone is holding a threat over their heads.Something more than just being fired or kicked out of the club,something intimate and personal.The GOP trains their young up and coming members to fuck each other over first before they go out into the world to do it to everyone else,it not like Rove isn't a hero to many young college age Republicans.Ratfucking is rewarded and encouraged.And if you can totally trash someone's reputation and image in the process,so they never recover fully,you get bonus points.
That has to be dealt with.That and taking the obscene amounts of wealth out of the whole political process.Too much of The People's Time and Money is being spent on parties,dinners,fundraisers,campaigning,and shuffling huge amounts of money around.During the actual "workday"all kinds of crap is going on in the Administration,the House and Senate that are making a few people very wealthy,gutting our rights,toxifying the environment,gutting the military,inflaming fear and hatred,sanctioning torture(that truly broke my heart,seriously),ack.I love my country,but I seriously loathe the criminally insane people running it.We're in trouble,and the legal and ethical choices we have in fixing this aren't working fast enough to stop the damage.We're headed down such a BAD road here,when is it too far down that road to turn back?
I'm sorry to ramble,but I feel such a sense of urgency and impending doom coming from my country's government,such betrayal,that it truly makes me sadder than almost any experience I've had.America isn't even trying to be the good guy in the world anymore,and that makes me overwhelmingly sad sometimes.
Glenn: As far as I can tell, there is nothing in any of this proposed legislation which would immunize the Administration from future investigation or criminal liability for its past law-breaking.
ReplyDeleteYou notice that there isn't even a whisper that the WH requests any such immunity. Do you think that might be because the program is perfectly legal and they have all the case law on their side?
Nah... Why ruin a good conspiracy theory with the law?
Howard Dean issued a warning yesterday to Republicans (h/t to a scared Kathryn Jean Lopez) reminding us of why that is so significant:
"I am not ready to say we will take back the House and Senate,'' Dean said in an interview. "But we will take back the House and probably the Senate if we run a national campaign.'' If Democrats do gain control, he said, Republicans should expect to be investigated: "If we get subpoena power'' in congressional committees, "the corruption will come out on America's TV screens, and that scares the daylights out of the Republicans.'' he said.
You can always rely on Howard to be honest about the aims of the Dems on this issue.
This has nothing to do about the law and everything to do with political theater on television for political grandstanding. This kind of nonsense is bad enough under normal circumstances when arguing over piffles like ANWR. It is reprehensible when you are blowing intelligence tools.
Certainly I'm angry, but not surprised, that the Repub senators on the IC caved. The GOP is way down in the polls, and there is an election in only 7 mos. It is simply not in their interest to have this scandal investigated, with the potential to supply even more campaign fodder to Democrats.
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert -- least thing from it -- in how to frame issues for hoi polloi. But I do know this. The folks in the heartland are not reacting as we at this blog do to the NSA scandal. I live in a red county, and some 75% of my friends, co-workers and family voted for George Bush. There is now overwhelming disgust with him -- and a lot of people are looking to vote Democratic -- but in the many, many conversations I have had about the current situation, not one of them has raised the illegal spying issue -- it is always me who has to do that.Usually I can generate agreement that the warrantless spying is wrong, but they still are far more upset about Iraq, the port deal, the Katrina response, and most especially, the debacle that is the Medicare D program.
A few weeks ago my adult son, daughter-in-law and I were discussing the awfulness of the Bush Administration, and I began to rant about the illegal spying. My son cut me off with: "I don't care about that." Well, both my son and daughter-in-law now care, but that is only because I explained it to them with a simplified version of the points generally made here.
The campaign regarding what is wrong with the NSA spying needs to extend beyond the blogosphere. We political junkies and activists can do only so much without the rest of the public also angry and demanding accountability. Hopefully in the weeks and months ahead things will happen to take the issue directly to the public. Imagine if, say, Glenn were on CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc...with a reason to discuss this matter. That is the sort of thing that has to happen.
Well of course this will be a 45 day review of the single program that they have had to admit to, sounds like any others will remain outside the definition and will enjoy the useage that already have.
ReplyDeleteanselm said...
ReplyDeleteThat is the real challange: to come up with a forceful, clear, effective strategy to negate Rovian tactics.
The strategy is the truth, forcefully stated. The Democrats have all the same points now that they had 24 hours ago, and that is a lot.
Howard Dean is approaching political prophet status with his pointed but factually based charges against the GOP establishment. Why is he so unique in being able to speak plainly?! He is mapping the path to victory but the DLC's perpetually cold feet are shutting us out.
I know you won't listen, but here is how this "scandal" is going to pan out and why...
The DeWine bill ratifying the NSA Program will pass with about the same margin as the Patriot Act.
How?
Because not a single Donkey in a remotely competitive race will vote against it.
Why?
Because, if the Dem votes against it, he will face wall to wall commercials in his district or state arguing that he or she voted against enabling the NSA to monitor calls between al Qaeda and their agents in the United States. The background of the commercial will be photos of all the al Qaeda agents captured to date, then bin Laden and then the WTC crashing down.
In one of Glenn's polls, support for this program is about 3/4 of the electorate.
Can you spell S U I C I D E?
Howard Dean can...
Just what the hell does the Bush gang have on these people? Did they implant chip in their brains? Put horse heads in their bed? WHAT?
ReplyDeleteThis is a sickening dismantling of our democracy, and our checks and balanaces...I am outraged, time to vote against ALL GOP everywhere, there's no such thing as a moderate Republican.
come november, everyone must vote absentee, the possibility of republican vote tampering is too great, they will do everything to make sure that they don't lose power (and be subject to subpoena)
ReplyDeleteremember, in a democracy, if you can't vote (or trust the outcome), nothing else matters
Selise, you are right on all points and it IS time for personal risk.
ReplyDeleteThe republic has come to an end via stealth coup. Our constitutionally protected rights are now invalid. Dems are unable to organize and oppose and should protest by refusing to participate any longer (hat tip, Anon).
This election begins the Administration's demonstration of a full-strength total information awareness strategy for securing domestic elections. With a subservient congress and co-opted, eunuch media, the Adminstration will continue to criminalize the bill of rights. A well-timed terrorist event and/or action against Iran is the next shoe to drop.
Today's outrages are egregious, but not unexpected. What are we prepared to do on the day when we witness these further atrocities we know they intend to carry out?
Personal risk, indeed.
Thanks, Glenn, for cheering me up out of my despair, which is exactly how I felt when I read about this in the Times this morning.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all you do; the fight goes on...
Would it do any good to try and mobilize constitutional scholars and law school deans/professors and presidential historians to begin writing editorials and LTEs for the major papers in each state? They could help at least some people understand how far outside the scope of legitimate presidential power this administration has gone.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised more of them haven't stepped forward already to point out the liberties this administration has taken with the law and the constitution. That they have not stepped forward on the torture questions and the Gitmo issues is disappointing. But maybe it is time to approach them.
The folks in the heartland are not reacting as we at this blog do to the NSA scandal. I live in a red county, and some 75% of my friends, co-workers and family voted for George Bush. There is now overwhelming disgust with him -- and a lot of people are looking to vote Democratic -- but in the many, many conversations I have had about the current situation, not one of them has raised the illegal spying issue -- it is always me who has to do that.
ReplyDeleteOnly morons talk to their friends and then think they've taken some sort of representative sample that allows them to make sweeping statements about what Americans think (see above).
And only really dumb morons do that when actual polls unanimously show that what they are saying is garbage.
"I don't care what the polls say. My friends don't think that way."
Is this a legitimate strategy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11724797/from/RSS/
or just folly?
Retaking the Fourth branch of government is key to the first door that will lead Democrats back to the halls of power where this story might get told. Getting an honest accounting of the facts, as Rockefeller has tried to do, (as Snowe suggests could happen sometime down the line, if needed)would do a lot to move the NSA story along.
ReplyDeleteWhose story will get told?
Finding real people who have had their lives impacted by NSA activities would be most powerful weapon in this fight of all.
The NSA scandal needs its Cindy Sheehan, something like that couple who paid their credit card and Homeland Security.
Linked you on this at Tap That
I tnink Selise nails it. The WH arrogance doesn't appear to have limits. Don't you think that could mean they already know for certain that they can't lose in Nov.? Even with 20-30% approval rates is a 3rd term impossible in 2008? It's wartime afterall, and W fashions himself an FDR? (and being able to set the vote machines your way could make Rove drool!)
ReplyDeleteIs this a legitimate strategy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11724797/from/RSS/
or just folly?
(I added the correct tags - I hope..)
Glenn: What are your thoughts on the direction that the committee took to create a Senate committee for debriefing and keep the FISA judges out? Sorry to be so obtuse, but the committee's oversight w/o FISA judges seems to be more than a little lacking. Regardless, it was a choice for Roberts.
ReplyDeleteThe Heretik's point I think underlines the inherent difficulty with this scandal: people can't directly identify with it, nor has it been clearly demonstrated how dangerous it is to *them*.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid it will take American citizens either being deported or worse before the public truly appreciates how serious this is.
Then again, with the way the media has been behaving the past few years, we're more likely to just get the Doublespeak version of events, which likely won't help win any hearts or minds. I hate to say it, but Glenn really nailed it last week noting how Rush, O'Reilly and the rest of their poisonous ilk provide the 'news' to a good segment of the voting public. Pretty soon we'll all be involved in the Five Minutes Hate.
Sad really.
Ahh, yes. An election will cure everything.
ReplyDeleteHow long do they have to squat over you before you realize you've been swallowing shit?
If, in fact, the government is behaving like a criminal, why aren't you turning the criminals out?
Only morons talk to their friends and then think they've taken some sort of representative sample that allows them to make sweeping statements about what Americans think (see above).
ReplyDeleteI didn't claim it was a representative sample. But the fact is, the issues in the NSA matter are complex, and no matter what the polls say about Americans thinking it is wrong for Bush to spy without warrants as required by FISA, this is not the sort of sexy issue that gets the populace up in arms, not without a great deal of leadership bringing them to drink. I know that intuitively, based on my observations of the masses over several decades.
They can see displaced Katrina victims on TV -- and see 300 abandoned residential trailers that have to be scrapped due to FEMA incompetency. They and/or their family members are extremely frustrated dealing with the clusterf*ck that is the Medicare D program, and are receptive to stories about Grandma at the pharmacy not getting her prescriptions filled. They can link "Ay-rabs -ports-security," but the issue with the NSA matter is warrants as required by FISA. They have sons and daughters in the mess that is Iraq. But, average people do not readily grasp how dangerous it is to just flout FISA (which almost none of them have heard of), and exactly why.
If you restated the 4th Am and presented it to the first 100 people at the mall, I'd bet a majority would reject it. "Before going after dangerous criminals, should the police have to ask a judge before they can enter a bad man's home?"
All I'm saying is that some issue framing, and a message to the larger public, has to take place before the sort of outrage seen here is going to occur "out there." If that makes me a moron, well, maybe so. I've been wrong before.
yankeependragon writes: The Heretik's point I think underlines the inherent difficulty with this scandal: people can't directly identify with it, nor has it been clearly demonstrated how dangerous it is to *them*.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Many may be opposed to it in the abstract, but do not see how it really touches their lives.
A victim, some live human being who has been harmed, would be enormously helpful. *I* don't need that, nor do most people participating here, but the political reality is that the masses do. Or, at a minimum, they need some leadership capable of explaining to them how dangerous Bush's arrogation of power is.
I admire your optimism about the November elections, but recall that there was plenty of "discontent" with the GOP in 2004 too, and look how that turned out. American voters are always courageously expressing their preference for a generic Democrat. It's getting them to vote for the specific Democrat--especially after the GOP has finished smearing them as disciples of Osama or Karl Marx--that's always elusive.
ReplyDeleteThe collective laziness of American voters is one reason why we have a party of brazen corruption on the one side and a collection of milquetoasts afraid of their own shadow on the other. Until enough Americans take their franchise seriously, nothing is going to change. Right now, they will sell out their country for a $30 tax cut. They may say otherwise (Americans know what the virtuous position is and will claim to embrace it as long as it does not interfere with watching American Idol), but when the chips are down, they take the morally easy route every time.
Over time, people get the government they deserve. Truer words were never spoken.
Democrats will have a hard time agreeing on some broad policy programs and alternative vision to sell to the electorate by November. But they don't need to have that.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. We have to have something positive to offer. "Just say No" isn't enough, especially when the Noise Machine pounds at us almost every day that we have no program, no vision.
Collect signatures / autographs of citizens who want further investigations, who want to impeach Bush andsoforth.
ReplyDeletewww.votetoimpeach.org
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
http://www.impeachpac.org/
We have to have something positive to offer. "Just say No" isn't enough, especially when the Noise Machine pounds at us almost every day that we have no program, no vision.
ReplyDeleteTrying to frame images to address and comport to GOP criticisms is one of the Democrats' biggest problems.
NEWS FLASH: The "Noise Machine" is going to attack Democrats no matter what they do. Democrats were scared shitless that they'd be attacked as weak little liberals, so they nominated a decorated war hero, and what happened? Democrats got attacked as weak little liberals.
Instead of running around like scared headless chickens trying to prove that every criticism is invalid, just fucking take a stand and stick with it. We don't need any wonky programs. The GOP is corrupt - Bush has failed miserably on every front - and we need to remove Republicans from absolute power because they have grown corrupt and inept.
That's all that's needed. Who gives a fuck if Chris Matthews doesn't like it? Stop caring what he thinks!!!
Selise, above, makes a comment that is representative of those of us that are waking up.
ReplyDeleteElectoral politics aren't going to bring our Nation's great principles back. Democrats aren't going to do it. Hillary Clinton certainly isn't going to do it. It's going to require each of us to take some personal risks.
Months ago, I remember mentioning the idea of a nationwide general strike on DailyKos. I was laughed at, and scolded for not believing in the great Democratic Party (the same one that's allowed Mr. Ciro and Mr. Hackett to dangle in the wind). But the leadership of the Democratic Party is so corrupt morally as to be nothing but a hindrance to those of us that put Country before Party. If 2008 becomes about Hillary Clinton, we have lost, utterly. If 2006 is run like the national Democratic campaigns of the last decade, we don't have a chance even to pick up a few seats. And make no mistake: picking up a few seats is the same as losing. Anything short of the Democrats taking back majorities in both houses of Congress is going to insure that the next ten years is going to be more of the same, whether the President is Hillary or McCain, or Jeb Bush.
I think we need to start thinking in more drastic terms. Electoral politics is now designed to create a permanent authoritarian, pro-corporate majority. The structure of all media is to support the same authoritarian, pro-corporate power structure. The same with newspapers. As soon as the Internet becomes totally pay-to-play, blogs like Mr. Greenwald's will disappear.
I have come to believe that it will take drastic measures if there will ever again be a free America. And trust me, I'm the last person you'd expect to go the "prison planet" route. Tell you one thing, it's time for the progressive movement to show the rank and file military that we support them. Because it's starting to look more and more like we're going to need the support of the military if we're going to keep our nation free.
Instead of running around like scared headless chickens trying to prove that every criticism is invalid, just fucking take a stand and stick with it.
ReplyDeleteFine but let's make it a PLATFORM, not just a few catch phrases like "culture of corruption," although I do like that one.
Steve J. hits the bullseye on the other major stumbling block here: the fact the RWNM (Rush and ilk) command the narrative, which the media dutifully relate ad nauseum.
ReplyDeleteWonder what they'll make of the next major attack on the country? And let's not be naive about it: another one is coming, and the program under discussion (plus its still-unrevealed cousins) aren't likely to help stop it in the slightest.
You can calculate Snowe's price very accurately here.
ReplyDeleteSee Glenn, using its “The Coverup” as a strategy works!
ReplyDeleteI love it when even the trolls like Bart can’t seem to avoid taking the bait. LOL!
That’s the beauty of using “The Coverup” strategy! It is a no-lose proposition. Look at the lousy choices that Rove has for a counter-strategy:
1. Deny there is a coverup. This cedes the message to us! Denial reinforces “The Coverup” strategy. It means folks are talking (pro and con) about our message and not Rove’s!
2. Ignore the elephant in the room. This also cedes the message to us! Remember, all folks believe in conspiracies and Americans are right there at the top. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Liberal or a Conservative, you do believe in coverups! Americans are more fervent in their belief that coverups exist than Fundamentalists are about Rapture.
Again, the idea is to own the battlefield. To do that, we have the right message! Its “The Coverup” stupid!
What's happening with the port deal is only a result of and a reinforcement of the fear factor - the same fear factor that makes people willing to err on the side of security regarding the spying program.
ReplyDeleteI don't think a few victims will sway people - it's too easy to twist a victim into a lefty looney.
The only thing I can think of that would sway the fearful is if some bad guy is able to walk away because the of the illegality of the program. Then people would respond the way they've responded over the port deal.
I couldnt agree more, Nittacci. The situation is desperate for anyone willing to admit the obviousness of the truth. Yesterday's sham at the SIC is just another confirmation of that.
ReplyDeleteIt's to the point that only the contemplation of our drastic options is capable of delivering me from the heavy-anxiety around "what is to be done?"
dxm:
ReplyDeleteGreat catch on how the faithful will be rewarded and the dissenters punished. Look to the proposed line-item veto as another sharp instrument in the president's hands to enforce compliance.
I came to this site knowing that many commenters here would be ahhhh.... extremely partisan. I use the word “extreme” advisedly. I told myself that even though they would be voting for candidates who catered to their sometimes bizarre points of view, the candidates themselves would not actually govern in accordance with those points of view. Therefore, implicitly supporting this effort was no sin.
ReplyDeleteSo what have I learned from a daily, detailed immersion in the recently-ended Greenwald campaign to impeach President Bush? By the way, absent any discovery of actual venal eavesdropping, it is over.
Well, I now know that not all Bush-haters suffer from BDS. Some retain their judgement and reasoning abilities. I had the opportunity to observe close-up how partisanship affects such judgement. There were many examples of that.
For instance, throughout this process, there were constant howls about how terrible it was for America that those damned Republicans were more loyal to their party leaders than to their sacred trust as Senators. And nary a passing comment that the Democrats on the Committee voted 100% of the time 100% for the Democratic party line. Oh yes, I know, “when one is 1,000% right...”, etc. Spare me. Just take a look at the number of times in the last year that important votes have featured 100% Democrat voting. And what do the commenters here say when that is not the case? Traitors! Spineless! Etc.
Let’s quote Mr. Greenwald on that point:
“Democrats are constantly attacking one another and muddling, and even destroying, their brand. To illustrate this problem, here is the vote breakdown by party on some of the most significant legislative questions to face the Senate during the Bush Presidency:
Vote to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court
Republicans - 56-0
Democrats - 22 -22
Cloture vote on Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court
Republicans - 54-0
Democrats - 19-25
Vote on Authorization to use military force in Iraq
Republicans - 48-1
Democrats - 29-21
This problem for the Democrats is profoundly serious. There is no way to articulate a clear, principled set of ideas to the American public when, on every major question, the party itself is divided and more interested in waging war on itself than on the Administration.”
Naked envy of the Republican solidarity, right? Democrats need to do this, right? On a major question the party should not be divided, right? Then the blatant partisan hypocrisy:
“Sen. Specter is, of course, of the same rancid strain as Sens. Snowe and Hagel -- the group that struts around self-lovingly preening as some sort of "independent Republicans" only invariably to fall in line, meekly and without exception, with White House commands. In fact, of all of the well-behaved good little boys and girls which the White House has assembled in the Senate, Sen. Specter, his ritualistic maverick pretenses notwithstanding, is one of the most easily controlled. Placing one's hopes for Congressional oversight and integrity in Sen. Specter, of all people, is just an invitation to further disappointment...it is almost unfathomable how little personal dignity these compliant GOP Senators have...just on a personal level, shouldn't they be way too embarrassed to be so blatantly manipulated and controlled...”
So, which is it, Mr. Greenwald? [rhetorically] Your position clearly is that when Democrats contemplate doing it, it is laudable and wonderful. When Republicans do it, not so much. Is this an example of how you apply your principles to actual real life situations? [Could I request that we spare readers your predicable “that is a horse of another color” justification?]
And what do your loyal readers do? When you post that Democrats need to be cohesive, despite their personal beliefs, they Huzzah! Barely a week later when you decry a classic example of such party cohesion, they Booo! In short, they are a claque. Criticism makes us better. Your claque gives you mostly effusive praise with a small, obsequious laughing protest now and again. If you are going to be ready for prime time, you need some better criticism.
Many commenters here get all of their information from the NYT, apparently unaware or uncaring about the generally accepted fact that the NYT is not an objective source. Nothing inherently wrong with doing that; hey, the NYT may be right about everything (and it certainly does save time and the frustration of decision-making, doesn’t it?). However, these Timesdrones seem to me to be excessively defensive when those who believe in a more varied diet of information question their slavishly-acquired “wisdom”.
So, a bit of advice for them: when citing something from the NYT, drop the ex-cathedra presentation and present it as just another point of view to stand for fall on its merit. Believe it or not, a majority of the population discounts your credibility when you show your reverence for the NYT. And expanding to CNN, the WaPo and LAT doesn’t add much. You sound just like the Bible-thumpers (“God said it, the Bible wrote it and I believe it”) to non-believers when you do it, and how much credibility do you give the Religious Right?
One final note (I know that you cannot wait). Throughout this process, even though we were talking about high crimes and misdemeanors, unless I missed it, there were few references to an accused being Not Guilty until tried and convicted in a court of law. For such a “principled” group, that oversight was pretty egregious. Lynch mobs are famous for it. It is not necessary to add “alleged” every time one writes of the alleged crimes of the Bush Administration, that is a PC excess. But, is this blog and its comments not a poster child of how to err in the opposite direction?
Another outrage. These men are making a mockery of democracy.
ReplyDeleteAnd Tom Delay one his primary despite the obvious level of corruption he's involved in.
Reuters reported only 33 of 435 seats in the House would be competitive because of gerrymandered district.
The President quite possibly has violated the 4th Amendment rights of the entire nation and these Senators can't be bothered to call for an investigation.
Who are they accountable to? The people? Or George Bush and the Republican Party?
The public is going to have to demand change, otherwise we'll continue to watch this Kabuki theatre version of Democracy from the sidelines.
And what do your loyal readers do? When you post that Democrats need to be cohesive, despite their personal beliefs, they Huzzah! Barely a week later when you decry a classic example of such party cohesion, they Booo!
ReplyDeleteThere's a fundamental difference between: (a) a political party agreeing to a set of commonly held principles and then firmly adhering to those principles in order to demonstrate what the party stands for, and (b) falling obediently into line on every issue in order to protect the party from investigations and to promote the party leader's interests, even going so far as to reverse one's own positions in a matter of weeks when one is told to do so by the party leaders. When one does (a), one is embracing a set of principles. When one does (b), one is relinquishing all principals.
I would explain that difference for you further but it's so glaring and self-evident that to identify the difference is to explain it.
Glenn, I agree with what you're saying, I really do hope that we have more options. I am skeptical, but hopefully we can get some accountability options with our next election, as Howard Dean has alluded to.
ReplyDeleteBy the Way, I've been linking some of your posts over at my blog, http://singularitiesandsense.blogspot.com/ hope you can check it out, I will be posting thoughts on NSA and other topics frequently.
Thanks Glenn
Party Cohesion is fundamentally different from difference of opinion, I recently read a post (forget where, read alot today...) about the Dems needing a party goals list of sorts, not like Pelosi's 60 point program, but more akin to the Gingrich Contract with America. A simple concise party goals description that can be used by all Democrat candidates... We can have differing opinions on how to get where we need to be, but we have to be unified on the Goals we seek as a party, i.e. Accountability, Access and oversight, etc...
ReplyDeleteOh, and there's an editorial in today's New York Times about how the merger of AT&T and Bell South may threaten the openness of the internet, as the phone companies already are planning to create tiered access.
ReplyDeleteCan we trust this Congress to prevent that from happening?
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteGlenn
I hope your project entails suing the living daylights out of them.
Me too. I can't think of a better allocation of Glenn's time and resources.
Says the "Dog"
Nittacci-
ReplyDeleteyou're right. I want to believe Glenn's optimism in the possibility of righting this administration's wrongs within the current system, and reading this blog does give me some hope that a peaceful restoration of the rule of law is possible. But I can't help thinking that the situation is more serious, and our nation's principles already further eroded, than even most of us are willing to admit.
I've been reading Pauline Maier's From Resistance to Revolution, about the ideology behind the American Revolution. She quotes this passage from Cato's Letters, which discusses signs that would indicate to patriots that their government was headed towards tyranny and that resistance was needed. See if you can spot anything familiar:
"Such traitors might isolate the prince from his people, making him dependent on ministerial 'misrepresentations' for his knowledge of affairs; they might engage the country in ridiculous, expensive wars to keep men's minds under 'constant Fears and Alarms,' depriving them of 'Leisure and Inclination to look into publick Miscarriages'... They would prefer 'worthless and wicked Men' for public posts 'without any regard to the Qualifications for those Employments, or indeed to any Qualifications at all but as they contribute to their Designs, and show a stupid Alacrity to do what they are bid.' And they would, 'by all practicable Means of Oppression, provoke the people to disaffection; and then make that Disaffection an Argument for new Oppression ... and for keeping up Troops.'"
It may be a bit premature to say that "we need the support of the military if we're going to keep our nation free," but I do think that we need some kind of citizen action beyond just writing letters and trying to influence our (as of yet, completely ineffective) representatives. A strike's not a bad idea. Any other suggestions?
To say “there is nothing in any of this proposed legislation which would immunize the Administration from future investigation or criminal liability for its past law-breaking,” I think is a misplaced assumption that elevates substance over form.
ReplyDeleteBush does not work by stating his theory or game plan expressly in language in a statute or in public remarks.
The essence of the NSA deal with the White House is a political agreement known as a Lincoln Ratification.
http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/blog/bushs-selfpardons-preempt.shtml
“The reality is that the substantive terms of this FISA deal have the hallmarks of a President Lincoln Ratification. During the Civil War, President Lincoln usurped Congressional functions, just as Bush usurped both Congressional and judicial functions with the NSA spying. Under Lincoln Ratification, the corrective measure was President Lincoln asking Congress to ratify and confirm his acts, which Congress promptly did. This is the ratification that the White House now seeks from Congress in the NSA deal. However, the key elements of Lincoln's ratification were that Lincoln took emergency actions when Congress was not in session and these actions were consistent with congressional powers in the Constitution. Given that these key elements are not applicable to the Bush case, if you strip away the key elements, the substance of this NSA deal would be Congressional forgiveness of Bush's illegal acts and removal of any penalty by retroactive validation, or, a pardon. While Congress does not have constitutional authority to pardon Bush, the presidential pardon power is virtually unlimited unless there is a restriction in the Constitution. Given that a president has self-pardon authority, this implied pardon may be argued by the White House to be valid based on Bush's agreement to permit Congress to participate in the pardon process.”
Now, down the road, say if Democrats regain control of Congress, Bush can argue that the NSA deal constituted a Lincoln Ratification (best case scenario) or a self-pardon (worst case scenario) that precludes impeachment. There is a very good argument that a self-pardon does not constitute a bar or defense to impeachment. However, the issue, as far as I know, has not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. And, in both the NSA scandal and a future potential self-pardon debate, we have these similarities: Bush violated the express prohibitions of the law/constitution and Bush’s legal theory to support violating law is minority view. Yet, he prevailed with NSA spying and could well prevail down the road on even a specious self-pardon theory.
PatriotDaily.com
Because, if the Dem votes against it, he will face wall to wall commercials in his district or state arguing that he or she voted against enabling the NSA to monitor calls between al Qaeda and their agents in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe Big Lie pokes its ugly head up once again. See my first post here (which is a rehash of stuff I've previously posted in various venues to just this effect).
This is wrong on a couple of levels: First, as Glenn has repeatedly pointed out, FISA doesn't prevent any such thing; all FISA requires is a warrant (even ex post facto). But as I have pointed out and point out again to the brain-dead like this RW flack here, FISA doesn't even apply to "targets" like Osama. You can wiretap him all you want, and you don't even need a warrant ... AND ... NSA almost assuredly has been doing this each and every chance they get and no one has ever complained about that. And if he's talking to someone in the United States, that's just the way it goes (note to any Osama friends over here: At the risk of raising this RW troll's ire, I must warn you that when you talk to the Big Man, your conversation can and hopefully will be recorded consistent with the U.S. Constitution without a wiretap warrant.... So don't do it. There, all you Osama buddies, I've saved you a FindLaw Google....).
Cheers,
There seems to be trending towards demonstration and more visual forms of protest than what e are seeing at the moment, and I think its a conclusion more and more being thought about, as evidenced by some comments to this post and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I just wrote this in my blog, singularitiesandsense.blogspot.com the other day, which I find relevant even more so now...
In the 60's protests were widely attended and in fact, were shown on the television (which would and probably accounts for part of the lack of them now), and people seemed more mobilized to do something about the situations they found themselves in. I believe part of this stems from computers (and I am surprisingly very pro-computer!!!). I am noticing as the blogosphere becomes more influential, the standard of demonstrative power changes. We have just as many dissenters in America as we did during the Vietnam War (if not more), but now we aren't going out and voicing our opinions in the streets, we are doing so in our offices, our homes and elsewhere through the internet. Just as I type here during my lunch break, so to would I not move to organize a street protest specifically because I feel like I can get my views heard better through the Blog. This can be both positive and negative.
While the blogosphere has been a conduit for lightning-fast whistle-blowing and fact-checking,
so to has it been a hindrance to organized protest, which is much more visual in nature. Blogs seem to have the visceral impact of "Yeah, I just vented my criticism and WILL be heard!!!" while the sheer impact of an organized demonstration by 100,000 people on the steps of the Capitol is much more telling to a Congress disconnected from its constituency.
I hope we find the strength to overcome this almost tyrannical rule with the numbers of citizens willing to sacrifice time and money to make a "Regime Change" in Washington (to borrow a phrase), but it will take much more than the power of blogs to enable us to do that. I feel we will need a Party willing to stand up to the 'majority' and quite possibly the only way to get the Dems to hear us it to march down there and tell them to their faces.
I'm on the verge of becoming like Cato and ending all of my discourse with with "Ceterum censeo Bush Administration esse delendam."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it will take anything short of that level of single-mindedness.
I have never seen so many anti-democractic rants and unadulterated paranoid conspiracy theories in once place outside of the Kos blog.
ReplyDeleteYou will achieve nothing until you recognize some realities...
1) Your views on national defense are shared by about 20% of actual voters. That is enough to make you a majority of the roughly 33% of actual voters who are self declared Dems, but not enough to win national majorities.
2) There is no conspiracy to take away your votes. Your votes simply do not amount to a majority.
3) Roughly half of your Dem reps and senators vote with a unified GOP on national security issues because they take you on the left for granted and are hunting for votes in the center.
4) Why should any Dem rep or senator take you seriously? You spend all your time decrying the evils of the GOP and then go ahead and cast your ballot like good lemmings for every Dem rep or senator who votes for those same GOP evils.
I'll take you seriously when you stop voting for any Dem who supports the things that you claim to oppose with your last breath.
When half of your caucus votes for the DeWine bill ratifying the NSA Program, don't cast your ballot in November for any of the traitors.
During your 2008 primary, withhold your vote for any Dem who voted for the AUMF and financing to continue the Iraq War which you oppose.
Revolutions are based on acts, not words.
Carter won in 1976 because the conservatives who voted for Reagan stayed home and let Ford go down. In the next election cycle, they elected Reagan and started the conservative revolution which you all oppose.
If you think your ideas are correct and sellable to the American voter, stop casting your ballots for those who oppose your ideas.
You will lose in the short term, but you will impose a discipline on your party similar to what the GOP has managed to pull off.
How about it? Do you have the courage of your convictions or is this a talking society?
I don't think we can wait and see. First, Dean is correct. The warning is out. When we regain power, these crimes will be prosecuted to the fullest--so you best act accordingly right now and now wait til the next election cycle. As to we the people, time to hit the street.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you're dreaming.
ReplyDeleteFirst, yes, the media will walk away from this story, just as they have walked away from every other story whenever the Administration bared its teeth.
Second, the judiciary has always been the most reactionary of the branches and hence the most susceptible to the seductions of monarchy.
This judiciary is two-thirds Republican appointees and, as much as judges like to believe they believe in principle over ideology, the Republicans of today are so sodden with ideology that they just can't get over it. Can you come up with any reason why the massive contempt Ken Starr showed for Grand Jury secrecy should have been tolerated except blind partisanship?
And, to ensure that the system can't work as intended, the Dimocrats have put in place a fourth reliable vote for monarchy on the Supreme Court. That leaves three other conventional Republicans to be bought or bullied, assuming they are so dense as to fail to see what the situation is.
The president is corrupt, the courts are corrupt, the Congress is corrupt, the media are corrupt... the only thing that might save us is the iron law of finance: corrupt people are not very good at creating wealth, and so they inevitably bring destruction upon themselves.
And us and the rest of humanity, just by the way.
OBTW, here's the rest of the "electronic surveillances" covered by FISA other than the case I mentioned in my first post (that is, where the "target" is a "United States person"):
ReplyDelete(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
IOW, clauses 2-4 of this section cover:
2). Wire (i.e., not radio) taps physically done within the United States geographically where there is a person within the U.S. involved (this definition overlaps definition 1 somewhat, but includes non-"target" U.S. persons, in the specific case where the tap is done domestically.
3). Radio taps of purely domestic radio communication. This complements definition 2 for radio communications, but recognises that radion communications may be tapped from outside the U.S. and includes these as long as the intended traffic is purely domestic.
4). Other means of interception (other than wire or radion taps), as long as done domestically.
To sum up, FISA is silent WRT any tapping as long as the tap is not done within the United States and the "target" (i.e. the person you're looking to listen in on) is not a "United States person). The NSA can do what it wants outside of these parameters (and will do so, as it has always done).
So: Is the objection to FISA of the maladministration that the "target" is a "U.S. person"? Or is it that they're tapping purely domestic calls? Or is it that they're doing the taps on U.S. soil (which means they're in cahoots with the major telcos to allow NSA tapping in to the telco domestic networks)? Or all of the above....
Cheers,
Bart is lying again. Yawn - what
ReplyDeleteelse is new:
Your views on national defense are shared by about 20% of actual voters. That is enough to make you a majority of the roughly 33% of actual voters who are self declared Dems, but not enough to win national majorities.
From the right-wing's favorite polling outfit RASMUSSEN REPORTS:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports%20Update.htm
Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans now trust Democrats in Congress more than the President on national security issues. Forty percent (40%) have more trust in the President. It is important to note that the question about trust on national security issues was asked first, before any mention was made of the Dubai Ports issue.
Notice how when these Bush cultists come and assert that everyone is on their side that they have no links, no data, no support? It's becasue they live in a sick, delusional fantasy world where they would rather make up facts then deal with actual facts.
Did you hear things are great and peaceful in Iraq? And Iraq really did have WMDs? And everyone still loves Bush except the wierdos in San Fransisco and Manhattan.
Glenn describes the proposal as follows:
ReplyDeleteWhat the legislation does, on its face, is replace FISA judges with Republican Senators in approving the government's eavesdropping activities. Whereas the country agreed to a framework 30 years ago which allowed the government to eavesdrop on Americans only if the Government persuaded a FISA judge that such eavesdropping was warranted, this proposed legislation eliminates that requirement and allows warrantless eavesdropping as long as 4 Republican Senators agree with the White House that such actions are warranted.
I think you overestimate the power the subcommittee would have. Even if 4 Republican senators were to disagree with the White House, the subcommittee would have no power to disapprove it. I haven't seen the proposal (is it public?), but it seems to me that if one-House vetoes are unconstitutional per Chadha, surely a subcommittee legislative veto would be unconstitutional. The WH lawyers would no doubt counsel the President that he is not bound to respect the subcommittee's rejection of the warrantless monitoring, even assuming that he would feel bound to tell them about it in the first place.
Honestly, the only reason I know anything about Snowe and Hagel is because they are consistently portrayed as somewhat immune to following the party line. I understand that they are Republican Senators and will largely fall in line with party politics, but I confess to not fully understanding their reversals. Is it as simple as talking tough to maintain street cred, only to fall in line and keep a place at the adult table? What real power of persuasion could such a weakened President have on these Senators? Really, what's the point of their tough talk? Is it all just talk from people who don't really mean it or does the current Executive Branch actually have this much control over the Legislative Branch? Although the outcomes are the same, I believe these are distictions with a real difference. The latter distinction is truly terrifying.
ReplyDeleteHow can this Congress be so sanguine as their very autonomy is stripped away? How can they be so glib in handing over their authority and power to an administration that holds them in such obvious and abiding contempt?
ReplyDeleteBecause their team is 'winning'.
Good-bye Wee Jemmy Madison, hello Vince Lombardi!
Flog that copy of the Federalist Papers on e-Bay, and get one of those giant foam-rubber #1 fingers.
I have two problems with your response: (a) is fine, of course. (b) has two problems:
ReplyDelete1) Snowe, et al, do (definitely) not fall “obediently into line” on every issue. And they did not even fall into line (as I am sure they were asked to do by the party leaders) on every issue that stood to subject the party to investigation. However, that Ms. Snowe ever stood for promoting the Republican party leader’s interests is ..umm..debatable. I could cite your own blog posts in support of those very points.
So why you are giving your strawperson response citing those matters is puzzling. The Republicans on the Committee apparently found a way to assuage their concerns about the NSA issue by means short of voting with the opposing party’s 100% bloc vote for the eventual impeachment of their party leader. I don’t see even one principle relinquished there, much less all. Your outrage would be more effective if you didn’t weaken it by over-declaiming about “all” principles being relinquished.
2) If, by risking political capital with one’s own party, a strong Senator causes the leaders of that party to alter their position to be more in line with what the Senator sees as the correct position, to me that Senator has stood on principle and is to be admired for getting the job done while remaining solid with that party. The Republicans are, after all, not trying to set up a political campaign with an impeachment here. They are merely trying to solve the NSA issue. If impeaching Bush were their goal, then, yes, they have failed miserably.
Looks like we have notherbob2 in competition with Bart for the position of "the more eloquent mouthpiece".
ReplyDeleteOkay, leaving the contrarians to themselves, something I haven't seen addressed at any length: this new committee's authority/powers haven't been outlined in any meaningful sense.
Yes, we know the Executive Branch is supposed to 'report' to the panel every 45 days. But 'report' what exactly? How many conversations they've monitored, how many lines they've flagged, exactly who is speaking to whom when?
Atop that, exactly what recourses does this panel have against activity they deem unacceptable? Are they even *allowed* to make such a determination, or simply provide a rubber stamp every month and a half?
Anyone have any details yet?
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI admire your optimism about the November elections, but recall that there was plenty of "discontent" with the GOP in 2004 too, and look how that turned out.
Put things in perspective: After 9/11 (for irrational but reasonably well-known reasons), Dubya had stratospheric approval ratings, and many thought that any Democratic candidate in 2004 would be a sacrifical lamb, or at best a place-holder. Some thought that their own chances might be better off waiting until 2008 and letting someone else get beat up by Dubya in 2004 (think Hillary, maybe? dunno....) But despite the considerable "advantages" that Dubya had as a result of 9/11, the "war president" meme, and the Rovian shenanigans of "be afraid, be vewwy afraid ... all the time, and don't forget to trust us", Kerry managed to make it an incredibly close fight (and there are some that would say that Kerry actually won), despite Kerry not waging a particularly effective campaign against the Rovian Republican tactics and the RW "slime machine".
But momentum is definitely turning (even if there's an amazing amount of inertia in public opinion), and right now the Republicans aren't looking very pretty.
The "elephant in the room", of course, is whether the desperate Republicans are going to do something stoopid, like start a war with Iran just before election time ... and whether such a transparent ploy will in fact work this time around ("fool me twice ... ummm, ahhh ... *awkward silence* ... uhhh, you won't get fooled again").
Cheers,
I'd like opinions on this from all of you, especially Glenn.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea I had a couple months ago for checking the Bush Administration. There's really only one way to check Bush if he claims the power to violate the law, and that's a loophole granted by John Yoo. He believes that while "a law making it a crime for any soldier to use a nuclear weapon, even if ordered to do so by the president" "would violate the president's Commander-in-Chief power," and that the McCain Amendment is similarly unconstitutional, "Congress could always cut funds off for nuclear weapons, and it could order them destroyed, just as it could close Guantanamo Bay, eliminate military intelligence units, reduce the number of intelligence agency operatives trained in interrogation, and so on." (source)
Specter is trying to do something similar here, cutting off funding for the NSA program. I'm sure Bush is terrified. Or something. Right.
Here's how to make the power of the purse meaningful: use the same tricks against Bush that they're already using against the states. My understanding is that in South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court held unanimously that Congress could withhold funding from states that don't meet certain unrelated conditions (though O'Connor and Brennan dissented with regard to the 21st Amendment component of the case). The "power of the purse" when used aggressively as a deterrent, can be quite effective: all 50 states have been persuaded to adopt various positions when their funding was at stake.
The trick will be picking a funding target that is politically unpopular to begin with and close to Bush's heart--Halliburton contracts or Bush's salary, for instance. Remember--we can cut anything. The nice thing about this method is that it puts Yoo et al. into a corner: if they says it's unlawful, then they literally allow for no Congressional oversight whatsoever. Bush can't really use a signing statement to get out of it, either, since it's definitely not his decision where funding goes. Bush could rely on coverups, but that could be extremely dangerous for him, since there would be a guillotine hanging over his head if he got caught. Not only would Congress have banned his behavior before the coverup, but they would have threatened to cut off his funding. He could veto it, but if we play our cards right, pick the right mechanism, and continue to see poll numbers in the thirties, Congress might backlash hard.
My original plan was to ask Glenn to have a contest where readers pick triggers and consequences, with recognition for people that pick the funniest ones (e.g. funding for Bush's dog gets cut if we keep torturing people) and the most politically savvy ones (I don't know what would be smartest), then suggesting the winners to Congress. Glenn is clearly too busy for that now, but if someone else with a big blog wants to do it, that would be totally sweet.
Thanks for reading this long post. Please tell me what you think.
Dave
It really has become apparent, and unsurprisingly so, that there will never be any oversight of this President by a Republican controlled Congress and any hope of that is pure fantasy. What that means of course is that the Dems had better get their sh*t together for 2006, and certainly for 2008 or else this country is in for a serious change of identity.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteBush, Gonzales, and John Yoo (as brilliantly cuaght by L.A.) have all lied outright to the American people and Congress. True, they were not under oath, but the consequences for us and them is the same; mendacity for the sake of hiding illegal activities, from the implications of the Downing Street Memos (which led to an illegal war), to Gonzales on torture (which led to illegal atrocities against humanity), and Yoo (whose obfuscation was intended to cover the illegal NSA activities that were/are illegal under the FISA laws, National Security Act of 1947, the Fourth Amendment, among others)where every agency of the federal government is used against its citizens to usurp the balance of powers, control the information, and implement an imperial and hegemonic agenda.
Diligence, astute observation, relentless pursuit of redress, research, and a very public campaign will prevail over these usurpers. This can not and will not stand.
Moreover, that attacks against our way of life domestically as well as globally are multi-pronged means that our defenses need to match their byzantine and nefarious offense; you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
Mad Dog said...
ReplyDeleteSee Glenn, using its “The Coverup” as a strategy works!
I agree that using an "It's the Cover-up, Stupid" mantra is a key component to the strategy, although it won't be sufficient alone, of course. Along these lines, Think Progress has put together an excellent report on Senator Roberts and what Think Progress has renamed "The Senate Cover-up Committee." We need a lot more of this kind of work done and even more work done to get the cover-up message distributed as widely as possible. I don't quite know how do accomplish this, but somehow, we have to figure that part of it out.
Elliot said...
ReplyDeleteBart is lying again. Yawn - what
else is new: Your views on national defense are shared by about 20% of actual voters. That is enough to make you a majority of the roughly 33% of actual voters who are self declared Dems, but not enough to win national majorities.
From the right-wing's favorite polling outfit RASMUSSEN REPORTS:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports%20Update.htm
Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans now trust Democrats in Congress more than the President on national security issues. Forty percent (40%) have more trust in the President. It is important to note that the question about trust on national security issues was asked first, before any mention was made of the Dubai Ports issue.
Exactly what does this poll have to do with the views of the left wing of the Democrat Party?
This poll makes the unremarkable finding that Dems like their representatives, the GOP likes their President and the middle 20% are confused...
Folks, it suits me just fine that you want to cling to your illusions.
bart said. . .
ReplyDeleteFolks, it suits me just fine that you want to cling to your illusions.
And it suits you just fine to never bother letting the facts get in the way of your lies, distortions, and utter bs.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the Whitehouse has something on these flippers. Probably gained from , you guessed it, certain NSA eavesdropping activities that didn't reallly happen, unless they did.
ReplyDeleteConsider at least this commentator chagrined, as David Shaughnessy points to the blindingly obvious.
ReplyDeleteMorally stomach-turning as it is, Snowe and Hagel's refusal to allow an investigation does make a certain pragmatic sense. They are Republicans after all, and so have to remain within the graces of their own party.
Yes, they could have gone ahead and stood on principle (and their prior statements), allowed the investigation, and *maybe* kept their seats on the Committee.
Maybe, but doubtful, especially if it led to the impeachment of the President.
Successful politicians are ones who balance ideology with pragmatism; sadly, high minded principle rarely gets in there.
Pity really. Guess this means they'll all have to hang together (in both senses of the phrase).
It appears that Rove's threats, plus floating the line-item veto trial balloon as a warning, have paid off...It's an ugly equation, but the Republicans have sold their souls to the WH for their earmarks. Is anyone really surprised?
ReplyDeleteUm republicans caving? What about Democrats? WTF was that Alito thing? WTF was that recent Patriot Act thing? WTF was that bankruptcy bill thing? on and on...
ReplyDeleteDon't fool yourselves into thinking that Congress cares about ideals. They care about power, and the power to make money, for themselves and their companies.
ReplyDeleteFollow the money, and you'll understand why the Republicans and Democrats will never reform this system. Unless something threatens the pocketbook of a Senator, they will not put their job on the line to oppose it.
There is too much romantic talk about ideals and Republic. How naive. Even G. Washington made political decisions based on his business interests. The sooner you understand this connection, the sooner you'll truly understand politics.
The Republicans understand this. That is why they won't loose in the next election cycle. There is too much money to be made by keeping them in power.
it must be noted the senators stupidly added that 5 year clause for this new bill if i recall.if the president claimed this power and it was not questioned that 5 clear clause doesnt mean squat.if hilary is elected she is able to use the same power the president did. nothing accomplished
ReplyDeleteglenn i admire your persistence and know that it has to come from the lawyer background but it sure is disappointing to me.i will have to vote for democrats even though they dont seem to be able to project a positive image
sigh
br3n
Perhaps the blogosphere is really becoming "The Fifth Estate" - keeping the world honest when political parties and the press show their weakness.
ReplyDeleteI am especially disappointed in Olympia Snowe who, on the eve of the International Day of the Woman, showed that she was as snively a coward as Republican men - and incapable of living up to her original statements and ethical posings.
Oh well, maybe we WILL see a change after the 2006 Congressional elections. Lord knows, we'll try.
-BT
Under The Lobsterscope
A Tale of Two Old Men
ReplyDeleteWhat we have here folks is a Tale of Two Old Men, Chaney and Dumsfeld. Chaney's ticker is about gone (but he's still made the cover of the Inquirer this week with "another woman")and Dumsfeld in the midst of his last hurrah. Over the years, both have come to believe, as have many of their Republican supporters in their own propaganda as reported in the right-wing media. They really, truly believe (as does our resident troll) that they are superior beings, celebrities if you will, who know what is best for not just America, not just for business and industry, not just the military but indeed for the entire world.
In short, these two old men are like Stalin on steriods (and undoubtedly they are on some powerful medications). Now these guys are in it for a short window of opportunity. They will use any and all means to get their way and advance their goal of world domination via American military superiority. And as a result:
1) The Senate Cover-Up Committee will continue to be strong-armed into doing the bidding of the two old men who hold "secret" information on them;
2) The Republicans will cave on Portgage for the same reason; and
3) Iraq will/has devolve into complete civil war with our own military caught in the middle. And the two old men will blame this debacle on Democrats, liberals, and the media.
These two old men probably can't get it up in the traditional sense anymore so they have to get their jollies in other ways; i.e. by controlling a super weak strawman president and threatening anyone who dares to criticize them with some brutal retaliation. What's truly scary is the real impact a Democrat takeover in Congress could have on them. Expect their rhetoric to become positively nuclear over the next few months and also expect them to wave the bloody shirt as to Iran.
Jeff Myers said...
ReplyDeleteDavid -- I don't necessarily think that anyone here is surprised that Snowe and Hagel flip-flopped. I think disappointment would be the operative word.
One point that interests me in your post:
'First, it perhaps bears repeating, or amplifying anyway, that politicians -- and especially legislators -- are above all else, pragmatic.'
The word 'pragmatic' leaped off the screen at me. I agree that politicians in general ARE pragmatic. But is this really pragmatism?
. . .
It is as if the legislature has forgotten that it is a CO-EQUAL branch of government. Out of simple self-preservation and the desire to maintain some modicum of authority and power, it would seem that pragmatism would suggest exactly the opposite approach.
I agree with you in theory, but my take on what David meant (please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, David--maybe I should just say this is my theory of the "pragmatism” of Snowe, et. al) is that the pragmatism is of a much narrower, egocentric, and shortsighted sort. Weaklings like Snowe and Hagel are thinking pragmatically in terms of themselves alone; they just want to keep their own seats, their own positions on committees, to protect their own little turfs. Of course, Congressional Republicans as a whole are all interested in these personal concerns, as well, so those "pragmatic" factors will affect everything they do. "It's the me factor, stupid;" how will this decision, this vote affect moi?
As for maintaining some "modicum of authority and power," I think the Republicans think they have that. They control the White House, Congress, and now the Supreme Court. Congressional Republicans don't need to stand up to the White House. They've got plenty of power and authority over what and who really matters to them--the Democrats and the American people. Who needs personal integrity when you've got all that?
Which Democratic senators insisted that the NSA/FISA program immediately cease, or threatened to withhold its funding? None.
ReplyDeleteSo what? I want the NSA to monitor calls from Al Qaeda and suspected terrorists. I don’t want to stop that. I don’t want funding cut off for that. No one does.
Big deal. Why should Democrats be condemned for that?
Other than Senator Feingold and Senator Byrd, which senators in the Democratic party stated plainly and clearly that Bush was breaking the law?
Again, that’s why they want an investigation, to see what Bush was doing, and why he didn’t follow the law – they want to hear his explanation and so far, we’ve got non-answers, or troubling answers.
Should some Democrats be condemned for wanting to find out what the heck Bush was doing and why before they make charges?
Why are you condemning them for that?
I don’t get where you’re going here, David, not at all. Maybe I’m misreading you or missing something, but nothing you’ve said here changes a single thing about oversight and the rule of the law.
One party is for it, the other against because it may lead to impeachment of their president. Yeah, so?
I’ll wait for your follow up posts, maybe then I can make sense of where you’re going with this, but so far, I don’t have a clue.
that Republicans will be significantly less likely than Democrats to support the impeachment of a Republican president.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Rep. Sandman (R- NJ), who was on the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Nixon, said "Don't confuse me with the facts."
Good point Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am lucky enough to live in Wisconsin so at least 1 of my senators is doing the right thing. Pressure needs to be put on the inept Democratic party.
What's needed in this country NOW more than ever is another political party -- a new third party.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a coalition of former Dems and Repubs who oppose the war, the loss of civil liberties, Neocon foreign policy, the corporate cleptocracy, and the unitary executive.
They would be joined by many Libertarians, populists and paleo-conservatives and paleo-liberals.
It could be led by anyone from Ralph Nader to Pat Buchanan. Not only is it needed, actually, the timing is just right for it.
In any case, it's the only way. Otherwise, the country as we have known it is lost forever.
I disagree that we need a new political party. What we need most is a more educated public. An understanding of history.
ReplyDeleteWe need a press that does its job passionately. Once you control what information the public gets, you control their opinions. The key to this is the press.
beervolcano: "Um republicans caving? What about Democrats? WTF was that Alito thing? ....
ReplyDeleteExactly. Sent an e-mail to my Sen. Nelson, D-Fl (I only have one Senator; the other is Martinez, R-Lapdog) this morning asking him if he will be involved in fillibustering this legislation.
Rick
The battle for America has been waged and lost -- by the Democrats. It's over now.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have to look forward to is this:
1. Perpetual war.
2. The ascendancy of the secrecy and propaganda state.
3. Erosion of civil liberties and the rule of law.
4. Economic decline ending in failure.
The relationship between the government (i.e., the ruling class) and the people will be increasingly characterized by three things:
1. Deception,
2. Corruption,
3. Coercion.
When Neocons say "everything changed after 9/11," they're right, just not in the way you originally understood it.
Good night and good luck!
"I have no doubt that, in their mind, they courageously stood up to the White House..."
ReplyDeleteLook, I don't know how these things really work, but I'm inclined to have a lot of doubt. From their own words we know that Hagel and Snowe understand perfectly well the sense in which they caved, and just what a sham this seven member committee is. Maybe dangling a couple juicy earmarks under their noses was all it took, but that doesn't ring true for me, whereas things start to make sense if you imagine that it was a whole lot uglier. The people pulling the puppet strings aren't squeamish, and they are truly desparate.
notherbob2 said:
ReplyDeleteOne final note (I know that you cannot wait). Throughout this process, even though we were talking about high crimes and misdemeanors, unless I missed it, there were few references to an accused being Not Guilty until tried and convicted in a court of law. For such a “principled” group, that oversight was pretty egregious. Lynch mobs are famous for it.
Ummmm, whether a certain act (stipulating a fact basis for what actually happened) is a matter of law, and really is for judges to decide (this happens basically when the judge charges the jury and defines the crime, the elements, the standard of proof, etc.). Deciding the truth of the facts, and then applying the law as given, is what a jury decides in coming to a "guilty"/"not guilty" verdict. (Of course, in practise, this is not always what happens; juries don't have to tell how they came to their decision, and unless there's provable jury misconduct, jury verdicts are unassailable; there are some [typically ERW nutcases] that even push for "jury nullification" and say that juries should also disregard judges and decide for themselves what the law is, or even to ignore laws they, the jury, think unwise)
That all is in way of saying that if we have certain established facts, we (as intelligent students of the law) should be able to decide if a crime ahs been committed. If you're carping that we don't know the facts yet, and can't make that decision, that's OK (but you'd have to find a way to get around the Dubya maladministration's admission that warrants weren't sought at all. But if you're carping about whether Dubya committed the acts that would constitute a crime, I hate to say it, but there's no other suspects besides Dubya and his maladministration that might conceivably be responsible for the illegal wiretapping. If a crime was committed, his maladministration is the criminal.
Cheers,
A new party is needed because, in case you missed it, the Democrats in Congress have completely capitulated their opposition and abdicated their duty. They're too ensconced and corrupted to ever be rehabilitated. They're as guilty as Republicans. And, if they were ever to gain control -- which is unlikely -- nothing would change.
ReplyDeleteTo return to Glenn's original post, point (2), I believe that the answers to the first three questions are "yes." Logically, the answer to the fourth question can only be "because the administration both believes, and acts upon the belief, that it is not answerable to law."
ReplyDeleteSince I'm now about Commenter 125, most of the significant points have been made.
I'd like to make a humble suggestion about a possible form of peaceful mass protest: what about starting a grassroots movement to encourage local schools, colleges, and community theaters across the nation to stage The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui? Brecht's great dramatic analysis of the rise of a tyrant (an Al Capone-like character, whose actions resembled those of the man who came into his own in the Germany (1929-1933), and whose psychological appeal was inspired by Shakespeare's Richard III).
What a powerful statement the performance of this great work against the (resistible) rise of tyranny could make if it were performed across the United States simultaneously, in 5,000 or 6,000 theaters, say around October 15, 2006.
If Democrats take control of Congress in 06, my opinion is they won't even introduce articles of impeachment. They don't have the courage. I'd bet any more on it.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, sadly, I'll go as far as to say they won't even hold investigative hearings on Bush lying us into war or illegal wiretaps or war profiteering and corruption.
They won’t even try to get a special prosecutor for the Abramoff scandal.
Anyone wasting their time and hope looking for signs of integrity or noble selfless acts by anyone in Congress is truly delusional.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaoughnessey:
ReplyDeleteIt is not worth debating the relative demerits of Clinton's and Bush's illegal actions; for present purposes, it is enough to say that each committed Federal felonies while in office.
OIC. You'll simply assume your conclusion, and then ask us to move on from there, eh?
Care to explain what "Federal felony" Clinton committed?
As for Dubya's felonies (or at least the one under discussion here on the NSA thread), that's been detailed by Glenn and others (including me in my post above).
You seem with Clinton, you have to actually establish various facts to prove any felony, and that isn't quite as clear-cut as you'd like us to assume. For Dubya, the wiretapping itself is facially a crime assuming that "U.S. persons" were targeted or that domestic intercepts were used (at least if you accept Glenn's legal analysis) and Dubya's minions have admitted the wiretapping (despite Dubya lying about it previously).
HTHCTU.
Cheers,
About the need to hold the administration innocent until proven guilty, I think the administration has done a pretty good job of tearing that presumption to shreds.
ReplyDeleteI know there are some good listeners and astute legal minds here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Didn't the attorney general testify that the administration had been unable to find sanction for what it wanted to do under existing law? Didn't he testify that the legal justifications that he offered for stepping around FISA were concocted after his dedicated crew had been unable to justify them under FISA? It sounded to me like he was confused and dissembling, but still admitting that, on its face, the unspecified activities that he was talking about appeared to his people to be illegal under existing law.
So maybe it's a high crime, maybe it's a misdemeanor. Congress is supposed to be interested in these questions.
David Shaughnessey:
ReplyDeleteWhich brings me to my real point: Other than Senator Feingold and Senator Byrd, which senators in the Democratic party stated plainly and clearly that Bush was breaking the law? Which Democratic senators insisted that the NSA/FISA program immediately cease, or threatened to withhold its funding? None.
When you combine those stark facts with the general principles noted above, it is hardly a surprise that two Republican senators were unwilling to support the initiation of a potentially-devastating investigation.
Huh? Don't follow you there. If Democratic opposition is as weak and as tepid as you suggest, there is no valid political fear that the results of an investigation woudl lead to Dubya's impeachment.
This, of course, does not absolve Hagel or Snowe.
Indeed. They're at the very least thoroughly unprincipled, as Glenn pointed out.
Cheers,
I guessed the "federal felony" he/she was referring to was lying under oath in a deposition in a federal civil case.
ReplyDeleteBut, I thought it was strange of him/her to use that. Even if true, which I'm not saying it is, it's an absurd comparison.
Jeff Nyers:
ReplyDeleteThe nonsense with the signing statements in particular, illustrates the utter contempt the administration feels when dealing with Congress. It is as if the legislature has forgotten that it is a CO-EQUAL branch of government. Out of simple self-preservation and the desire to maintain some modicum of authority and power, it would seem that pragmatism would suggest exactly the opposite approach.
You're forgetting here that it is not the Dubya regime they fear most (so this isn't a fight between the executive and the legislative branch they fear losing). Instead, what they fear most is the wrath of the Republican political machine.
Cheers,
"Which brings me to my real point: Other than Senator Feingold and Senator Byrd, which senators in the Democratic party stated plainly and clearly that Bush was breaking the law? Which Democratic senators insisted that the NSA/FISA program immediately cease, or threatened to withhold its funding? None."
ReplyDeleteHe couldn't be more correct. It's the "no valid political fear" thing that's questionable.
"Democrats will have a hard time agreeing on some broad policy programs and alternative vision to sell to the electorate by November. But they don't need to have that. Americans are tired of Republican rule and have abandoned the President. Restoring some balance back to our government and ending the increasingly corrupt, unchecked one-party rule of our country will be, in my view, more than enough for Democrats to at least take over the House."
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I totally agree with this as a political strategy until November. However, while Democrats are running down the Republican record (and ideology) and Republicans and media elites beat Dems about the head to provide their policy “vision”, Dems only need to point out that Democrat policy positions have been right for a very long time (Jesus, even Jimmy Carter was right about energy and conservation policy in the 70s), at least in stark comparison to Republicans. Democrat policies are build on the best liberal tradition of open-mindedness and empirical science to find the best solutions government can provide to society’s problems. Republican policies are built on ideology, supported by corrupt science, ostensibly to advance an ideological agenda – small government conservatism, social conservatism, American hegemony, etc. But they are actually designed to: 1) elect Republicans, 2) empower the rich and powerful and 3) undermine the ability of government to protect average citizens from corporate malfeasance (shorter: Republicans have been lying to their supporters all along).
Democrats need to do in reverse what Republicans have been doing for 25 years; run against the Republican Party, create their own frames and let the Republicans react to the Democrats’ reality (in the Democrats’ case, actual “they just think it’s hell” reality).
anonymous:
ReplyDeleteI guessed the "federal felony" he/she was referring to was lying under oath in a deposition in a federal civil case.
"lying under oath in a deposition" is not a felony (don't believe me? go read 18 U.S.C. 1621-23). There's a third element of the crime or perjury that must be proven as well (and being a material element of the crime, it's a matter for the jury to decide; see U.S. v Gaudin).
Not to mention that the proof of the "lying" hasn't been established either. I note as a curiosity that you can in fact testify truthfully to a material fact and still be guilty of perjury. Strangely enough, it's the intent that matters, not the accuracy. You can be wrong and not perjurious; you can be right and still commit perjury. There was one strange case where what the person said was in fact literally correct, but the courts didn't really want to nail him for a perjury prosecution on the basis of the plain but strange language of the law; instead they created the fiction that he'd answered a different question from what was asked, and that his answer was intended for that non-existent question and was intended to be false. But more applicably to the Clinton affair, the Bronston case establishes that there's no duty for the person being questioned to answer what the questioner wanted to ask (or should have asked). The duty is for the questioner, if they think they're being misled (or the answer they're getting is evasive or incomplete) to refine their questions. That applies in spades to the Clinton deposition, where the definition of "sexual relations" was disputed amongst the lawyers, contorted, and distorted, in such a way that Clinton might reasonably have thought that he wasn't saying something strictly false. That may be enough so that even the intent (while not admirable WRT "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", which FWIW is not the legal obligation of the person being questioned) wasn't to commit perjury.
Cheers,
. . . there is an election only 7 months away and [ . . . ] if, as it appears it will, that election ends the one-party rule under which we live . . .
ReplyDeleteOne word: Diebold.
I do not share your confidence. I wish I did.
If there are criminal laws being broken here, isn't there some way that some of people actually doing the evesdropping can be criminally prosecuted if they are ever discovered?
ReplyDeleteHis motives, presumably, are just what you said, which indeed is what he has said himself: To stop terrorist attacks.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know what Bush’s motives are, I don’t presume a thing -- nor do I know what the “program” even is – that’s the problem.
Calls for investigations of a program that you don't want stopped -- that, as you say, monitors terrorist phone calls -- are not enough
No, but that’s where we must start. Without an investigation, without any oversight, we don’t know what the heck the “program” is. I don’t want monitoring of suspected terrorists stopped, but is that what the program is? We don’t know.
Is it about monitoring Hagel’s relatives to dig up dirt on them, so he can be silenced? We don’t know.
If even the opposition party can't bring itself to condemn the program outright, how can one expect the American people to do so?
I expect the opposition party and the American people to want to know what their government is doing. (I no longer expect that of Republicans).
Certainly, something more inspirational can be said than: let's investigate…… much more is required from the opposition party”
Yes, but all things start with an investigation. It may not be “inspirational” to you, but it’s certainly frightening to Bush supporters. We also don’t know what will be required from the opposition party until we know just what this “program” involved.
much more is required from the oppostion party in a two-party system to overcome the institutional biases and pressures and the presumptions of stability and loyalty that militate against impeachment and steps thereto.
So, must the Democrats and the country promise immunity for the administration from all lawbreaking, and promise never to enter articles of impeachment or charges against the Republicans, no matter what we find out they’ve done in the name of ‘stability’?
If our government is engaged in blatantly unlawful and reprehensible acts, maybe the “stability” of institutional biases should not be our main concern?
Once again, David, I hope your subsequent posts give me and idea of what you’re requiring from an opposition party in a two party system. At this point, I’m still troubled.
Yes I expect the American public to support an investigation regardless of whether the Republicans and Democrats do not. Just becuase those parties have ceased being democrats or republicans does not mean we must.
ReplyDeleteIf there were men of conscience in Congress then it would not matter whether the President was Republican or Democrat - any President who acts as Bush has done to subvert the democratic foundations of this nation should be impeached. What should it matter if he's from your party ... are not principles more important than party allegiance?
I can't understand it. I can't. I played sports all my life, and if someone on my team was cheating I'd throw the cheating bastard off the team.
I appreciate the angst. However, it's time to recognize what we have: A failed Federal government. We have one thing: The Constitution – it’s ours, not theirs.
ReplyDeleteWe wrote it to grant them power. We can lawfully revoke the powers we’ve granted them.
That time has arrived. It's time for the citizens of the US to lawfully revoke the power they've granted to the Federal Government; and lawfully have a Constitutional Convention to discuss these issues.
For example: Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution needs to change, stripping the Chambers of their power to make/enforce rules.
The States need a Special Constitutional Convention Oversight Committee that ensures these rules are enforced, and that all Members of Congress who assent to this rebellion, pass legislation that violates the law, or fails to ensure the statutes are enforced are stripped of their legislative immunity.
DC has no clue. The States can under the 10th Amendment say that all powers which Congress is abusing are hereby revoked.
Let's get to work. Time to quit waiting for DC to get serious about the Constitution. It's ours to lawfully assert and lawfully enforce, not theirs to ignore.
Details
For those of you who have been asleep since 2000, or need a reminder of what's going on in 2006, read this: Click
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteCare to explain what "Federal felony" Clinton committed?
Two counts of felony perjury. There were 100 convicts doing time in the federal prison system at the time for "lying about sex" to a court.
As for Dubya's felonies (or at least the one under discussion here on the NSA thread), that's been detailed by Glenn and others (including me in my post above).
What felonies?
The FISA court of review already told you that FISA does not apply to intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents. If you brought your complaint there, you would lose. To the extent that FISA applies to intelligence gathering, it is unconstitutional.
I wish people would realize the profundity of our useless vote power, WHEN TWO ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN STOLEN AND THE MACHINES ARE NOT FIXED!! I only see citizen action here, not in the Congress. State election commissioners are resisting all the info on hacking and Diebold et.al. Who the hell thinks we'll win in November when the whole election will be hacked to death?
ReplyDeleteanonymous:
ReplyDelete"lying under oath in a deposition" is not a felony (don't believe me? go read 18 U.S.C. 1621-23).
Care to quote the passage on which you are relying?
There's a third element of the crime or perjury that must be proven as well (and being a material element of the crime, it's a matter for the jury to decide; see U.S. v Gaudin).
The federal court found that Mr. Clinton's extracurricular sex life with his employees was material to Ms. Jones' claim of sexual harassment when the judge ordered Clinton to answer the questions over his objections.
Later, the federal criminal grand jury was assembled with the express purpose of determining whether Mr. Clinton committed perjury in the prior deposition testimony.
Not to mention that the proof of the "lying" hasn't been established either.
There was genetic material on a blue dress and Ms. Lewinski's own admissions and later testimony before the grand jury is pretty strong evidence Mr. Clinton was lying.
But more applicably to the Clinton affair, the Bronston case establishes that there's no duty for the person being questioned to answer what the questioner wanted to ask (or should have asked). The duty is for the questioner, if they think they're being misled (or the answer they're getting is evasive or incomplete) to refine their questions. That applies in spades to the Clinton deposition, where the definition of "sexual relations" was disputed amongst the lawyers, contorted, and distorted, in such a way that Clinton might reasonably have thought that he wasn't saying something strictly false.
That is for the jury to decide. You won't find many juries who will buy that oral sex is not really sex.
Hi Glenn, I really like your blog but I think you've missed an important aspect of the media and its goals.
ReplyDeleteThe Fox news' and the CNN's of the world have been actively courting the GOP leadership as a means of growing their own brands by engaging some kind of "NASCAR" republicans demographic.
These folks have historically been loath to watch cable news, so the media giants see these Joe Sixpacks as a huge and un-tapped market.
There is no way some outfit in the "news" business can afford to give up the kind of marketshare that asking those kinds of questions would cost them.
Just my $.02
Glenn,
ReplyDeletePlease pass the word on the Constitutional Convention. Thank you for your support. Details: [ Click ]
It's started,
- Constant -
I don't know if anyone has said this, but I don't think that it matters to any Republican in Washington that Americans are abandoning them. They simply don't care what our opinions are. I don't believe they have to worry about losing power, no matter what votes we cast. I'm not very optimistic that anything good will happen from here on out.
ReplyDeletethere were few references to an accused being Not Guilty until tried and convicted in a court of law.
If Bush isn't guilty, then why not allow an investigation? If he's innocent then what is he afraid of? We find it very suspicious that he and his cohorts are doing everything they can to get rid of this and go back to business as usual.
As for wire-tapping AQ, do you really think they (AQ) wouldn't be aware of that? If they were smart enough to pull off the biggest terrorist attack in our history, do you think they're stupid enough to talk about another on the phone? It's obvious that this wire-tapping has less to do with keeping us safe than with keeping power in BushCo's hands.
*{*
ReplyDeleteLying about sex vs. violating the Constitution. These are equally bad acts by a President? Hmmm, somehow I missed that.
Why don't we Dems just stipulate that Clinton lied repeatedly about the whole affair and move on?
I am so tired of Repubs derailing the discussion of the incredible number of immoral and illegal acts by this Administration by throwing Clinton into the discussion.
Two responses:
1) I thought Bush ran on a platform of restoring integirty to Washington. Abramoff, secretiveness, Halliburton/no bid contracts, secret meetings with energy companies to develop energy policy, fake news reporters, Plamegate paying reporters to write supportive articles, etc. The list is so long I have to stop, but my point is - he has abjectly failed to restore integrity to DC or to create the appearance of same.
2) The Repblicans cried holy hell over three acts by the Clintons = Whitewater, travelgate and Lewinsky. Special investigations were conducted, etc. Why can't we have the same for the many items above, most especially NSA spying? certainly this rises to a level of seriousness at least as important as those Clinton "scandals"
bart said...
ReplyDeleteArne Langsetmo said...
Care to explain what "Federal felony" Clinton committed?
Two counts of felony perjury. There were 100 convicts doing time in the federal prison system at the time for "lying about sex" to a court.
As for Dubya's felonies (or at least the one under discussion here on the NSA thread), that's been detailed by Glenn and others (including me in my post above).
What felonies?
The FISA court of review already told you that FISA does not apply to intelligence gathering against foreign groups and their agents. If you brought your complaint there, you would lose. To the extent that FISA applies to intelligence gathering, it is unconstitutional.
Taking your second response to Arne's comment's first, thank you Justice bart for putting an end to the dispute about FISA's constitutionality as applied to intelligence gathering. I don't know what this blog would do without your insight into these matters. (However, once again, your remarks about what the FISA court has said about how FISA does or does not apply to anything is completely wrong, as usual. I'm not going to waste my breath repeating the arguments that you insist on dragging into every thread in this blog ad nauseum, it's just boring.)
More important, and this comment is really directed toward some other commenters here, as well, I think this whole discussion about Clinton is getting us way off point, which, of course is what bart wants. bart is full of crap, as usual, and trying to argue with him and convince him of anything, especially when it is something that has no relevance to the real issue at hand, is a waste of energy and a distraction to everybody else. I can't tell anybody else what to do, of course, I'm just making a comment and a suggestion.
"whatever it takes" to assure that Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress.
ReplyDeleteGreat crimes require extraordinary work to mantain.
The did not steal 2 elections to "fold" when the goin' got tough.
That's why, with hindsight, Gore and Kerry not demanding an open, verifiable review of the election was a terrible injustice.
multiple checks on government abuse
ReplyDeleteWTF?!?!?!?!?!
Are you saying that we enable republican corruption at the executive, legistlative, and judicial branches?
That's what the current crowd seems to think this means.
Advertising executives did not write our constitution to include kewl slogans. I find popularity polls on constitutional breeches rather worthless. In other words, I don't care what the polls say about the NSA spying issue because the rightwing noise machine has clearly polluted the jury pool with kewl soundbites of wanting to listen in to Osama can't findem.
ReplyDeleteOne thing advertisers try to do is to get you to nod your head as they talk. And in this the polls do matter. Less heads are nodding and more are shaking. But all is for naught if the voting machines are rigged.
"Why don't we Dems just stipulate that Clinton lied repeatedly about the whole affair and move on?"
ReplyDeleteOf course he lied. It's just not a crime to lie about sex.
At least not nearly the crime of forcing the President of the United States to do so for the sake of partisan political vendetta. Not nearly.
Bart once again vomits his crapola all over the thread, in response to something I wrote as a follow-on to someone else (and Bart is so friggin' clueless that he addresses it to them instead of to me):
ReplyDeleteI said (to "anonymous"):
[Arne]: There's a third element of the crime or perjury that must be proven as well (and being a material element of the crime, it's a matter for the jury to decide; see U.S. v Gaudin).
So Brainless Bart comes back with:
The federal court found that Mr. Clinton's extracurricular sex life with his employees was material to Ms. Jones' claim of sexual harassment when the judge ordered Clinton to answer the questions over his objections.
Obviously, Bart didn't read the cited opinion (and knows nothing of it), because the decision held that the fact of materiality in a perjury prosecution is for a jury, not for the judge, to decide, as it is an essential element of the crime of perjury. Of course, I pointed this out in my follow-on to "anonymous" (even quoted right above), and even more "of course", Bart paid no attention to what I said.
Bart has claimed to be a prosecutor (and thus an attorney). From just the above evidence, it should be magnificently clear to one and all that Bart's degree is a FOS degree from Rove University, and that anyone that ever had Bart as an attorney (of which the entire contingent reside on the planet Makesnosensetous) had a fool for a lawyer. Thus, other than point out this incredible stoopidity and ignorance of the law on Bart's part, it would seen pointless to address the rest of his many errors.
This is Bart in full splendor: Assert, Ignore, Repeat ad nauseam.
Bart, get the f*** out of my conversations with people who all have more sapience than a nematode, and while you're at it, go "Cheney" yourself. There's no hope of even educating you to the point where conversation is possible, so \<*PLONK*>....
The prosecution rests, your honour, and makes a motion for summary execution.
Cheers,
Fox News is reporting some new details on the NSA Program deals in Congress...
ReplyDeleteThe House Intel Committee joined the Senate in setting up a subcommittee of 9-11 members to supervise the program.
Both the the Senate and House Subcommittees will receive full briefings by both Justice and NSA, who will then answer any questions posed by the program, although I doubt Justice will answer Dem questions about the advice they gave the President.
The DeWine bill in its current form will ratify the NSA program and allows the intelligence surveillance of a US citizen for up to 45 days without a FISA warrant. After that period of time, the WH has to either get a FISA warrant or explain to the subcommittees why they cannot get a warrant for each citizen being surveilled.
Fox didn't go into this, but if they are ratifying the program and only provide oversight for US citizens, presumably that means open season on non-citizens.
The media often mess up legal issues, so I am not sure if Fox is making an accurate distinction here.
In any case, the WH will probably fight the FISA warrant requirement, but apparently has no problem with the Congressional supervision.
Arne Langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteI said (to "anonymous"):
[Arne]: There's a third element of the crime or perjury that must be proven as well (and being a material element of the crime, it's a matter for the jury to decide; see U.S. v Gaudin).
So Brainless Bart comes back with:
The federal court found that Mr. Clinton's extracurricular sex life with his employees was material to Ms. Jones' claim of sexual harassment when the judge ordered Clinton to answer the questions over his objections.
Obviously, Bart didn't read the cited opinion (and knows nothing of it), because the decision held that the fact of materiality in a perjury prosecution is for a jury, not for the judge, to decide, as it is an essential element of the crime of perjury. Of course, I pointed this out in my follow-on to "anonymous" (even quoted right above), and even more "of course", Bart paid no attention to what I said.
A jury will decide each and every element of the crime, including materiality. This is standard for nearly every crime.
I was laying out the evidence of materiality the jury will consider.
If I confused you, I apologize.
In your remaining hysterical diatribe, I notice you declined to find me the portion of the federal perjury statute which you claim exempts testimony given under oath at a deposition. Perhaps you need more time to go through the 100 or so words in the statute...
You also declined to rebut the evidence of Mr. Clinton's false statements. Don't worry, most intelligent people think that Bubba's weak excuse that oral sex is not really sex is silly...
I'll take your silence as concessions of these points.
Glenn, yours is, imo, the insightful post as to the political ramifications of the whole Port deal issue. It gives me even more confidence that you have a laser like ability to pierce the veener and zoom in on the real issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the probability that the following scenario could be true:
The Republicans are running scared, for some of the issues we know, and some we don't. They sense that there is a legitimate possibility that the Dems gain control of the House in 2006, and the greater the dissatisfaction with the President, the higher that probablity.
A scheme is devised to counter that possibility. Word is leaked about the UAE deal (after all, apparently thousands of these deals have gone through before with no mention in the press. This one pops up first as a headline on The Drudge Report, a conservative site.)
When the initial public reaction is negative, as would be easily predicted, the President steps out immediately, somewhat bizarrely, and defiantly states he will proceed with the deal no matter what, and will veto any attempt to block it, thus providing a "target" for Republicans to rebel against and separate themselves from the President.
The more excited people become, the more stridently the President defies public opinion and insists he will push the deal through. Soon the controversy drowns out all other issues. Including the NSA scandal.
Finally, the Republicans grab the issue away from the Democrats, mysteriously growing some spine whereas they have never shown any sign of doing that before, and certainly not in so united a fashion, and introduce legislation that would block the deal.
After all, consider three things:
l) The President isn't running for office.
2) All elections are in fact "local", so if people go to the polling booths in November, they would not vote against a Republican who had come out against the Port deal just because the President tried to push it through.
3) And three, who really cares about the deal anyway? Not Dubai, who can invest the money in any one of hundreds or thousands or more of similar such deals, and the operation of the Ports cannot be such a profitable venture anyway that it would qualify as a singularly profitable deal that would be worth fighting this hard over.
Not the President, as he could care less about preserving Dubai's image in the world and not offending them, since there are so many hidden, corrupt, and mammoth financial connections between this and other government's involvement with the UAE, including personal ties of the Bush family and the emirates, that there is nothing for him to fear in "antagonizing" one of our "staunchest" allies in the war against terror.
I know people speculated about this when the Port deal first hit the radar, then dropped that speculation, but in fact this whole "Port deal controversy" doesn't pass the smell test, so it probably stinks. It looks more and more like a fake-out, another ingenious machievellian plot from the mind of Karl Rove.
After all, who really suffers from the "fall-out" from this controversy now that the Republicans have made it their own issue? Nobody. But who gains? Republcans, who demonstrate that they can, at least once, stand up to this increasingly unpopular President.
So the Port deal goes down, as they had always planned it would, but the local Republicans are propped up enough to keep control of the House.
The Democrats don't lose anything, but they gain nothing either.
Only the Republicans win. As usual.
What do you think?
Could it be that the President's illegal wire tapping has extended to members of Congress as well as Quakers, and anti-war protesters? But perhaps I give Ms. Snowe , Mr. Hagel and the others too much credit. Perhaps their motives are coldly and simply venal. Namely, my vote for my job. Why bother to show up...why not just have Andy Card call in their votes in the Senate and on committee. It would save Hastert and Frist the trouble of changing bills after committee conference meetings.
ReplyDeleteThe "Fourth Estate" has moved on to the Ports issue, whether or not Ickes is fronting for Hillary, etc. The "Media" is singularily incapable of multiple threading...when an issue arises, all media outlets focus on (and only on) the most recent story. Indepth investigative reporting went out with Watergate.
ReplyDeletewhat they fear most is the wrath of the Republican political machine
ReplyDeleteClose, but no cigar -- what they fear most are is the shadow government, power-elite that the repugs answer to. Don't kid yourself, it is separate and distinct from any political party or branch of government.
Want to know who they are? Follow the money trail. Its the military-industrial complex that Ike warned us about.
So kiddies, what are some of the things we can look forward to, say in five or ten years if things keep going the way they're going and Gonzales has his way?
ReplyDeleteWell, one thing we can anticipate, according to Andrew Sullivan, is the possibility of being detained by our government for no reason (posting on this blog?), being shipped off to another country, and being boiled alive. No, really.
Gonzales added that the U.S. did not use a practice called "rendering", in which detainees are shipped off for torture in other countries. This claim is demonstrably false, but the slippery Attorney General can claim it's true because the administration allegedly "sought assurances from foreign governments before transporting detainees there, and did not transport anyone 'to a country if we believe it more likely than not that the individual would be tortured.'"
Lucky for the Bush administration, the wink and nod is still part of the international lexicon. As long as some brutal dictator gives his "word", or the U.S. determines that the chance of a detainee being tortured does not exceed 49.9%, then there's no problem. How compassionate. So, as long as, say, the murderous Islom Karimov promises he won't torture a prisoner, there's no problem shipping him off to Uzbekistan, where the favored method of torture is boiling people alive. Really.
Etiam at augue. Maecenas ac justo. Ut varius lorem sed odio. In sed sapien. Nullam molestie. Duis sed tellus consectetuer felis sollicitudin pharetra. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aenean mollis. Vestibulum id sapien. Morbi diam erat, interdum vel, venenatis et, sagittis quis, nibh. Aliquam velit lacus, pharetra vel, sodales at, tempor vitae, arcu. Suspendisse nec magna. Suspendisse potenti. Donec et turpis sit amet odio sagittis elementum.
ReplyDeleteDonec iaculis dictum sapien. Donec lacinia pulvinar neque. Vestibulum nonummy egestas augue. Nam ac risus. Mauris nisl. Sed quis sem. In nulla. Proin quis sem nec nibh scelerisque faucibus. Integer dapibus rhoncus turpis. Nam sit amet mauris. Proin aliquam, erat sed adipiscing vulputate, lacus nisl scelerisque sem, blandit mattis est odio in nisi.
Nunc dignissim massa at risus. Donec mattis tristique odio. Vestibulum scelerisque posuere elit. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Aenean et tellus vel sapien pellentesque mattis. Ut tincidunt, lacus a condimentum mollis, pede purus molestie urna, in porttitor nulla nisi condimentum tellus. Ut laoreet lacus eget nulla. Phasellus varius viverra diam. Proin venenatis lacus a sapien. Suspendisse varius ipsum vitae odio. Aenean odio. Phasellus consectetuer sem ut eros. Nunc fringilla.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Phasellus pulvinar sagittis mauris. Quisque auctor dignissim dui. Etiam ipsum dolor, varius vitae, porttitor ut, placerat pellentesque, libero. In ligula arcu, mattis sed, molestie vitae, dictum in, magna. Morbi magna. Morbi neque nisi, cursus vitae, aliquet vitae, tempor nec, arcu. Morbi risus metus, pulvinar at, aliquet at, hendrerit eu, quam. Nullam felis. Quisque at nibh feugiat erat facilisis blandit. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Maecenas sed odio. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Maecenas sit amet metus nec lacus vulputate auctor.
Nam vitae nibh sit amet enim blandit mattis. Cras bibendum justo eu augue. Nunc a eros. Proin quam. Maecenas tempor, turpis vel tincidunt congue, elit lorem laoreet nisi, ut mollis nibh odio ac nunc. Nam consectetuer. Nulla aliquam. Maecenas congue risus sagittis justo. Cras lacus diam, sollicitudin sed, varius in, suscipit sit amet, erat. Donec mattis, orci euismod rhoncus tincidunt, nunc felis fringilla sem, et nonummy neque libero quis neque. Proin luctus porta sem. Fusce varius congue sapien. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Ut at diam eget risus pretium suscipit. Nunc tempor libero at dui. Aenean vel augue.
Duis egestas euismod sapien. Sed venenatis, elit ac imperdiet iaculis, nisi felis pulvinar odio, et tincidunt tortor purus quis purus. Aenean lectus. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam lectus velit, tempor a, tempus nec, dignissim a, massa. Vivamus aliquam nonummy mauris. Fusce placerat odio vitae dolor. Ut vestibulum, leo quis lacinia egestas, lorem sapien nonummy diam, at volutpat quam velit eu turpis. In facilisis, mauris facilisis faucibus bibendum, magna pede consectetuer elit, quis egestas ligula justo nec libero. Nullam nec neque.
Mauris elementum egestas diam. Phasellus nunc. Aenean et mi. Vestibulum vitae nibh. Praesent eget arcu sit amet purus suscipit cursus. Sed ultricies neque sed orci. Nullam tempor ante eu mauris. Nunc turpis. Nam a arcu. Donec venenatis urna in neque. Curabitur sem felis, dictum a, hendrerit et, malesuada a, massa. Suspendisse potenti. In commodo urna sit amet leo. Aenean in lorem vitae lacus faucibus scelerisque. Nunc ornare sapien et justo. Nunc ut neque.
Mauris sed quam nec quam fringilla bibendum. Mauris nisi turpis, semper id, consectetuer non, imperdiet in, massa. Donec cursus, nisl at mattis laoreet, sapien ante auctor dui, at lacinia magna quam eget elit. Ut auctor, purus ac volutpat tristique, metus leo posuere quam, eget placerat libero odio ut nunc. Mauris scelerisque eros non metus. Fusce commodo est at metus. In eleifend pellentesque mi. Donec sodales mauris sit amet lectus. Integer quis eros. Donec dolor massa, mollis id, sodales quis, blandit quis, purus. Nullam et nisi. Aliquam mattis imperdiet ipsum. Mauris risus diam, consequat a, imperdiet vitae, ultricies in, nisl. Fusce tellus. Sed adipiscing interdum eros. Ut mi.
Nunc adipiscing elit eget turpis. Etiam mollis magna in justo. Curabitur velit lectus, bibendum a, posuere eu, tristique ut, turpis. Aliquam convallis, tortor id viverra mollis, massa eros rutrum ante, eu venenatis tellus turpis sed sapien. Etiam et nisi. Aliquam tincidunt lectus id sapien. Donec erat. Vestibulum leo. Praesent vehicula ultrices lacus. Suspendisse condimentum mauris eu est. Etiam aliquam dolor id quam. Mauris commodo, turpis non pharetra sodales, ipsum massa tempor dolor, nec cursus erat libero id justo. Maecenas id ipsum ut enim pellentesque fringilla.
Sed euismod magna porta arcu imperdiet adipiscing. Vivamus dui. Praesent a ante. Praesent eu lectus. Cras eget eros. Praesent placerat. Cras nisl ipsum, adipiscing id, auctor id, lacinia et, nisl. Nam iaculis ante a dolor. Duis aliquet sodales tellus. Curabitur ipsum erat, tincidunt id, tincidunt eget, accumsan vitae, urna.
Praesent tellus orci, tempor id, lobortis ac, pellentesque blandit, lectus. Cras urna dui, imperdiet nec, blandit ac, gravida nec, velit. Duis iaculis, leo sit amet ornare interdum, leo nibh condimentum ipsum, non ornare lectus tortor quis mi. Nullam augue orci, tristique a, cursus eu, semper et, eros. Cras vel pede. Phasellus vestibulum, ipsum quis iaculis placerat, velit tortor pellentesque nulla, ut auctor nisi ante eget dui. Vivamus adipiscing est et pede. Vivamus porta ultricies leo. Aenean semper. Aliquam id orci.
Etiam scelerisque nibh fermentum lacus. In tincidunt. Proin ut lectus. Etiam rhoncus libero at ipsum. Praesent malesuada, magna ut mollis interdum, neque mi semper ante, at varius odio lectus in purus. Nam pellentesque pede nec nisi. Aliquam erat volutpat. Morbi ac ligula vitae arcu suscipit vehicula. Fusce sodales, velit non elementum accumsan, quam elit hendrerit nisl, suscipit tempor ligula lectus eu dui. Morbi consectetuer lacus ac tortor.
Vestibulum at erat feugiat turpis fermentum lobortis. Vivamus ac risus ut tortor porttitor ornare. Morbi mauris. Donec quis magna sed ipsum condimentum sagittis. Quisque vel lectus. Nam congue mollis leo. Fusce tempor, dui eu hendrerit elementum, nisi lacus ultricies ligula, eget venenatis lacus mauris eget est. Nunc in lectus in massa elementum blandit. Vestibulum dignissim, lacus ut sodales laoreet, risus mi euismod orci, sit amet scelerisque est purus ut quam. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.
Fusce aliquet pharetra nunc. Sed ultrices volutpat quam. Aliquam scelerisque velit ut velit. Curabitur turpis. Praesent pulvinar nisl nec velit. Donec leo. In rutrum, arcu a elementum mollis, neque elit dapibus quam, nec sodales odio mi non metus. Aliquam ac ligula eget arcu porttitor sollicitudin. Nulla est orci, porta sit amet, accumsan sit amet, pretium eget, felis. Integer eleifend libero vitae massa. Nulla pretium ornare quam. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Ut semper, tortor ut luctus consequat, metus tortor luctus sem, nec sodales mauris orci id ante. Nam auctor. Nulla ac metus eu quam pellentesque sagittis. Ut odio felis, iaculis eu, suscipit a, adipiscing eu, justo. Integer ut quam ut dui adipiscing dictum. Morbi augue. Cras auctor.
In vel velit. Sed non lacus. Sed velit nisi, scelerisque at, adipiscing ac, scelerisque sed, sem. Duis non nisi a mauris molestie accumsan. Vivamus neque. Morbi in mauris volutpat pede aliquam facilisis. Maecenas auctor ligula eu metus. Donec semper sollicitudin felis. Aliquam mi nunc, auctor sit amet, volutpat eu, laoreet a, ligula. Sed sodales. Morbi non arcu sit amet leo pulvinar ornare. Maecenas nisi. Suspendisse potenti. Praesent adipiscing arcu. Nulla facilisi.
Etiam et mi non turpis tempus tincidunt. Praesent quis magna ac lectus sodales interdum. Integer sodales tempus tellus. Nulla lectus quam, cursus quis, eleifend quis, elementum at, ante. Sed elit enim, blandit ac, interdum dignissim, vestibulum nec, lectus. Etiam malesuada, libero vitae accumsan iaculis, turpis erat scelerisque magna, ac fringilla nunc erat quis sapien. Aenean consectetuer faucibus sapien. Nunc adipiscing tincidunt enim. Sed nonummy eros id arcu. Sed vulputate tellus eget nulla. Proin varius tempus turpis.
Fusce aliquam pede non felis. Nullam sed leo. Aliquam ullamcorper, elit quis gravida vestibulum, dolor turpis laoreet urna, eu ullamcorper enim metus sed eros. Pellentesque quis quam. Integer vel odio. Donec tempor dolor non tellus. Fusce posuere, mauris quis dictum fringilla, mauris ligula laoreet diam, quis pulvinar lectus lectus condimentum leo. Aenean congue, quam sed adipiscing scelerisque, dui eros pretium arcu, ac fermentum urna ipsum vel augue. Quisque tempus nulla ut tortor. Mauris ornare ligula ac mi. Etiam fringilla, magna eu laoreet blandit, pede turpis tincidunt lacus, eget sagittis leo ligula sit amet dolor. Praesent tellus. Morbi at quam. Pellentesque congue. Nam augue.
Vivamus vel nibh sed erat blandit euismod. Vivamus sodales sagittis nulla. Nulla dictum, quam id dignissim dictum, ipsum magna vehicula ante, nec aliquam pede nulla sit amet tellus. Quisque placerat malesuada mi. Fusce nisi augue, sagittis vitae, consectetuer id, lacinia vitae, augue. Mauris libero. In neque. Phasellus blandit sapien a dui. Donec libero turpis, scelerisque molestie, eleifend vel, adipiscing a, sapien. Integer nisi purus, varius consequat, molestie vel, porttitor at, magna. Nunc in risus. Ut fringilla aliquam massa. Fusce ac libero in augue porttitor molestie.
Nulla tortor. Cras vel orci. Vestibulum volutpat odio id mauris. Curabitur eget augue. Fusce vitae odio et mi malesuada vulputate. Pellentesque massa risus, consectetuer ac, blandit ac, dapibus in, felis. Nam mollis, orci eu sagittis porta, est nunc porttitor turpis, ut rhoncus massa dolor a dui. Integer pulvinar. Mauris facilisis erat in libero. Vivamus aliquet. Etiam quis velit. Praesent malesuada viverra ligula. Donec vulputate dolor eget purus. Nullam hendrerit imperdiet orci. Praesent et lorem ac dui laoreet aliquam. Cras viverra.
Nunc enim nisl, porta eu, gravida in, mattis at, lacus. Vestibulum quam risus, congue et, iaculis a, rutrum a, nisi. Maecenas lacinia, pede ut suscipit pulvinar, erat turpis laoreet lorem, eu sagittis pede erat convallis tortor. Quisque dignissim, nunc et convallis commodo, risus purus euismod tellus, vitae fermentum tellus diam non sem. Aenean id arcu ut dui ultrices pretium. Etiam lacus lectus, euismod quis, accumsan rutrum, facilisis at, risus. Maecenas egestas ultrices purus. Sed lobortis sem sed risus. Mauris metus dui, varius eu, tempor at, tempor ac, odio. Maecenas diam ligula, tristique quis, iaculis eu, lobortis eu, libero. Duis vulputate aliquam nibh. Donec vehicula ligula eu nibh.
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow
To the blogger who said a Third Party could be headed by anyone, even a Ralph Nadar or a Pat Buchanan, I believe you are absolutely wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, a Ralph Nader, overlooking his other limitations, would draw almost all his votes away from Democrats. That's what you want? Where's the gain?
Pat Buchanan is seen as a loose cannon, both by Republicans and Democrats.
The Candidate almost certainly has to be a highly respected old school Republican, like Paul Craig Roberts, sort of an Eisenhower type figure, whose beliefs now mirror,in spades, the core beliefs of progressives who think this country is headed toward a dictatorship. But the Candidate also has to win over all Reagan style Republicans and Wall Street in general.
I don't think you can read any of the hundreds of articles Paul Craig Roberts has written in the past three or four years and find more than a few sentences with which you would disagree. How many people is that true of?
The idea is not to divide the Democratic Party so the Republicans can win. The idea is to win. If other things are more important to you than throwing all the bums out, especially the Bushless Bushco, and re-establishing our Constitutional system of government, then you won't vote for such a Candidate. But if they're not, you will.
Once in, the first thing the Third Party should do is to add some more amendments to the Constitution so that this government can never again be hijacked by a group of fascist thugs.
And put some language in that makes it a treasonable offense, punishable by life imprisonment, no parole, to thwart the election process.
Glenn, if you get around to it, I make a formal request that you delete the posts from the demented anon who posts in a foreign language and block that person from posting here again.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Of course, it does occur to me that the Third Party Candidate for President could very well be Glenn Greenwald.
ReplyDeleteGlenn has the gift of tongue that all truly great leaders have. He inspires, as did Martin Luther King. He's brilliant, has a legal background, a good thing to have when Consitutional issues are such an important part of the debate, and brings no baggage to the table. Nobody even knows if he's a Democrat or Republican. Nothing can be pinned on him. Voting for him wouldn't violate any party loyalty, because he's not associated with any party.
And he's young enough to have the energy and passion to do what it takes to repair the entire system.
I don't know if it's possible for an unknown candidate coming out of nowhere to win a national election, but if it is, I can't think of anyone who would be a better candidate than Glenn.
Eyes Wide Open: It's simply latin text that is used for blocking out areas for book or magazine layouts - or at least that is what it looks like to me. That's what you do when you have nothing of value to add to the coversation. Especially considering the excellence of this post regarding the "Unintelligent Committee."
ReplyDeleteYou all may find this article interesting regarding the Unitary Executive.
I'm not sure what the voter turnout was in other states for this primary, but in Texas, it was 3.8%. Incredibly bad considering there are over 12 million registered voters in the state. This doesn't give me a good feeling about November and neither does the fact that the Dem's have no set talking points or agenda.
I got this from VichyDems, thersites' site.
ReplyDeleteThis does make sense except for one thing. If this were true, Frist would be whipping all the Republicans in line, and they would not be fighting Bushco on this deal.
Of course, if they fold, and the deal goes through, buy stock in bodybag companies.
Dubai and the Straits of Hormuz
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 6, 2006
“If you want to understand the policy of a country, look at the map.”
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
Geography is fate.
United Arab Emirates is located at the center of an oil-dependent world. This tiny state forms the promontory that juts out into the famed Straits of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil passes every day. Across the narrow straights sits Iran, the next victim on the list of “axis of evil” nations. Any attack on Iran will require that military forces quickly deploy to Dubai to forestall the closing of the straits and the subsequent devastation that would occur to world oil supplies and financial markets.
This is the critical point that is being intentionally concealed by America’s diversionary media. This is the reason that President Bush continues to force the Dubai port plan even though 70% of the American people and Congress resoundingly oppose it.
The importance of UAE as a staging area for future hostilities cannot be overstated. No military strategy can hope to succeed without first establishing a beachhead across the straits in Iran so that the danger of blowing up oil tankers and blocking passage is removed. This tells us that plans for an attack may be on track for late March as originally threatened by Israel.
For its part, Iran has been trying to work out an agreement for enriching uranium with Russia, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still insists that the NPT provides an “inalienable right” for the peaceful development of nuclear fuel.
Ahmadinejad is right, of course, but it makes little difference. The United States has already brushed aside the Iran-Russia plan and is pushing to have the Security Council censure Iran at its next meeting. So too, talks have broken off between Iran and the EU-3 without producing any positive results. The Euro-leaders are clearly abetting Washington’s gambit; paving the way for another war.
Why?
Ahmadinejad has done nothing to help his cause by blurting out absurd statements that have made him look foolish and irrational. (Israel should be “wiped off the map”) Still, it’s doubtful that anyone could withstand the withering “swift-boating” of the Western media once they commence their campaign of character assassination, the likes of which we have seen many times before.
Ahmadinejad recently said, “We want peace, security, and progress for all the countries of the region, especially our neighbors. History has shown that Iran is a good neighbor. We are just working on nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes.” His comments, of course, were not covered in the western media since they conveyed the message of a responsible leader with benign motives rather than the ridiculous blather of madman.
As far as we know, however, Ahmadinejad has been straightforward in his claims. The IAEA has consistently found that Iran has fully complied with the terms of the NPT and that there “is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.”
That hasn’t stop Washington, though. The die was cast for war with Iran nearly a decade ago in policy papers drawn up by far-right political ideologues that now control all the levers of foreign policy in the Bush White House.
The situation with Iran is bound to reach crisis level this week as the IAEA’s board off governors is expected to issue a statement expressing its fears that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
Al Jazeera reported that, “Diplomats in Washington and Vienna said the Security Council could adopt a "presidential declaration" calling on Tehran to heed IAEA calls to suspend uranium enrichment and co-operate with inspections.”
A “presidential declaration”?
This is a clear admission that the IAEA has NOT found Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, but is looking for some way to accommodate the United States’ insistence that Iran should be publicly scolded by the international body.
Will this public humiliation be used as a pretext for war?
A Western diplomat told AFP the European countries had “decided against a resolution” at this week’s board meeting, after hearing from Russia and China that there was no support for one. (Al Jazeera)
Again, this suggests that there is no proof of foul play.
Nevertheless, European leaders and the United States want to issue a “statement” that would call on Iran to voluntarily suspend all enrichment-activities and submit to more extensive investigations”. In other words, Iran is being asked to voluntarily give up all of its rights under the terms of the NPT.
But why would Iran willingly accept being treated like a pariah when there is “no evidence” that it has done anything wrong?
The hypocrisy of this Bush-backed plan is breathtaking. Bush just finished a trip to India and Pakistan where he effectively declared himself the final arbiter of who will get nuclear technology and fuel and who won’t. His actions were a clear affront to the IAEA, the UN, the NPT, and the United States Congress, who is supposed to determine such matters as treaties.
Bush has apparently elected himself the god of all things nuclear.
He has successfully destroyed the already feeble credibility the NPT by capriciously handing out nuclear technology to friends and withholding it from enemies. He turned the notion of evenhandedness and international law into a private fiefdom where science and technology are distributed according to the whims of Washington mandarins.
The NPT is dead.
Will this final assault on international agreements clear the path for war with Iran?
It is hard to say, but the Financial Times reported that, “Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the marines told the FT the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic government (Iran) and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault-lines that are splitting Iraq.”
So, along with the $85 million Congress just voted to provide for “pro-democracy” movements in Iran, Marine Intelligence is looking for ways to exacerbate ethnic tensions to foment revolution to topple the Tehran government. The plan for “regime change” in Iran is still being aggressively pursued, even though neighboring Iraq is in utter chaos.
The UAE port deal is just more indication that an attack on Iran is forthcoming. Its location is crucial to the success of any American invasion.
For the Pentagon warlords Dubai has become the strategic epicenter of the global resource war. As peace activist and author Uri Avnery said, “Regimes come and go, rulers rise and fall, ideologies flourish and wither, but geography stands forever. It’s geography that decides the basic interest of every state.”
All eyes should be focused on Dubai and the tenuous future of the Straits of Hormuz.
Mike Whitney
Why hasn't there been any real movement in this country to secede from Israel? We threw off the shackle of English Rule during the Revolutionary war. Why can't we also throw off the shackle of Isreali rule?
ReplyDeleteBeing a subsidiary of Isreali has done more damage to this country, and to the world in general, than probably any other one thing.
Oh god. Sen. Rockefeller appointed Feinstein and Levin to the comittee of 7. Why didn't he just appoint someone from AIPEC directly, and save himself the trouble of having to deal with a middleman.
ReplyDeleteWhy couldn't he have appointed Sen. Feingold? He's the only person I would have trusted. Wasn't he eligible?
I mean really, is there another person in the entire government you trust other than Sen. Feingold?
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI think I caught something that no one else has mentioned and I would like to suggest that you do one of your blog dissertations on it since you seem to be widely read and recognized.
The something is: The formation of this 7 person committee 4 Reps and 3 Dems is really a whitewash coverup for Bush breaking the law. While on the surface it is meant to assuage the critics and the (aware)public that everything has been corrected it will do nothing of the kind. This will be another gang of eight situation but tilted toward the Republicans on any votes.
The meetings will of course be held in secret and any dissenting voices will be prohibited from talking about anything including their dissention. And the four Republicans will vote in lockstep with whatever the President wants, basically making the committee a rubber stamp for his agenda.
My bet is also that no moderate Republicans will be invited to sit on the committee that might be tempted mess with the rubber stamp. Which is why I also believe they formed this subcommittee instead of keeping the whole inteligence committee informed. This way they don't have to continually worry about keeping the Hagels and Snows in line.
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse: (hat tip to thersites at VichyDems)
ReplyDeleteYou gotta read this article. You know, I always knew the Internet posed too big a threat to the government, and it wouldn't be long before it either shut it down, or took it over. Here's how it starts. Go to his site to read the whole thing. It's worth it.
The Pentagon’s War on the Internet
by Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
February 14, 2006
The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap,” which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.
The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document, which speaks of “fighting the net,” implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system.”
The Defense Department places a high value on controlling information. The new program illustrates their determination to establish the parameters of free speech.
The Pentagon sees information as essential in manipulating public perceptions and, thus, a crucial tool in eliciting support for unpopular policies. The recent revelations of the military placing propaganda in the foreign press demonstrate the importance that is given to co-opting public opinion.
Information warfare is used to create an impenetrable cloud around the activities of government so that decisions can be made without dissent. The smokescreen of deception that encompasses the Bush administration has less to do with prevaricating politicians than it does with a clearly articulated policy of obfuscation. “The Information Operations Roadmap” is solely intended to undermine the principle of an informed citizenry.
The Pentagon’s focus on the internet tells us a great deal about the mainstream media and its connection to the political establishment.
Why, for example, would the Pentagon see the internet as a greater threat than the mainstream media, where an estimated 75% of Americans get their news?
The reason is clear: because the MSM is already a fully integrated part of the corporate system providing a 24-hour a day streaming of business-friendly news. Today’s MSM operates as a de facto franchise of the Pentagon, a reliable and sophisticated propagandist for Washington’s wars of aggression and political subterfuge.
Glenn
ReplyDeleteaddition to previous post:
The Republicans are looking for legitimacy and the Dems would be wise not to give it to them.
I think the best thing the Dems could do would be to boycott this subcommittee which would highlight the fact that it is going to be nothing nore than a Republican sham rubberstamp.
You go, WAPO!!! (and why don't you fire that corrupt traitor Woodward while you're at it).
ReplyDeleteThis is from SusanG at Daily Kos. Thought it was important enough to post here, as it relates to what responsible, independent journalism looks like.
WaPo: It's Bad. It's Real Bad. Shiites Suppress Body Counts.
by SusanG
Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 10:03:13 PM PDT
Rumsfeld yesterday:
The news media in the United States and abroad has misreported the number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed and the number of mosques that have come under attack, Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news conference.
Tomorrow morning's Page 1 story in the Washington Post:
Official Says Shiite Party Suppressed Body Count
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 9, 2006; A01
BAGHDAD, March 8 -- Days after the bombing of a Shiite shrine unleashed a wave of retaliatory killings of Sunnis, the leading Shiite party in Iraq's governing coalition directed the Health Ministry to stop tabulating execution-style shootings, according to a ministry official familiar with the recording of deaths.
The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because he feared for his safety, said a representative of the Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ordered that government hospitals and morgues catalogue deaths caused by bombings or clashes with insurgents, but not by execution-style shootings.
A statement this week by the U.N. human rights department in Baghdad appeared to support the account of the Health Ministry official. The agency said it had received information about Baghdad's main morgue -- where victims of fatal shootings are taken -- that indicated "the current acting director is under pressure by the Interior Ministry in order not to reveal such information and to minimize the number of casualties."
People, the Washington Post gets a lot of heat in these parts, often deservedly so. But this entire story - which reads like a spy novel - is an incredible piece of investigative reporting. The official who is the source began to retract his statements, the Post cross-checked with other agencies and sources and finally began sending Post reporters into the morgue (since late February). It's complicated, nuanced and analytical.
The Post is going to get blasted by the administration for this - and we're going to be told once again how the media is losing us this war. Do yourself a favor and read the whole piece. This is what America deserves from its media. This is what journalism - real journalism - looks like.
Glenn, I was in a car all day yesterday, but wanted to comment on this post.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we not mount an all-out blog campaign on the MSM, demanding full, in depth and responsible coverage of this (and all, but this of paramount importance) issue?
I find it reassuring and flattering that the US government is ahead of the curve on this. By essentially saying that the Administration needs the ability to spy on anyone citizen or not because the person being spied on might be a TERRORIST, the government is just letting the American public know that all citizens are potential terrorists who need to be secretly spied on by non secret spying programs and operations.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes me much freer and safer to be treated as if I am a criminal because anyone might be a criminal. Way to cover all the bases on that one, government!
USA! USA! USA! Whiskey! Cheeseburgers! Pete Rose! Rendition!
My apologies, folks. Yes, Bart is incorrigible (and dumb as a stump). He's been <*PLONKed*> as far as I'm concerned, and he can read into that whatever his hallucinatory imagination wants.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
If Gedaliya is limted to one post per thread, then Bart, with his complete obliviousness to anything anyone says, and constant repeating in post after post of the same discredited points over and over, contributes absolutely nothing. Under your standard, he should be given one post, period, to "make his case", and if nothing new is added, even posts on the same matters in subsequent threads should be deleted. There's no conversation there; no give'n'take. Once is enough. Then (take this from me, an ardent proponent of full and open discussion) just zap any repeats. Firmly. Without prejudice, but with resoluteness.
His little tag ("I'll take your silence as concessions of these points") teaser shows his true motive and intentions: To egg us (or, more accurately here, me) on into further useless conversation to sidetrack and/or muddy up the thread. But no more; to those paying attention and with some degree of sapience, he's a nitwit on his face and requires no rebuttal, and to anyone else, there's no point.
You folks were right. No more responses to Bart ... and just collapse and wheel past. I was wrong, and I'll mend my ways. I'm sorry.
Cheers,
eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteGlenn, if you get around to it, I make a formal request that you delete the posts from the demented anon who posts in a foreign language and block that person from posting here again.
Thank you.
Ummm, they're just translating into Latin Bart's last missive.....
OK?
Cheers,
Some may see this as OT, I don't -- administrations corruption and disregard for our consitution is wide-reaching.
ReplyDeleteDubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030906/news1.html
UNFRIGGIN' BELIEVABLE!!!!!
Not only is the deal corrupt, earning fortunes for the chimpster's family and insiders, not only was it approved without any meaningful input or analysis about security, NOW THEY ARE THREATENINTG US IF THE DEAL DOESN'T GO THROUGH!!!!!!!!!!!
uuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmm
Yeah, we want this GOVERNMENT (its not a company) running 22 U.S. ports! yeah, that will protect us from "terra'sts"
This one is "over the top" even by chimpy standards -- approving a controvercial deal without going through proper procedures and then subjecting the U.S. to blackmail from a government that has reportedly been "infiltrated" by Bin Laden and al Queda....
WOW... watch them spin their way out of this one.
I can't wait to see the chimpster and the MSM echo-chamber "catapult" the propoganda that we have to approve this port deal now or the terrorists win...
Marty Lederman, writing at Balkinization and offering a good analysis of the former Justice Department lawyer's arguments about the illegality of the NSA illegal spying program, includes this sentence:
ReplyDelete(Much, much more on this development over at Glenn Greenwald's site, which is fast becoming the locale for one-stop web shopping on the NSA issue.)
As we all know, that is certainly true, but I feel happy that more and more people are becoming aware of that fact.
Local boy makes good. And IS good. Which is why we love him. You go, Glenn.